10/24/2019 5:45:53 AM

1

Heard a (D) on the radio, I think it was Swalwell about the (R) impeachment protest. Paraphrasing...

The innocent have nothing to fear, the guilty don't follow the rules.

Says a lot of what he thinks of our systems.

The innocent and guilty alike have the right and should expect due process.

What are you guilty of Eric? You and Schiff are not following the rules? What are you guilty of?

vxbush 10/24/2019 5:51:27 AM

2

In #1 Unknown user said: The innocent have nothing to fear, the guilty don't follow the rules.

The flip it back on him. If your motives and intentions are innocent, then you have nothing to fear in making these hearings completely public and letting Republicans in as part of the investigation--you know, following the rules. 

Morning, campers. 

10/24/2019 6:12:25 AM

3

Reply to vxbush in 2:

Ayup... but what is scary in the long term is the insurrectionism of it.

If you are innocent... you don't need due process...

10/24/2019 6:30:37 AM

4

Reply to Unknown user in 3:

inquistionism.... not insurrenctionims...

Coffee! More coffee!

vxbush 10/24/2019 6:44:16 AM

5

In #3 Unknown user said: Ayup... but what is scary in the long term is the insurrectionism of it. If you are innocent... you don't need due process...

I think we can blame the development of that thought on video entertainment. 

Occasional Reader 10/24/2019 6:46:59 AM

6

Good morning.  Tiger poacher who ate bear penises arrested

Enjoy your breakfast. 

Occasional Reader 10/24/2019 6:47:28 AM

7

In #5 vxbush said: I think we can blame the development of that thought on video entertainment. 

How so?

buzzsawmonkey 10/24/2019 7:20:59 AM

8

I have not been following the current impeachment lunacy closely---partly from fatigue and partly because the autumn holiday cycle of the last few weeks has kept me away from the news.

It seems to me, however, that most of the current hoo-ha is the same old "collusion" garbage with a new coat of paint---and that, to the extent it is not, it more closely resembles the Democrats complaining that Trump might possibly expose some of their long-term corruption than anything else, and that their complaints that this exposure might assist Trump in his re-election campaign is mostly an act of pre-emptive self-protection on their part.

Am I missing something here?

10/24/2019 7:43:23 AM

9

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 8:

Not missing a thing.

Trump asked Ukraine to assist in a criminal investigation. Which is normal under various agreements we have with them.

What is known from available documents his Clinton and other democrats were involved in asking Ukraine for dirt on Trump before '16 and the whole Biden / Burisma thing.

So yes just like Trump / Russia, Trump / Ukraine is trying to obfuscate and cover up (D) activities.

lucius septimius 10/24/2019 7:46:41 AM

10

In #8 buzzsawmonkey said: most of the current hoo-ha is the same old "collusion" garbage with a new coat of paint

Indeed.  The "Russia Collusion" narrative failed -- spectacularly.  The next try was "obstruction" but that fell apart almost as soon as they put it up.  So now they've taken "Russia" and changed it to "Ukraine."  Most Democrats are too stupid, probably, to know that they're different countries, so who cares?

That Schiff is doing this all behind closed doors, not allowing Republicans to ask questions, and divulging the information through "leaks" is a sign that they have absolutely no case.  What we know about the testimony of the ambassador -- when considered in its entirety -- is that it blows the "quid pro quo" nonsense out of the water. Only by carefully editing the remarks now can they find their "impeachable" offense.  

Meanwhile, what have the Democrats to actually run on, other than Orange Man Bad?  Nothing.  Not one thing.

The impeachment theater won't get to a vote before the end of the year.  That means that just at the point that Sanders, Warren, Harris, etc. are supposed to be begging for primary votes, they'll be stuck in the Senate for a trial.  A dark horse could sweep in, but who at this point?  I don't seriously think Moochelle will do it -- she's too lazy, and like Oprah (who she resembles in many ways) she already has everything she could ever want.  She is a grifter, and being president would actually require her to work for a living.  

So that leaves .... Hillary?  It is very possible that her malignant narcissism is so bad that all of this represents an attempt (1) to explain away her defeat, and (2) leave no Democrat of any standing to run so she can throw herself into the ring again.   And in the process destroy the party and lose in the greatest landlside since Richard Nixon was reelected.

vxbush 10/24/2019 7:51:27 AM

11

In #7 Occasional Reader said: How so?

Can I give you a definitive list of TV shows and movies that use the line, "I'm not afraid of them. I've got nothing to hide." when discussing the police? No. But I've seen that sentiment used many, many times in entertainment. I guess I can see a continuum of sorts: it moves from "he doesn't need to hide anything" to "the innocent have nothing to hide" to "the innocent won't put up any defense" to "any defense indicates guilt." 

But IAMAL.

10/24/2019 7:56:56 AM

12

McConnell should come out with a statement.

If the House will not follow established rules of impeachment from the previous 3 cases. Where both parties and President have access to evidence, witnesses and there is transparency the Senate will dismiss any impeachment charges sent up from The House.

buzzsawmonkey 10/24/2019 8:01:06 AM

13

In #10 lucius septimius said: I don't seriously think Moochelle will do it -- she's too lazy, and like Oprah (who she resembles in many ways) she already has everything she could ever want.  She is a grifter, and being president would actually require her to work for a living.  

I'll disagree with you there; I still think that she's going to weigh in either just before, or just into, the primary season, as the "dark horse" (if you'll pardon the expression) Party Unity Candidate.  

Is she lazy?  Yes, but she'll dust off the old "two for the price of one" line the Clintons used---and she would leave the governing to Jarrett anyway, just as Obama did.  I think she'd want the chance to take a lot more expensive trips on the taxpayer dime; to have her own hog wallow through the Treasury, so that she wouldn't have to rely on her husband's---and would very much relish sticking it to Hillary with the chance of becoming the First First Lady Ladyparts President, which Hillary has dreamed of and schemed for for so long; in Michelle's case, with added blackness.

The Obamas can steal the nomination from whichever member of the current Candidate Clown Car Cavalcade makes a showing in the primaries, by using the superdelegates, just as Hillary did---and the Obamas pretty much own the party now.

doppelganglander 10/24/2019 8:49:05 AM

14

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 13:

I'm with Lucius on this one, buzz. Michelle is immensely wealthy and famous, she was voted the most admired woman in America (by whom, I can't imagine), and she will never have to work a day in her life. She doesn't have the hunger for power that Obama or Hillary have. I think it's far more likely that Hillary will continue to do her best to eliminate Bernie, Biden, and Warren, then step in as the party savior whether anyone wants her to or not.

Reply to lucius septimius in 10:

Where I disagree with you is on the impeachment vote. The current shenanigans is not an inquiry because the House has not voted on it - Nancy won't allow it. If there were a vote, they would have to get out of the basement and put their cards on the table. (The Republicans' visit to the SCIF yesterday was brilliant political theater, IMO.) They don't want to do that because they've got nothing. And they can't vote to impeach without voting to start a formal inquiry. The entire House is up for re-election - I don't think they really want to have to go back to their districts, especially the ones Trump won, and try to explain themselves.

Occasional Reader 10/24/2019 9:02:08 AM

15

In #11 vxbush said: TV shows and movies that use the line, "I'm not afraid of them. I've got nothing to hide." when discussing the police?

But I think that TV/movie trope often ends up with the person adopting that position wishing he/she hadn't.

Occasional Reader 10/24/2019 9:05:18 AM

16

In #14 doppelganglander said: I'm with Lucius on this one, buzz.

Me, too.  It's not impossible, but I would bet many dollars against only a few doughnuts that it will not happen.  (Then again, I'm perennially wrong with my POTUS election predictions, such as with my (early) 2008 "it'll be Giuliani versus Hillary with Giuliani winning" lead-pipe-cinch prediction.) 

doppelganglander 10/24/2019 9:12:57 AM

17

Reply to Occasional Reader in 16:

To be fair, that was not a bad guess at the time. My youngest daughter and her friends met Rudy when he was campaigning in our town. They thought he was pretty cool.

lucius septimius 10/24/2019 9:47:57 AM

18

In #14 doppelganglander said: Where I disagree with you is on the impeachment vote.

You may be right; on the other hand the scenario I laid out is what Karl "You Magnificent Bastard!" Rove thinks will happen.

doppelganglander 10/24/2019 9:58:46 AM

19

Reply to lucius septimius in 18:

Rove's scenario depends on whether Nancy allows a vote on the impeachment inquiry, I don't think she's stupid enough to do that. If she does, then yes, that's a strong possibility.

lucius septimius 10/24/2019 11:46:31 AM

20

Occasional Reader 10/24/2019 12:04:24 PM

21

Reply to lucius septimius in 20:

Would that she were a couple years older, she could be that "dark horse candidate" the Dems are waiting for.

/

An aside:  Dammit, where are all the HOT lesbians-making-out that we were promised by movies and TV?!!!

Syrah 10/24/2019 12:25:50 PM

22

Lindsey Graham is not very inspirational.

His resolution to condemn the House impeachment process is a start, but it sure is late in arriving. 

Kenneth 10/24/2019 1:14:51 PM

23

Reply to lucius septimius in 20:

I'm left wondering which part of that scenario, if any, will her constituents find objectionable?

The bong? The naked threesome? The tattoo?

Kenneth 10/24/2019 1:17:42 PM

24

There is some sanity in Canada:

Trans activist Jessica Yaniv filed genital wax complaints as means of 'extortion,' rights tribunal rules

Yaniv was also ordered to pay $2000 to each of the defendants, although they aren't likely to see a penny.

Occasional Reader 10/24/2019 1:20:35 PM

25

In #24 Kenneth said: Yaniv was also ordered to pay $2000 to each of the defendants

That seems pathetically low (even if he (yes, he) actually pays).  IIRC, one of the businesses was forced to close because of this, right?  I hope they're able to file a separate claim for damages in the regular civil court system, and clean his clock (instead of waxing his c__k). 

Occasional Reader 10/24/2019 1:21:55 PM

26

buzzsawmonkey 10/24/2019 1:30:00 PM

27

Reply to Occasional Reader in 26:

She crazy.

Occasional Reader 10/24/2019 1:42:15 PM

28

In #27 buzzsawmonkey said: She crazy.

There are suggestions that she's got wind that Barr has hit paydirt on her, and that she's setting up an insanity defense.  A few years ago, I'd have dismissed such speculation out of hand.  But now... 

Kenneth 10/24/2019 1:56:40 PM

29

If only I had heard this before Election Day:

Canadian Cleric Younus Kathrada: All Candidates in Upcoming Elections are Evil, Filthy Non-Muslims Who Support Homosexuality & Zionism

Occasional Reader 10/24/2019 2:08:10 PM

30

Reply to Kenneth in 29:

Now wait a minute.  I'm sure Justin has dressed up as "Muslim" at some point. 

buzzsawmonkey 10/24/2019 2:48:45 PM

31

In #30 Occasional Reader said: Now wait a minute.  I'm sure Justin has dressed up as "Muslim" at some point. 

I saw a picture of him a year or two ago in some sort of Islamic dress, groovin' at a mosque.