NOT FAR ENOUGH (POSTED 2/24/20)
As to the recent pardons and commutations: if you are familiar with my writings you know how I feel about ‘process’ crimes. This is where a fed investigation finds no wrong doing. However, they take the way that you responded to their efforts to put you in jail. Then, if they find your response to have been inappropriate they prosecute you for it – so that they can still put you in jail for that!
And, again, excuse me for my own prior naivete on this matter. I remember someone named Deaver (back in the 80’s) – he did some bad optics/conflict of interest behavior and was investigated by a special counsel. And it was one of the first instances of this phenomena: he was cleared of a crime on the matter but still prosecuted for his behavior in how he responded to their investigation.
I clearly recall not liking what I was seeing. But I wasn’t sufficiently on guard about this type of conduct (by fed prosecutors) that was being done at that time. Since then, as this has gone on and on and over and over, I am sufficiently on guard now.
My belief is that Trump should pardon everyone ever convicted of a ‘process’ crime – period – and going all the way back to Deaver. This would also include the controversial Mr. Stone but so what. Then he should give a long overdue executive order: finish your investigation and if there was no crime involved then do like every other law enforcement body does. Namely: just shut up, drop your prosecution and GO AWAY.
I STAND BY MY STATEMENTS ON SONDLAND (POSTED 2/22/20)
In one of my writings, I compared the visousness of Trump’s adversaries (when Sondland was sticking with the Prez) compared to Trump’s supposed nastiness. Well, according to the Flunky media, I am now proven wrong by Trump’s ‘retaliation’ against him – by removing him from his post. I disagree.
Once someone has testified against you, he can no longer have credibility as still being your advocate. Sondland knew that he would have to be leaving and there is nothing to really fuss about. But, again, the comparison: now that he turned against Trump, has Trump: 1) boycotted his hotel chain (like the Resistance did) 2) drummed up law suits against him (like the others did) and 3) talked about prosecutions for non relevant matters? (like the others did).
No way. It’s a fake comparison; as unfortunate as losing his diplomatic post was it was no where near a Resistance-level assault.
NASTY NANCY (POSTED 2/22/20)
Why does she keep doing that? Why does she always follow a statement about his impeachment – and every time – with a “and he is impeached FOREVER!” and “He can NEVER get rid of it!” Well, first we will be fair and balanced. Many listeners have the clear impression that they also heard her say something to the effect of “Ne-ahahaha, Ne-ahahaha …” during these statements.
However, our panel of experts have exhaustively examined all of her utterances and, to be fair, there are no (expressly stated) “Ne-ahahaha”s”. Our panelists came to the conclusion that the mishearing of what she said, and by so many people, was due to a psychological phenomenon called “Listener’s Perception”. But we need to get back to the original question (and in a fair and balanced manner) So why, again, does she keep doing that?
She has explained why and we take her at her word: the reason she keeps doing that is because she does NOT (repeat does NOT) dislike the President. She has also commented on how and why she does NOT dislike the Prez before and we will, again, take her at her word: it is because she is such a staunch Catholic.
AND IT WAS SHEER HORROR!!! (TRUMP VENTS) (POSTED 2/22/20)
The day after the impeachment went down in flames, the Prez was supposed to have delivered a prepared speech. Instead, he just did a celebration get-together with his allies – and did do some venting. Though 1) no one was subjected to a summary death penalty nor 2) were there any further steps taken (that we are aware of) in his plans to set up a military dictatorship (using Ukrainian armed forces) it was still regarded, predictably, as another dangerous act by an out of control President.
I do not agree. But I do give him one piece of advisement. While I hope that Nasty Nancy will forgive me someday (for my ratting her out on what her current chess move is) it is this: she is doing gratuitously disrepectful acts during State of the Union addresses, her “and he is impeached FOREVER” statements and et al for a simple tactical reason.
It is all a calculated attempt to get him to react inappropriately and be his own worst enemy. Or to at least to be unpresidential. Thus, getting him to self defeat his own campaign – in case they can’t defeat him with theirs.
Thus, I simply advise him not to take the bait. It is all simply an effort aimed at goading him into defeating himself in the next election. And I think what I will advise next is good general advice that can apply to a lot of situations.
For, in a way, I do believe that he should do a crackdown on Pelosi – and one that will fry her keister in a way that she will never forget. And, in a way, that he should come down harder on all of his adversaries than he has ever done before. But how? Simple, by ignoring the living hell out of them!
Don’t take the bait, next time just stick with the scripted speech.