Points to Ponder:
"If one can clarify one need not agitate. Just to state facts is the most terrible thing that can be done to an injustice...Fact has this advantage over rhetoric -- that time strengthens the one and weakens the other. Tell the truth and time will be your eloquence." [Will Durant]
Friday, October 12, 2018
I Was A Never Trumper Until Democrats Went Gonzo On Kavanaugh. Now, Hand Me That Red Hat
"...The Republican rejection of Merrick Garland was political hardball; the sliming of Kavanaugh was categorically different and much worse. The Democrats crossed the line from policy disagreement to personal destruction, and in doing so they nuked any middle ground between themselves and conservative Trump skeptics. And they put every conservative on notice: You could be next.
If the Democrats will do this to a man as respected and mainstream as Kavanaugh, they will do it to anyone who gets in their way. The left has embraced mob justice that disdains our culture of due process and the presumption of innocence, and merely disagreeing with the mob provokes its wrath. At Facebook, the mob is after an executive who stood by his friend. At my alma mater, a dean was punished for tweeting skeptically about the woman accusing Kavanaugh of running a gang-rape ring in high school. Ordinary people are being targeted for having opinions the mob hates..."
Click here to read the rest.
While not exactly my view, there is plenty of convergence of the latter with the above statement. Here is just a taste from the article and of which I concur 100%...
If the Democrats will do this to a man as respected and mainstream as Kavanaugh, they will do it to anyone who gets in their way. The left has embraced mob justice that disdains our culture of due process and the presumption of innocence, and merely disagreeing with the mob provokes its wrath. At Facebook, the mob is after an executive who stood by his friend. At my alma mater, a dean was punished for tweeting skeptically about the woman accusing Kavanaugh of running a gang-rape ring in high school. Ordinary people are being targeted for having opinions the mob hates..."
Click here to read the rest.
Thursday, October 11, 2018
Mitch McConnell: Forget Merrick Garland, GOP can confirm a Supreme Court justice in 2020 if it wants
To summarize the above article in brief:
"I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further!" [#CocaineMitch]
To summarize the above article in brief:
"I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further!" [#CocaineMitch]
The best argument for President Donald Trump moves forward...
ChuckGrassley
@ChuckGrassley
The judic cmte just sent 8 more judges to the full Senate for final votes Total judges on floor now 49: 4 circuit + 43 district + 2 fed claims nominees Lots of work to do Senate shld stay in session til ALL 49 judges are CONFIRMED / work comes b4 campaigning
11:41 AM - 11 Oct 2018
ChuckGrassley
@ChuckGrassley
The judic cmte just sent 8 more judges to the full Senate for final votes Total judges on floor now 49: 4 circuit + 43 district + 2 fed claims nominees Lots of work to do Senate shld stay in session til ALL 49 judges are CONFIRMED / work comes b4 campaigning
11:41 AM - 11 Oct 2018
On Brett Kavanaugh and the Accusation of Perjury:
My words will be in regular font.
Lying about slang under oath is still perjury.
You have to prove that he lied. Merely saying he did is not sufficient. Evasive and non-responsive answers, even if misleading, are not perjury.
Lying about not drinking under age is perjury. He was 17 the summer in question and that summer the drinking age was raised to 21. He lied about what the law was.
He said the law was 18 for most of his time in high school and was 18 in DC for all of his time in high school. All of that was true; ergo, no lie involved.
He lied when he said that he didn't go to the types of gatherings with the people Ford mentioned.
"Types of gatherings"? That is very vague phrasing by you. I could accuse you of lying by the same standard you are accusing Kavanaugh of lying. But then I happen to know that evasive answers even ones intended to mislead are not perjury.
Small gathering with Mike Judge and PJ is on his calendar for July 1.
Since your prior comment was very vague, its not possible to say for sure that it correlates with the one above.
He lied about not living near the country club when he lived closer to it than Ford.
Terms like "near" and "far" are far too imprecise to be involved in a charge of perjury. You could feasibly claim Kavanaugh was being evasive or even disingenuous. However, none of that constitutes perjury.
A lie under oath is perjury
Nope, its not that simple. Perjury to use one definition of the term I have seen is "the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry." You would have to prove several things with a charge of perjury including:
1) The testimony under oath was given that was proven false.{1}
2) The person giving the testimony made the proven false testimony wilfully.{2}
3) The point in question would have to be material to the inquiry.{3}
Nothing you have posted about Kavanaugh above meets the burden of proof for a probable perjury charge.
Notes:
{1} This has to be proven, not merely asserted.
{2} If there was not a wilful giving of false testimony or if the false testimony was given under duress, it would not be perjury.
{3} If the point is not proven to be material to the inquiry, again perjury would not apply.
My words will be in regular font.
Lying about slang under oath is still perjury.
You have to prove that he lied. Merely saying he did is not sufficient. Evasive and non-responsive answers, even if misleading, are not perjury.
Lying about not drinking under age is perjury. He was 17 the summer in question and that summer the drinking age was raised to 21. He lied about what the law was.
He said the law was 18 for most of his time in high school and was 18 in DC for all of his time in high school. All of that was true; ergo, no lie involved.
He lied when he said that he didn't go to the types of gatherings with the people Ford mentioned.
"Types of gatherings"? That is very vague phrasing by you. I could accuse you of lying by the same standard you are accusing Kavanaugh of lying. But then I happen to know that evasive answers even ones intended to mislead are not perjury.
Small gathering with Mike Judge and PJ is on his calendar for July 1.
Since your prior comment was very vague, its not possible to say for sure that it correlates with the one above.
He lied about not living near the country club when he lived closer to it than Ford.
Terms like "near" and "far" are far too imprecise to be involved in a charge of perjury. You could feasibly claim Kavanaugh was being evasive or even disingenuous. However, none of that constitutes perjury.
A lie under oath is perjury
Nope, its not that simple. Perjury to use one definition of the term I have seen is "the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry." You would have to prove several things with a charge of perjury including:
1) The testimony under oath was given that was proven false.{1}
2) The person giving the testimony made the proven false testimony wilfully.{2}
3) The point in question would have to be material to the inquiry.{3}
Nothing you have posted about Kavanaugh above meets the burden of proof for a probable perjury charge.
Notes:
{1} This has to be proven, not merely asserted.
{2} If there was not a wilful giving of false testimony or if the false testimony was given under duress, it would not be perjury.
{3} If the point is not proven to be material to the inquiry, again perjury would not apply.
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Cardinal Ouellet Writes Open Letter to Archbishop Viganò
As I have suspected all along!
"...It is false to present the measures taken against him as 'sanctions' decreed by Pope Benedict XVI and annulled by Pope Francis. After reviewing the archives, I note that there are no documents in this regard signed by either Pope, nor a note of an audience of my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, which would have given a mandate to the archbishop emeritus McCarrick to live a private life of silence, with the rigor of canonical penalties..."
Click here to read the rest.
As I have suspected all along!
"...It is false to present the measures taken against him as 'sanctions' decreed by Pope Benedict XVI and annulled by Pope Francis. After reviewing the archives, I note that there are no documents in this regard signed by either Pope, nor a note of an audience of my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, which would have given a mandate to the archbishop emeritus McCarrick to live a private life of silence, with the rigor of canonical penalties..."
Click here to read the rest.
Monday, October 01, 2018
Briefly...
So #DukeLaKavanaugh is going to be FBI investigated for a 7th time? Fine. I want an FBI investigation opened on Christine Blasey Ford and Michael "Pimp Train" Avanatti's client as well. I want to see ALL of Dr. Ford's calendars, every bit of her wiped social media accounts subpoenaed, the permit for the door she claimed she told her husband she needed in 2012 because of her presumed trauma, every scrap of her therapists notes subpoenaed, her therapist and husband subpoenaed along with her parents and siblings to testify with sworn affidavits, and everything else that goes into an FBI investigation. I also want her charged with perjury if it is found she lied during her testimony previously. I also want Senator Dianne Feinstein cited for contempt and investigated as well.
Fair is fair!
So #DukeLaKavanaugh is going to be FBI investigated for a 7th time? Fine. I want an FBI investigation opened on Christine Blasey Ford and Michael "Pimp Train" Avanatti's client as well. I want to see ALL of Dr. Ford's calendars, every bit of her wiped social media accounts subpoenaed, the permit for the door she claimed she told her husband she needed in 2012 because of her presumed trauma, every scrap of her therapists notes subpoenaed, her therapist and husband subpoenaed along with her parents and siblings to testify with sworn affidavits, and everything else that goes into an FBI investigation. I also want her charged with perjury if it is found she lied during her testimony previously. I also want Senator Dianne Feinstein cited for contempt and investigated as well.
Fair is fair!
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Points to Ponder:
"I have to admit I find the outrage over Kavanaugh's polemical tone from people already convinced of his guilt to be weird.
I can't picture any circumstances yesterday under which people so convinced would have said 'Aw, it's too bad he's an evil raping alcoholic--because he really has the judicial temperament for the job'." [Dale Price]
"I have to admit I find the outrage over Kavanaugh's polemical tone from people already convinced of his guilt to be weird.
I can't picture any circumstances yesterday under which people so convinced would have said 'Aw, it's too bad he's an evil raping alcoholic--because he really has the judicial temperament for the job'." [Dale Price]
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Imagine that, the Democrats trying to #MoveTheGoalPosts!
Joel B. Pollak
✔
@joelpollak
@ChrisCoons, yesterday, reassured Brett Kavanaugh it only took a "four day delay" for the FBI to investigate Clarence Thomas.
Today, Dr. Ford's attorneys are blasting "artificial" time limit of one week.
5:31 PM - Sep 28, 2018
Joel B. Pollak
✔
@joelpollak
@ChrisCoons, yesterday, reassured Brett Kavanaugh it only took a "four day delay" for the FBI to investigate Clarence Thomas.
Today, Dr. Ford's attorneys are blasting "artificial" time limit of one week.
5:31 PM - Sep 28, 2018
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Saturday, September 22, 2018
More on Third Party Fantasies:
(From Facebook)
This sorta follows another recent thread on the subject of third parties and is from a comments thread discussion the other day. My words will be in regular coloured font with the words that prompted the original response italicized. Without further ado...
At some point, Libertarians need to realize that 45 years of never getting above 1.5% means they are NEVER going to win federal or state elections.
Gary Johnson won 3.27% of the popular vote in 2016.
I double checked and you were right on this.
Three times the previous record by a Libertarian candidate.
You have inadvertently made my point. That in a year like 2016 where both of the dominant parties truly scraped through the bottom of the barrel to nominate ghastly candidates, the Libertarians STILL could not compete. (And they got voters they are not ordinarily gonna get that year such as myself, my spouse, and a few others I managed to persuade not cause I was a huge Gary fan but mainly because the other choices were so damn awful he stood out by default.) The odds are as high as they are that in 2020 Libertarians are back below 1% again as usual no matter whom they nominate. At what point do they conclude that their party is an abysmal failure?
Ross Perot as an independent took 19% in 1992.
I remember that well as I was among the 19%.
There is room for third parties if the media portrays them as viable contenders
Here is the problem: they are not viable contenders. You have to be viable before you can be treated as such. Even the low threshold of 5% to qualify for federal election matching funds: they cannot even clear that. If you cannot even get 5% of the vote, how can anyone seriously consider you a viable candidate?
The only third party in the past 100 years to be viable was the Reform Party in 1992 which at that time consisted of Ross Perot. Because he vaulted above 5%, the Reform Party got federal matching funds to compete in 1996. Running when the economy was good and with a candidate with national recognition heading the ticket, they still could not get traction and slipped to about 8.6% of the vote. They however still cleared 5% so more federal matching funds. They then really got stupid and nominated Pat Buchanan and were destroyed. They still limp on life support to this day but they are functionally dead and irrelevant as a viable third party. No other party of the past hundred years even comes close to the viability that the Reform Party had between 1992 and 1999 and the Libertarians are not based on their history going to buck that trend anytime soon.
and if they are given the opportunity to debate.
Well, if you are not viable, you are not going to be given the opportunity to debate nor should you be. See what I said above about viability.
(From Facebook)
This sorta follows another recent thread on the subject of third parties and is from a comments thread discussion the other day. My words will be in regular coloured font with the words that prompted the original response italicized. Without further ado...
At some point, Libertarians need to realize that 45 years of never getting above 1.5% means they are NEVER going to win federal or state elections.
Gary Johnson won 3.27% of the popular vote in 2016.
I double checked and you were right on this.
Three times the previous record by a Libertarian candidate.
You have inadvertently made my point. That in a year like 2016 where both of the dominant parties truly scraped through the bottom of the barrel to nominate ghastly candidates, the Libertarians STILL could not compete. (And they got voters they are not ordinarily gonna get that year such as myself, my spouse, and a few others I managed to persuade not cause I was a huge Gary fan but mainly because the other choices were so damn awful he stood out by default.) The odds are as high as they are that in 2020 Libertarians are back below 1% again as usual no matter whom they nominate. At what point do they conclude that their party is an abysmal failure?
Ross Perot as an independent took 19% in 1992.
I remember that well as I was among the 19%.
There is room for third parties if the media portrays them as viable contenders
Here is the problem: they are not viable contenders. You have to be viable before you can be treated as such. Even the low threshold of 5% to qualify for federal election matching funds: they cannot even clear that. If you cannot even get 5% of the vote, how can anyone seriously consider you a viable candidate?
The only third party in the past 100 years to be viable was the Reform Party in 1992 which at that time consisted of Ross Perot. Because he vaulted above 5%, the Reform Party got federal matching funds to compete in 1996. Running when the economy was good and with a candidate with national recognition heading the ticket, they still could not get traction and slipped to about 8.6% of the vote. They however still cleared 5% so more federal matching funds. They then really got stupid and nominated Pat Buchanan and were destroyed. They still limp on life support to this day but they are functionally dead and irrelevant as a viable third party. No other party of the past hundred years even comes close to the viability that the Reform Party had between 1992 and 1999 and the Libertarians are not based on their history going to buck that trend anytime soon.
and if they are given the opportunity to debate.
Well, if you are not viable, you are not going to be given the opportunity to debate nor should you be. See what I said above about viability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)