swordfish

I can only imagine the response I would have gotten had I taken that tack with the nurse.......Possibly would have been typing this from my jail cell...... 🤣 Now that's funny right there.......Her brothers told me back while we were dating, you ever raise a hand to hurt her, they won't find your body......To which I responded, don't worry, I taught her how to use a gun......and after we were married, she actually out-shot me at trap shooting at my cousins house, in front of my relatives.....And I was a really good shot too.....I certainly wouldn't mess with Annie Oakley Jr.

The nurse, alone with my wife? If I were an abuser, my wife would feel safer telling her before I was allowed into the room. How is that out of line?

Unfortunate turn of events for those parents, brought to mind an event that just happened to me and my wife. My wife went in earlier this month for a "scope into the lungs for a biopsy" (endio-something or another - SF is not a doctor) and upon admitting her, I waited in the waiting room while they took her back to get settled in then the nurse came and got me to come on back. The nurse (who was a very lovely, cordial and professional person) explained - with my wife in the room - that they do that so they can ask the woman whether she was being abused (without me there) so she would feel safe telling them if I was an abuser. Fortunately I hadn't irritated her that morning, so it went well........ BTW - the biopsy was negative.....so she can continue to abuse me.....

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/01/democrats-schiff-impeachment/605803/ As the final sliver of daylight faded over the Capitol dome last night, it was clear that Democrats’ long, frustrated quest for a deus to save them from Donald Trump would produce no machina after all. Instead, there was only Representative Adam Schiff, the party’s tireless point man in the impeachment trial, who stood in the well of the Senate making an 11th-hour argument that Trump’s political-dirt-for-military-aid squeeze on Ukraine was too egregious to ignore.“If you accept the argument that the president of the United States can tell you to pound sand when you try to investigate his wrongdoing, there will be no force behind any Senate subpoena in the future,” Schiff warned the senators. It was his response to a long written statement cum question from his fellow Californian Kamala Harris, who had asked how Trump’s acquittal would “undermine the U.S. system of justice.” Since Election Night 2016, Democrats have been searching for a savior, no matter the party or rank of the individual. First there was James Comey, the self-righteous former FBI director impervious to Trump’s attempts to co-opt his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Then there was Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to take over the Russia inquiry after Trump’s abrupt dismissal of Comey produced a furor, but whose final report was an inconclusive punt. Next came House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who said last summer that Trump deserved to be impeached because he’d “violated the law six ways from Sunday.” There was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose reluctant conversion to the impeachment cause put Trump in the dock in December. There was Chief Justice John Roberts, whose stated reverence for institutions and the rule of law raised hope that he might conduct the Senate trial with a firmer hand than what he has thus far shown. There was the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, whose demand for additional witnesses and documents sparked a fleeting hope of persuading four moderate Republicans to join in seeking more evidence of Trump’s misdeeds. Now, with the defendant’s foregone acquittal in sight as soon as tomorrow, it’s all come down to Schiff, the terminally earnest chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Schiff’s powers, while formidable, have proved just as un-super as everyone else’s in the near-lockstep partisan loyalty that fear of Trump has produced. In the House managers’ presentation of their case last week, Schiff spoke some 60,000 words over three days, nearly three times the amount uttered by his next-loquacious colleague, according to an analysis by National Journal Daily. Yesterday, he answered five of the first 13 questions directed to Democrats, usually with only the barest reference to prepared notes, almost always taking the full five-minute limit the chief justice has allotted—a pace he kept up as the evening dragged on. One of the president’s lawyers, the former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, insisted, “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected—in the public interest—that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” Schumer immediately asked Schiff to respond to the claim. “All quid pro quos are not the same,” he said. “Some are legitimate and some are corrupt, and you don’t need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which.” By 6:30 p.m. ET, when he asked the senators if they really wanted a president “who can abuse his office” and “do so sacrificing national security and undermining integrity of elections and there’s nothing Congress can do about it,” Schiff had grown hoarse. The trial’s question-and-answer phase, which continues today, has injected some new energy—or at least some new motion—into the proceedings. Young pages in blue suits ferry each small buff-colored card of written questions to the chief justice in the presiding chair by marching solemnly down the chamber’s center aisle. Roberts then reads the questions aloud. But the trial’s semifinal stage has produced not a shred more bipartisan agreement on the gravity of the president’s conduct, as both Republicans and Democrats asked questions mostly of their own side in an effort to bolster arguments already endlessly rehearsed. The format nevertheless has played to Schiff’s strengths as a former prosecutor. While his fellow managers read scripted answers from prepared three-ring binders, in response to mostly friendly questions from Democrats that feel well prepared if not outright planted, Schiff has handled even the occasional hostile query from Republicans with extemporaneous aplomb. When Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz submitted a somewhat tortured hypothetical query about whether it would have been acceptable for President Barack Obama to urge the Russian government to conduct an investigation into Mitt Romney’s son if he knew the younger Romney were being paid $1 million a year by a corrupt Russian company—a not-so-veiled reference to Hunter Biden’s service on the board of Ukrainian energy company—Schiff’s bottom line was simple: Presidents asking foreign governments “to target their political opponent is wrong and corrupt, period.” Trump’s acquittal has been a foregone conclusion since long before the trial began, and the chance that Democrats might garner the 51 votes required to call more witnesses had all but evaporated by yesterday afternoon, despite former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s reported corroboration that Trump told him he was withholding security assistance to Ukraine until it agreed to investigations into the president’s Democratic rival. “Probably no” was Schumer’s own assessment of the likelihood of witnesses after one potential GOP target after another either opposed the idea or signaled they might. That reality, and the political calculation behind it, was summed up neatly by Josh Holmes, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who tweeted: “More witnesses = Hindenburg. None of it changes ultimate acquittal.” So as the hours ticked past, and senators on both sides of the aisle stood and stretched, Schiff appeared to be speaking not only to them but to posterity, as he argued that new information about Trump’s actions on Ukraine was continuing to surface almost daily, and would keep coming in the months and years ahead. “Don’t wait for the book!” he said, referring to Bolton’s memoir. Responding to a question from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island about whether senators should consider the White House’s refusal to produce witnesses an “adverse inference” against the president’s innocence, under long-standing judicial practice, Schiff was emphatic. “Should you draw an adverse inference? You’re darn right you should!” But he added, “There is no need for inference here. There is just a need for a subpoena.” But throughout the Capitol all day yesterday, it grew ever clearer that embattled Republican senators such as Cory Gardner of Colorado would rather face the wrath of swing voters who think this truncated trial is unfair than risk prolonging it for even a week or two by calling witnesses and courting the president’s wrath. “I think we can all see what’s going on here,” Schiff said shortly after 8. “And that’s, If you want to hear from a single witness ... we are going to make this endless; we, the president’s lawyers, are going to make this endless. We promise you, we’re going to want Adam Schiff to testify, we want Joe Biden to testify, Hunter Biden … We will make you pay for it with endless delay.” But Schiff insisted, “We’re not here to indulge in fantasy or distraction. We’re here to talk about people with pertinent and probative evidence … So don’t be thrown off by this claim … You can’t have a fair trial without witnesses.” Indeed, the House managers have spent more than a week noting that no Senate impeachment trial has ever concluded without calling some witnesses. But in this, as in so many other matters involving the political ascendancy and presidency of Donald John Trump, Schiff and his colleagues, in invoking the power of history’s example, seem poised instead to suffer one more painful lesson in its limits. The impeachment funeral...... SF thinks the coffin will take a long time getting in the ground.

Good Point. Replace the Terrorist with a hoodlum....

FTA: A new section of President Donald Trump's signature wall along the US-Mexico border has been blown over in high winds, US officials say. Steel panels from the fence in the town of Calexico, California were knocked down on Wednesday morning. The concrete used to anchor the 30ft-tall (9m) panels in place had not yet dried. Gusts of around 30 mph (48 km/h) were reported at the time, the US National Weather Service said. Adam Schiff - IMPEACH THE WALL!! Wait, can we do that?

Interesting - the second clip must not have fully loaded....Also not sure since I don't own a Kimber, but I think there wouldn't be a "click" after running the mag dry......Normally a semi-auto stays open. Also, the shooter obviously wasn't carrying it cocked and locked with one in the chamber since the clip capacity is 8......

How to tell if someone is a Republican, a Democrat, or just a Southerner. Are you a Republican, a Democrat, or a Southerner? This little test will help you decide: You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges at you… You are carrying a Kimber 1911 chambered in .45 ACP, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do? ****************************** Democrat’s Answer: Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question! What is a Kimber 1911 and what does .45 ACP mean? Does the man look poor or oppressed? Is he really a terrorist? Am I guilty of profiling? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the pistol have an appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior? I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus. This is all so confusing! ****************************** Republican’s Answer: BANG! ****************************** Southerner’s Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click….. (Sounds of reloading) BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click. Daughter: “Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Speer Gold Dots or Federal Premium hollow points?!” Son: “Can I shoot the next one?!” Wife: “You are NOT taking that to a Taxidermist!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/lev-parnas-barred-from-impeachment-trial-makes-himself-its-star-anyway/2020/01/29/2cb47062-42d2-11ea-aa6a-083d01b3ed18_story.html He was headed to the impeachment trial, where neither he nor anyone else has been called as a witness. He already suspected he would not be allowed inside. Though his lawyer, Joseph Bondy, had procured tickets from the office of Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Parnas was wearing an electronic monitoring device around his ankle because he was under house arrest in Florida, charged with campaign finance violations. A New York federal judge permitted the travel but denied Bondy’s request to have his client’s monitor temporarily removed. Senate rules prohibited most electronic devices from the trial. FAKE NEWS.......?

Nonetheless, does anyone even know the real text of the manuscript? I can picture the text describing the President as hoping to hold funds contingent on the Ukes starting an investigation but in the end, he didn't because the Ukranians got their funding. So in essence, there was no crime. Yet, even if Bolton is allowed to testify, it still doesn't rise to the level of impeachment for "Obstruction of Congress" or "Abuse of Power" according to Dershowitz..... https://pjmedia.com/trending/lol-democrat-just-accidentally-admitted-house-impeachment-case-is-evidence-free/ There was an unintended moment of levity during a break at the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump on Tuesday. Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, one of the designated "spin doctors" sent to the microphones to clean up any damage to the Democrats' message caused by President Trump's impeachment attorneys, dropped an unintentional truth bomb during a media interview. C-SPAN broke away from the proceedings in time to hear Blumenthal say this about the Trump defense lawyers: In other words "We just listened to the Republicans summarizing the Democrats case which is bereft of evidence, but we need the evidence" Isn't the burden of proof normally on the prosecution?

Too soon?

A story from 2015 on Bernie Sanders that the left (meetoo flag holders) seems to forget about...... https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/29/410606045/the-bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-explained The essay by the Vermont senator, who officially kicked off his presidential campaign this week, isn't long — only a page. Warning: The bit about rape comes at the very beginning, as does some not-totally-safe-for-work language: "Many women seem to be walking a tightrope," he writes, as their "qualities of love, openness, and gentleness were too deeply enmeshed with qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism." He adds that men, likewise, are confused: One way to read the essay is that Sanders was doing (in a supremely ham-handed way) what journalists do every day: draw the reader in with an attention-getting lede, then get to the meat of the article in the middle. Though he only sticks to his larger point for three paragraphs before getting back to his fictional couple, ending the essay with an imagined conversation: Draw your own conclusions......but if the "grab em by the pussies" crowd starts that rant again, SF suggests "dropping this on em"......

Some deep thinking book titles for today.....