Meaning that they are leaking stuff that they are finding in the files. Stuff that has nothing to do with Russia. But the raid itself had nothing to do with Russia.
In other words, this was a political raid to help Democrats in the upcoming election.
What a bunch of creeps.
Another thing that I hoped for was that Trump's lawyer would have anticipated the raid. If this was the case, the early indications are that this raid was not expected.
Not good.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Friday, April 13, 2018
Obligatory, 4.13.18
Friday the thirteenth. Do you have tris a dick a phobia? Sorry, but I don't know how to spell it, and I won't look it up. Sue me for a refund of your subscription price.
It's weird today. I thought I might have something to write about, but it vanished into the nether.
Maybe it is my unlucky day????
Changing the subject a bit... GOP voters may be turning against Bob Mueller. Well, duh! I should hope so. But who knows. The school system is so bad in this country, we may need twenty years of remedial reading so that people can learn basic civics that our school system doesn't seem to teach anymore. If you ask anybody today if civics is taught, you might get the question: "what's that"?
One last thing... The number one thing that our system of "education" teaches nowadays is how to be a mucking foron.
Now what I mean, Vern?
Who's Vern? Bwah, hah, hah!
It's weird today. I thought I might have something to write about, but it vanished into the nether.
Maybe it is my unlucky day????
Changing the subject a bit... GOP voters may be turning against Bob Mueller. Well, duh! I should hope so. But who knows. The school system is so bad in this country, we may need twenty years of remedial reading so that people can learn basic civics that our school system doesn't seem to teach anymore. If you ask anybody today if civics is taught, you might get the question: "what's that"?
One last thing... The number one thing that our system of "education" teaches nowadays is how to be a mucking foron.
Now what I mean, Vern?
Who's Vern? Bwah, hah, hah!
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Bill of Attainder
Someone asks ( in the comment section of this post ) if the proposed bill to protect Mueller's job is not a Bill of Attainder. Such a bill would be unconstitutional, which is generally the pattern of the Mueller gambit.
It is also wrong in a number of other ways, you know. Like the one in which somebody accused has a right to an attorney (http://time.com/5237454/donald-trump-relied-on-michael-cohen-to-weather-the-storm/ ) Cut and past the link, I won't make it easy for anybody. The left is bragging now that Trump doesn't have an attorney. ( woof! )
You have to click the links to understand this post. Not going to spoon feed anybody anymore. Either you are motivated enough to understand, or you are not.
It is also wrong in a number of other ways, you know. Like the one in which somebody accused has a right to an attorney (http://time.com/5237454/donald-trump-relied-on-michael-cohen-to-weather-the-storm/ ) Cut and past the link, I won't make it easy for anybody. The left is bragging now that Trump doesn't have an attorney. ( woof! )
You have to click the links to understand this post. Not going to spoon feed anybody anymore. Either you are motivated enough to understand, or you are not.
The Hero We Don't Deserve
This is a very long video by my standards, so I may not watch it. As of this writing, I may not post it either. If I change my mind, then I will post it.
I will wait awhile and think about it.
... a day later...
Okay, I checked it out. It will be posted.
Anyone who watches this will have to conclude that Trump is not the bad guy here. The people after him are the bad guys. There is no other conclusion that can be drawn.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
The attempt to save Mueller by Congressional Act is unconstitutional
This refers to the proposed law that aims to prevent Trump from firing the Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
If the law passes, it should be overruled as unconstitutional because of the precedent set by the Supreme Court opinion Myers v. United States. This opinion declared that the Tenure of Office Act, which was used to impeach President Andrew Johnson, was invalid.
The proposed law's passage invites scrutiny that will likely cause it to be voided as well.
Does Lindsey Graham ever bother to read history?
Now, to further comment: If the law passes the Senate, it may be interesting to see if it can pass with enough votes to override a veto. Same for the House. It is hard to imagine that Trump would sign it into law.
Why would they introduce a law that has little chance of success, either on a vote, or a challenge before the courts? Are they testing their political strength? My guess is that they will be embarrassed by the outcome.
If the law passes, it should be overruled as unconstitutional because of the precedent set by the Supreme Court opinion Myers v. United States. This opinion declared that the Tenure of Office Act, which was used to impeach President Andrew Johnson, was invalid.
The proposed law's passage invites scrutiny that will likely cause it to be voided as well.
Does Lindsey Graham ever bother to read history?
Now, to further comment: If the law passes the Senate, it may be interesting to see if it can pass with enough votes to override a veto. Same for the House. It is hard to imagine that Trump would sign it into law.
Why would they introduce a law that has little chance of success, either on a vote, or a challenge before the courts? Are they testing their political strength? My guess is that they will be embarrassed by the outcome.
Erik Erikson: Never Trumper in Trump land
Erikson claims to be a Republican. He probably claims to be a conservative. However, how can he say this if he quotes this from a GOP House member, who is blaming his expected defeat upon Trump?
The link is from Gateway pundit, btw.
My recollection is that during 2016, these same bozos were claiming that Hillary would win 40 states, and that they would lose both houses of Congress. Neither of these outcomes resulted.
Instead, the worse thing happened for these people, who never wanted Trump in the first place. They are happy to lose if that means they can stay in the minority, kiss up to the left, and pretend they oppose the Dems. That's why this clown, who pretends to be a Republican, talks like a Democrat, and may as well be one.
He is losing because everybody can see he is lying sack of shit. Even the liberals hate his sorry ass, because he is a "coward".
Better for us to lose these jerks because we're better off without them. Fire Mueller's ass! Do the right thing and face the consequences, dammit.
Incidentally, the best way to keep his seat would be to defend Trump. They don't want to win.
The link is from Gateway pundit, btw.
My recollection is that during 2016, these same bozos were claiming that Hillary would win 40 states, and that they would lose both houses of Congress. Neither of these outcomes resulted.
Instead, the worse thing happened for these people, who never wanted Trump in the first place. They are happy to lose if that means they can stay in the minority, kiss up to the left, and pretend they oppose the Dems. That's why this clown, who pretends to be a Republican, talks like a Democrat, and may as well be one.
He is losing because everybody can see he is lying sack of shit. Even the liberals hate his sorry ass, because he is a "coward".
Better for us to lose these jerks because we're better off without them. Fire Mueller's ass! Do the right thing and face the consequences, dammit.
Incidentally, the best way to keep his seat would be to defend Trump. They don't want to win.
This is so wrong
Here's someone arguing for the peaceful breakup of the USA. This is bad, and to show why, you always need to question the basic premises of any argument. The basic premise here is the one of "peace". If you break up the country, you will lose a lot of your military power. With that comes the likelihood of being invaded from countries that will no longer be overawed by the immensity of this country. Therefore, even if the breakup is peaceful, the long term outlook for peace is much diminished.
That is not all. If you think you've got border problems now, you haven't seen anything yet. Just look at the guy's proposed map. These borders cannot be defended. A defensible border includes one with natural boundaries which can be defended. These borders are wide open. If one country or another get on bad terms, wars will be fought over these territories.
Actually, the current border of the US is quite secure, thank you very much. With the Rio Grande forming much of the border with Mexico, you stand a much better chance of securing that than with the one he proposes. What we lack today is the will to enforce ANY border.
What could really happen here is that his breakup wouldn't last. The real problem is that the left wing is concentrated in the big cities. These city states would be even more vulnerable than his map implies. Consequently, the only way they can hold their oppressed conservative minorities into check is to stop being what they are--- which is pacifist.
This may seem to contradict what the left projects, which seems violent. But the left isn't violent. They cannot become militarily adventurous unless they change their very natures. Their hatred of the so-called right is real, but that doesn't translate into military effectiveness. In other words, if the country splits up, the red zones in the Blue Country will secede, and want to join the Red Country. How does the new Blue Country enforce its new borders? It can't without changing its nature. It would have to change its very reason for existence. ( Another premise squashed. )
We have problems, no doubt. But this is a really bad idea.
That is not all. If you think you've got border problems now, you haven't seen anything yet. Just look at the guy's proposed map. These borders cannot be defended. A defensible border includes one with natural boundaries which can be defended. These borders are wide open. If one country or another get on bad terms, wars will be fought over these territories.
Actually, the current border of the US is quite secure, thank you very much. With the Rio Grande forming much of the border with Mexico, you stand a much better chance of securing that than with the one he proposes. What we lack today is the will to enforce ANY border.
What could really happen here is that his breakup wouldn't last. The real problem is that the left wing is concentrated in the big cities. These city states would be even more vulnerable than his map implies. Consequently, the only way they can hold their oppressed conservative minorities into check is to stop being what they are--- which is pacifist.
This may seem to contradict what the left projects, which seems violent. But the left isn't violent. They cannot become militarily adventurous unless they change their very natures. Their hatred of the so-called right is real, but that doesn't translate into military effectiveness. In other words, if the country splits up, the red zones in the Blue Country will secede, and want to join the Red Country. How does the new Blue Country enforce its new borders? It can't without changing its nature. It would have to change its very reason for existence. ( Another premise squashed. )
We have problems, no doubt. But this is a really bad idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)