Friday, January 24, 2020

Friday's Fulminations

There is mild moderation.  Normal rules of blogger etiquette and courtesy to blog hosts will apply.with serious transgressors being thrown out.

Unfortunately our system does not allow your comments to show up in the blog post itself.  Just in the comments section.

Visitors might consider the wisdom of using moderate language.




Rusty Arrow said...

Lindsey Graham cuts the ground under Tom Hunter’s feet and condemns Donald J Trump in less than 30 seconds.

“It’s just when you’re using your office in a way that hurts people, you’ve committed a high crime.”

Tom Hunter said...

Do you not realise how easy it is to track down video of Nancy Pelosi and Ralph Nadler in 1999 denouncing the mean Republicans for impeaching a President for a big nothing?

"We are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton, and until the Republicans free themselves of hatred our country will suffer,"

Always have to chuckle about party politics as a team sport, but I can say that I opposed the Clinton Impeachment as a waste of time.

Besides the difference between non-criminal and debatable accusations of "abuse of power" and actual proven criminal acts like perjury, suborning perjury among witnesses and tampering with evidence should be something even a partisan can't miss.

Not to mention that whole thing about "power imbalances" between victim and victimiser. You know - the one where a 77 year old former US Vice President with fifty years of Senate career running for the Democrat Presidential nomination really is someone who can be hurt the way a 23 year old female intern can be?

Rusty Arrow said...

What Pelosi said in 1999 is not relevant to the case against Trump. Stick to the point.

Here's another thought for you.

Between elections, “the people’s representatives stand watch and have the tools to oversee, discipline, and, if they deem appropriate, remove the president from office. Under the framers’ plan, the determination whether the president is making decisions based on ‘improper’ motives or whether he is ‘faithfully’ discharging his responsibilities is left to the people, through the election process, and the Congress, through the impeachment process.” William Barr, 2018.

Who are you going to trust? Nancy Pelosi or the U.S. Attorney General?

Rusty Arrow said...

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 65.

Now there's an Originalist view for you, Tommy from Wairoa.

Rusty Arrow said...

The logic of impeachment as applied to the presidency is that the president has unique authority conferred by Article II. If he abuses that authority for personal advantage, financial or political, he injures the country as a whole. That is precisely why the framers rejected the idea of relying solely on an election to remove an abusive president from office. Indeed, waiting for the next election is an option that is obviously insufficient when the abuse of power is directed at cheating in that very election.

Laurence H. Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard.

But yeah, we know, your dad was a Chicago Beat Cop, or something, so you know more about the law than some elite professor from some fancy pantsy college with all his book learnin' and such, but who never ran a still or smuggled chop chop, or knew what it was like to walk the cold mean streets armed with only a baton and whistle.

Rusty Arrow said...

“Which is more dangerous to our liberties, “a president who may have had a sexual encounter with a willing intern and then tried to cover it up? Or a prosecutor who may have leaked secret grand jury testimony in an effort to get potential witnesses to change that testimony, and who hid his conflict of interest from the court?”

Alan Dershowitz on Ken Starr.

Tom Hunter said...

What Pelosi said in 1999 is not relevant to the case against Trump.

But what Lindsey Graham said is.

Of course. From a partisan fanatic's POV the two have to be different.

Tom Hunter said...

... so you know more about the law than some elite professor...

Don't know what my dad would has to deal with that argument apart from being the usual low-class lazy slur from an obessed man. There used to be someone like that here a lot.

In fact I rely on counter-argument to that of Mr Tribe from people equally qualified in in American Constitutional law. Easy enough to find if you want a balanced POV. Hahahahahahhahaha!

.....he abuses that authority for personal advantage, financial or political
Well that assumption is one of the many unspoken ones that lie at the heart of the Democrat's "argument".

Creepy Ole Joe Biden: twice-failed nominee, gaffe-tastic candidate who appears more confused and senile than ever this time around; fifty-year denizen of "The Swamp"; described by former Obama and Bush Defense Secretary Robert Gates as having been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue of over the past four decades.”; with huge family graft problems.

This is the guy who presents such a formidable threat to Trump in a general election that he has to be taken out now, and with new information? FFS - the GOP will tear Biden apart on pre-Ukrnian history even if he does somehow make it to the general election.

Alexander Hamilton - Now there's an Originalist view for you,
Like your double-standard on the comments Pelosi vs. Graham in 1999 you seem to think you can place half-truths and get away with it. Here's the rest of that famous passage from Hamilton:

The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

Which is why bi-partisanship on such an issue, such as existed with Nixon but did not with Clinton or now with Trump, was regarded by Hamilton and the other Founders as a pre-condition to impeachment.

Judge Holden said...

But the founders never imagined the modern day GOP, a craven and corrupt body, so nihilistic it’s willing to sacrifice the Republic itself on the altar of political expediency (a bit like you, Tommy, but at least in its case there’s money and power on the line, you’re doing it for the chuckles). Happily though, whether it’s Biden or Buttigeig or Bloomberg, Trump is fucked. So there’s that.

Tom Hunter said...

Oh look - it's Sludgy, who never fails to turn up and convert any argument into some sort of personal morality play around his opponents and whose "argument" always amounts to constantly saying You're going to lose, nyah,nyah,...nynayah, nyah".

God, you're a tiresome little bore.

Anonymous said...

No Tom, Sludgy turns turns up on slow comments day or as a diversion. Bugger I fell for it.

Petri Dish

Tom Hunter said...

So - "Petri Dish", " Anonymous" here and an "Anonymous" on another thread all turn up with three points constantly repeated:

- the family history of other commentators.

- claims of merely "stirring" up fights between Left and Right to the detriment of our societies (how awful, this should have been stopped a century ago)

- claims of sock-puppet commentators (clearly somebody with no knowledge of Sludgy's decade-long histry across NZ blogs)

Yes. I think I've seen all those claims here many times, but usually only from one commentator.

Anonymous said...

Quite right Tom, they seek him here they they seek him there that damned elusive pimple.

And who is this ghostlike figure that haunts your dreams.

Sorry I had to wax eloquent but my previous was so boring someone deleted it. Will try to be more entertaining in future.

Rusty Arrow said...

I grew up reading about show trials in authoritarian nations abroad. I didn’t expect to see one of our two major parties endorse a show trial here in the U.S. Capitol.

Bill Kristol on the GOP circus.

All 100 Senators swore an oath to act as impartial jurors. In what other Jury can a member wander out of the court while evidence is being heard?

"Fuck off, Tom, the adults are talking", I think are the words poor little Tommy Bhoy hates the most while seeking out the clouds in his latte.

Tom Hunter said...

Bill Kristol??

Snigger. Every Lefty's favourite gargoyle just a few years ago thanks to his unending demand for the US to fight foreign wars of "liberation" - the rejection of which by Trump is the reason that Kristol, like Tribe, has gone around the bend, even to the extent of destroying the Right Wing magazine he started, The Weekly Standard.

Yes, that's how badly he's destroyed himself among the Right.

Again with your cluelessness in that you actually think the GOP and Trump supporters will take any notice of an insane Never-Trumper just because the Left have adopted him as their new pet despite being a neo-conservative like Bush, who they detested.

Rusty Arrow said...

Tim Tam Tom, back to attacking the messenger because the message is too unpalatable.

All 100 Senators swore an oath to act as impartial jurors. In what other Jury can a member wander out of the court while evidence is being heard?

Tom Hunter said...

When the messenger is full of shit they should always be attacked, and Tribe has been since late 2016 when he was already demanding that Trump be impeached - all based on the Russia-Collusion hoax. And he continued to bang the drum throughout 2017,18,19.

And this is on top of how he almost bent his spine out of shape to defend Clinton in 1999. So yeah, smart and credentialed as he maybe he's a partisan nut who can be discounted for that reason.

In what other Jury can a member wander out of the court while evidence is being heard....
None other, but then the Senate is not a "Court" and this is not a criminal trial, as has been pointed out by people claiming that it doesn't matter that there are no criminal acts alleged in the impeachment.

And you - like the Democrats - are pulling more of this faux solemnity to cover the incredible degree of precedent-breaking, spit-on-the-Constitution shit they've pulled to this date and dignify it. Fuck'em: they're lucky that any GOP Senators are paying attention at all to this 2020 election campaign kabuki theatre.

Rusty Arrow said...

Tim Tam Tom, you're getting all shouty pants now, knowing that the edifice is collapsing from within.

“Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws: so help you God?”

I guess the presence of the words "trial" and "justice" are a clue that, right now, the Senate is acting as a Court, but put your hands over your arse and yell "lalalalala" so you don't have to hear the facts.

Face it, Tommy Tim Tam, no matter the outcome, your boy has been shown to be a corrupt, lying, thieving, blackmailing piece of shit and you still can't get your tongue far enough up his arse.

It is a given that there will be no conviction, the fix has been in from the start. Trump, like so many other American gangsters, will think he has got away with all his high crimes and misdemeanours until the tax boys come a knock knock knockin' on his door.

Tom Hunter said...

you're getting all shouty pants now
Yawn. Scratches balls.

Why do people keep pulling this sad, try-hard, "Oooooo, I'm making you angry" shite? You really think it has any affect on a blog author, or even another commentator?

You have only assertions that will fail as arguments under the inspection of legal argument. In fact they've already failed.

your boy has been shown to be a corrupt, lying, thieving, blackmailing piece of shit and you still can't get your tongue far enough up his arse.

GASP! More hurty words from strangers on the Internet.

Face it sweetie, all that's left is the desperate effort by the Democrats to apply the blame of "a Fix" and "a coverup" on perhaps four GOP Senators in the hope of tipping their seats and gaining control of the Senate - while they will play the game of avoiding such charges.

And of course trying to use this against Trump in the General election.

In two months time all this will be forgotten for the latter, and we will see how well the Dems can focus such propaganda on the former for the rest of the year.

Anonymous said...

Scratches balls? I doubt it.

Rubs cunt, more like it.

Tom Hunter said...

See, that I laughed at.

Despite the misogynistic rapy vibe of it. Seek help.

You'll be supportng Lizzie Warren this year - as cover.

Anonymous said...

Tom, you are excellent at cut and paste, but a pencil neck loser when it comes to rebutting counterpoint.

You see, I didn't mention whose cunt you were rubbing, you just ASSumed.

Tom Hunter said...

Thanks for the clicks.

RosscoWlg said...

Good news for the UK..bad for Germany

"The jobless rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1974, while employment, at 33 million, is at its highest-ever level.

Particularly striking is the dramatic growth in self-employment to more than five million, a sure indicator of an enterprising economy."

Auf wiedersehen Pet, you're stuffed. Lenin-quoting Merkel rules a dying empire.

Rusty Arrow said...

Particularly striking is the dramatic growth in self-employment to more than five million, a sure indicator of an enterprising economy."

Yep, all those Uber drivers, Foodinacoldbox push bikers, 5errorsapage, and amateur porno hustlers are certainly making the "economy" hum. Trouble is, none of them are real jobs that you can take to the bank to get a mortgage. None of them provides a long term, stable, lifestyle. In fact, most of them don't even provide enough for a weekly feed of Butter Chicken and Chips, the UK's staple dish.

Rusty Arrow said...

Thanks for the clicks.

Why? Are you ion some sort of competition with Adolt and Dodgie? Because otherwise, there's no value to your "clicks" because not one of you entrepreneurial capitalists has figured out a way to monetise this place.

Of course, that WOULD mean spending your own money to buy a domain name, pay for hosting, design a blog, and so forth, rather than leeching off google, a company Adolf swore who would never have anything to do with again about the same time Megan Markle said she would never live in the US while Trump was POTUS. Well, so far, one of them has kept her word.

Never met an honest insurance salesman in my life!

Rusty Arrow said...

Back to Tim Tam Tom's favourite thug, Don Trump.

The first thing, which sets the context, is the rhetoric of the president, both when he was running and ever since. The famous statement that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. The assumption he makes is that by virtue of the November election of 2016, he has a mandate to be the leader of the country. The commander in chief of the country. The German word is fuhrer. The Italian word is duce.

He talks about loyalty. He asks for loyalty. To what? To him personally. Not to the law, which he is supposed to be faithfully executing. This comes up over and over again. Where an official—for instance, the whistleblower—following the law, performing a legally defined duty, following a chain of command, does something that undermines Trump’s personal situation, he defines it as espionage, as sabotage. He looks back to the days when people could get shot for doing that.

Charles Fried, US solicitor general 1985 to 1989 and Reagan Functionary.

RosscoWlg said... should really change your blog name, I suggest

"Mr Wrong Again, Ding, Ding, Ding"

After all you were Lord something or other before, Lord Haw Haw from memory, and you were wrong on Brexit, the UK Elections, Wind Power, solar Power, the Irish border question...Socialism, Capitalism....sigh

And gain you display your complete ignorance of Capitalism with your 11.23 am post on the UK.

1. You don't have any facts to support your contention they are all Uber drivers
2. Who cares if they are Uber drivers, that means they aren't on welfare
3. It also means supply is meeting demand for cost effective transport.
4. Good on them if they are doing Porno, if people like Shane Jones demand it then again supply meets demand.
5. You see Mr Wrong Again..Ding,Ding,Ding that is the beauty of Capitalism, its called Freedom to do your thing.
6. Out of that Freedom comes little acorns that grow into little trees, that then grow into bigger trees, and employee, 15, 20, 30 people.
7. And the beauty of that Mr Wrong Again..Ding,Ding,Ding is that they don't have to come to a twat like you to get permission to do it.
8. Just like they don't have to come to you to get permission to eat what they want.

Problem is you support a dead and dying ideology.. Socialism. I shudder to think what you would have us "doing" if your world view triumped.

Mr Wrong Again, Ding, Ding, Ding said...

Moron, Ross. I bet the Vetr hates sharing a first name with you.

I did not say they were all uber drivers, but comprehension isn't your forte.

And I won't bother with the rest of your idiocy, well, because, it is just that. Idiocy.

We just took a vote, and you're off the Island.

Lord Haw-Haw
Lord Egbut Nobacon
Roj Blake
Seppo Renfors
The Maquis of Toulon
Jobson Growth
Rusty Arrow and his Dad, Russell Fletcher of Tauranga
Philosopher Unauthorised
Judge Holden
Paul Scott
In hoc signo vinces
Rolf Harris
The Pope
Christy Mack

and all the other aliases I have forgotten.

Now, fuck off back to buggering choir boys; it's the only thing you're good at.