Monday Open Thread

Bon Jovi finally makes it into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I'm glad that Richie Sambora (who left the band a few years ago) is included.

What's my favorite Bon Jovi song? This one, by miles.

In other news, I refuse to get distracted by the Republicans' ploy to bloviate about Mueller bias during the House testimony of Rod Rosenstein today. I watched a few minutes during which Rosenstein said he has faith in Mueller, the investigation isn't biased, and he's in charge and would step in if warranted, but it's not warranted. Shorter version: There's no "there" there.

Minn. Lt. Gov. Tina F. Smith has been named by the Gov. to replace Al Franken — she will have to run for the office in November.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Alabama Senate Results: Live Blog | USA Today Editorial: Trump Not Fit to Clean Toilets >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Also inducted into the RRHoF... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by desertswine on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 04:45:05 PM EST
    was Nina Simone.

    "Moon Over Alabama"

    Not to mention, "Mississippi, God Damn" (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 08:59:38 PM EST
    "Alabama's got me so upset," sings Miss Simone.

    I love her version (none / 0) (#26)
    by Towanda on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 11:25:42 PM EST
    of "I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel to Be Free."  (I discovered it in looking for a brief video of Amelia Earhart for my students, before class. I wish I knew how it would feel to post it here, but this site again is not giving me the links to embed. It's on Youtube.)

    Here's the link, my friend (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 09:21:54 PM EST
    "I Wish I Knew How it Would Feel to Be Free," as performed by Nina Simone. I wish I could break all the chains holding me. And a John Legend version, with The Roots. And Billy Taylor manages to do the same thing, with no words, just a piano trio. I wish I could give all I'm longing to give.

    I was more excited (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 05:37:35 PM EST
    About the Cars and the Moody Blues

    Even (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 05:41:28 PM EST
    Dire Straits

    Adieu (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 11:57:21 AM EST
    Blake Farenthold

    Absolutely could not happen to a "nicer" guy.

    He will NOT make to the end of the year, or the end of his term or whatever he thinks

    Cue the whiners mewling about (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 12:13:54 PM EST
    not being able to call people "fktards" anymore...

    DC isn't a swamp, it's a sewer.


    Adieu (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 12:00:47 PM EST
    Paul Ryan

    Oh please
    Oh please

    Clearly (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    He plans to run for president

    He will not win

    You can write that down.


    If he plans to retire after the mid-terms, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 12:11:30 PM EST
    does that mean he's not planning to run for re-election?

    See above (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 12:14:35 PM EST
    I believe he actually thinks that after years of enabling and protecting the most hated and reviled politician in any of our lifetimes,  He will be seen as the saviour.

    Laughable.  Unless it's in the WALKING DEAD sense of Savioir


    ... Paul Ryan is polling very poorly right now in his own House district against his Democratic challenger, Randy Bryce, who's raised a lot of money and hasn't been at all shy about going after the Speaker directly in an effort to soften him up for next year. The guy oozes testosterone, and he's aggressively challenged Ryan's manhood by openly characterizing him as a Beltway dilettante and wimp, especially when compared to a burly ironworker like himself.

    The mid-sized cities of Janesville, Racine and Kenosha in WI-1, like Rockford, IL just across the state line, are nuts & bolts / machine shop / small-bore manufacturing locales that have really taken it on the chin economically over the last 12-15 years, while Ryan's been busy playing on the national stage. And as the late Tip O'Neill was always fond of saying, all politics is local. Bryce has sought to capitalize on that in a very macho-type way, accusing Ryan of neglecting his own constituents -- and such neglect is, of course, downright unmanly.

    Speaker Ryan undoubtedly has national aspirations, which would most certainly take a major hit were Bryce to oust him in what he likely expects to be a Democratic tsunami, one in which even a gerrymandered district like WI-1 may not be big enough of a sea wall to protect him electorally. Personally, I fail to see how bowing out will help his image, particularly if Bryce publicly calls him a coward who fleeing the playground and running home to Mommy, as I suspect he will.



    Is this the candidate with (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    The dead beat dad issues that Towanda spoke of?

    Yes, Iron Stache is (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 07:40:45 PM EST
    the "deadbeat dad" candidate Towanda has commented on. He is not a lock for the Democratic n9mination. There is a woman running in the Dem. primary also.

    Yes, but the woman candidate (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Towanda on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 12:44:07 PM EST
    is getting no support, because . . . that's our state Democratic Party. Even postmenopausal wimmen can't compete with his oh-so-male abundance  of facial hair.

    The party deferred to outsiders who became enamored of Bryce, early on, without vetting him.  


    It would be (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 01:07:39 PM EST
    nice if the party actually vetted people before running them for office because if we don't do it you know the GOP is going to do it.

    Could well be. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 08:57:47 PM EST
    Honestly, I missed seeing that. Evidently, I've only been following the campaign fleetingly. For someone who upbraids Ryan about not caring for people, there's nothing that says "Who cares?" more than stiffing your own kids on child support. Why is it always macho guys who wind up being the lousiest fathers?

    Yes, and another issue (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Towanda on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 12:39:33 PM EST
    is a court case for debt owed an ex-girlfirend, who has quite unkind things to say about Bryce not keeping promises.

    Only recently, after the Milwaukee Journals Sentinel reported on the child suppoert and other devt did Bryce pay up. And his reaction was grudging.

    By the way, Donald from Hawaii notes that the district includes poor Janesville (screwed by GM, with repercussions for years since on many other employers and workers,I saw in my students' stories) and other midsize cities, but it also includes a portion of Milwaukee County. But a very suburban, south-side part of the county -- and locals know that means white-flighters from the city.  So, it has had huge population growth to turn Republican.  it is  pro-Walker as well as pro-Trump territory . . . the coters who, when those of us in the city of Milwaukee kept voting against Walker and Sheriff Clarke, kept putting them in office. And in Ryan's district, there are no city of Milwaukee voters to counteract the burbanites.


    Adieu (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 12:41:47 PM EST

    3 to 2

    Don't even fu@king get me started

    This is going to reverberate in ways they can not imagine

    Looks like a multi-state (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 01:13:45 PM EST
    AG lawsuit is on the horizon.

    I don't give them the benefit of the doubt (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CST on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 01:46:40 PM EST
    I think they can absolutely imagine the ways, and that's what they're hoping for.

    This isn't over yet though.


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 06:22:32 PM EST
    One of my clients this huge Republican is going to hear from me everytime something happens with me being unable to load work that Comcast is blocking her website. So I will just send everything to her in an email saying here ya go.

    MYOB (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by vicndabx on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 03:32:28 PM EST
    Perhaps more evidence will emerge that the privately held opinions of two investigators contributed to then-FBI director James Comey's decision in July 2016 not to charge Clinton with a crime. (That was when the Republicans said the FBI was pro-Clinton. Before Comey called the finality of that inquiry into question just days before the 2016 election and the Democrats said the FBI was anti-Clinton.) Until charges are pressed and evidence is considered, however, Page and Strzok are owed some due process.  

    They aren't getting it. This week, the Justice Department not only disclosed to Congress their private texts during an ongoing investigation, but then briefed their private texts to the media.

    The FBI Scandal Hiding in Plain Sight

    I have a real issue w/exposure of private communications outside of a trial discovery process or permission from the owner.

    When Dems return to power, one of the priorities, IMO, should be creation of new laws centered around digital privacy.  We've had these technologies for some time now, time for the laws to catch up.

    The town of Nazereth seems to have (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by desertswine on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 10:14:18 PM EST
    cancelled its Christmas celebrations because Trump.

    Nazareth is one of the holiest cities for Christians because it is where the angel Gabriel allegedly told the Virgin Mary that she would give birth to Jesus. The Christian savior also grew up in the town, according to the New Testament. Today, however, around two-thirds of the population in Nazareth is Muslim.

    The decision by Mayor Ali Salam to cancel festivities was made in protest of Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a move the Muslim mayor, who once compared himself to Trump, found offensive.
    "Our identity and faith aren't up for debate," Salam said during a press conference Thursday. "The decision [by Trump about Jerusalem] has taken away the joy of the holiday, and we will thus cancel the festivities this year."

    update (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by linea on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 07:13:04 PM EST
    From JPost:
    Nazareth Mayor Ali Salam decided Thursday to keep most Christmas festivities intact despite anger over US President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

    The Mayor, who threatened to cancel Christmas, stated that "there are commercial interests of the city and we are used to hundreds of thousands coming for this season."


    Trump nominee (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08:25 AM EST
    for District Court Judge does not know what the Daubert standard or a motion in limine is.

    This revealed under questioning by a GOP Senator.

    Lord love a duck.  This is like hiring someone to be chief of surgery at a big hospital who does not know what a scalpel is.

    And, he has never tried a case, or even taken a deposition.

    Maybe he played a judge on TV? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 10:44:48 AM EST
    I'm starting to think that Trump doesn't believe relevant experience, education and competence are elements of qualification - as long as someone can "act" the part, what's the problem?

    It's as if this is the Trump version of The Truman Show, and everyone's just playing a part.

    Not to mention that I think Trump will not tolerate having people around him whom he believes people will think are smarter than he is.  And since it doesn't appear to me that he's as smart as he has deluded himself into thinking he is, this is a very low bar.

    But he does seem to admire grifters, cheaters and child molesters, so that explains a lot, too.


    As Tr*mp said, he hires (none / 0) (#82)
    by vml68 on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 10:19:44 AM EST
    "only the best" and "top, top people"!

    All part of the "so much winning, we are going to get tired of winning" strategy.


    a Christmas Story (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 09:10:49 AM EST
    just went to the supermarket.  they have one of those things where you put in a quarter and try to grab s stuffed toy.  as i approach the checkout i see the elderly checkout lady Bart Simpson level involved in trying to grab a toy.  cute, I thought.  does she really not know what a scam that is.  and then plop,  she pulls out a stuffed moose.

    when i get to the checkout and she scurries over she drops the moose in a box with about a half dozen others.  big denture smile, "christmas shoppin" she says.
    i say "damn you must be an ace"
    "not really" she says "I was just here when they set the thing to payoff every seven bucks" and waving a dogeared piece of paper "just gotta count the quarters".

    ha ha ha ha! That is such a wonderful story! n/t (none / 0) (#111)
    by leap on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 09:53:31 AM EST

    It made me laugh (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    All the way home the more I thought about it.

    First, she can't be there all the time to count the quarters, right.  And judging from the condition of that paper record this is not a new enterprise.  
    She must have team members on other shifts.  It's 24 hours.  Which would also explain the box.  Clearly they will split the take.



    What if you outed them? (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 10:54:57 AM EST
    you seriously think (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 11:00:53 AM EST
    management reads TalkLeft?

    We have an obscurist (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 11:12:34 PM EST
    commenter. [Snk.]

    also (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 11:01:53 AM EST
    i konw that lady, sort of.  she is fully aware i am the very last customer to ever put a quarter in that thing.

    C'mon, it's the CDC... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 01:58:50 PM EST
    The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation's top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases -- including "fetus" and "transgender" -- in any official documents being prepared for next year's budget.

    Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based."

    It's a bad new world.

    Where is George Carlin (none / 0) (#129)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 10:13:18 PM EST
    This is wild. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 05:18:16 PM EST
    Maybe it will be the grays that save us from tRump if Mueller gets fired.

    Seriously, watch the video.

    Jeez - Giorgio was right! (none / 0) (#153)
    by desertswine on Mon Dec 18, 2017 at 07:21:24 PM EST
    Rare Mueller response (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 08:32:28 AM EST
    To republicans letter stunt -

    Peter Carr, Special Counsel spokesman:
    "When we have obtained emails in the course of our ongoing criminal investigation, we have secured either the account owner's consent or appropriate criminal process."

    Interesting double use of the word "criminal"

    Quite (none / 0) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 09:24:16 AM EST
    the stash,
    Special Counsel Robert Mueller has obtained "many tens of thousands" of Trump transition emails, including emails of Jared Kushner, transition team sources tell Axios.

    Trump officials discovered Mueller had the emails when his prosecutors used them as the basis for questions to witnesses, the sources said.
    The emails include 12 accounts, one of which contains about 7,000 emails, the sources said.
    The accounts include the team's political leadership and the foreign-policy team, the sources said.

    It really seems like (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 09:30:27 AM EST
    This could be the week.  Rumors flying about Trumps plan to wait until just before Christmas when congress is out of town and fire Mueller.

    Which they say he can do one way.  By repealing the rule the allowed Mueller to be appointed in the first place.  Which he can probably do.

    It could be a red Christmas.  In the red wedding sense.  

    Opposition groups are already organizing instant massive protests all across the country.

    Fasten you seatbelt and do the tray table thing.


    And find your nearest local (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 09:31:08 AM EST
    Protest.  Already found mine.

    Where did you find your local (none / 0) (#139)
    by caseyOR on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 11:32:20 AM EST
    protest? Is there a website?

    MoveOn (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 11:35:06 AM EST
    Is a good place to start.   I was fortunate enough to have fhe organizer email me from Eureka Springs.  The hotbed of local BLUE.

    I've already been pondering possible protests (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 18, 2017 at 07:07:50 AM EST
    Shutting this place down. We are so flow of traffic dependent, DC is very vulnerable to a protest of the size that seems to be prepping. The 2005 Iraq War protest really burdened downtown, a Mueller firing could shut it down.

    Oops, I used a forbidden word (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 18, 2017 at 07:10:33 AM EST
    Vulnerable. Nothing within Trump's influence is vulnerable. My bad

    I think he's got to fire Rosenstein first. (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 10:44:07 AM EST
    Assuming Rosenstein refuses to fire Mueller.  And based on Rosenstein's testimony last week, it sure didn't seem to me he's feeling inclined to fire Mueller if ordered to.

    Here's a pretty weedy article on the issue, for what it's worth.

    A small section:

    Watergate teaches several lessons relevant to our current situation. First, even if regulations do not trump the President's orders, Attorneys General (or those acting in that capacity) may feel compelled to honor their word with respect to the appointment of special prosecutors. Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus resigned with honor because of pledges they made to the Senate as part of their confirmations. Along similar lines, that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein voluntarily imposed Section 600.7(d)'s "good cause" standard on Mueller's appointment amounts to something of a promise to the American people about the counsel's independence. He was not obligated to do so. If asked to fire Mueller, Rosenstein would likely resign.

    Second, even if one Acting Attorney General makes that pledge, his successors are not necessarily so bound. The district court in Nader explained that "we are once again confronted with a situation in which the Attorney General voluntarily limited his otherwise broad authority." It was Richardson, a single officer-holder, who imposed that limitation on himself. To that point, Bork, as acting Attorney General, did not feel duty-bound to honor the promise that his predecessors made to the Senate. Critically, Rosenstein's decision to impose the "good cause" standard was his, and his alone. He did not even notify the White House in advance. In contrast, Richardson and the Nixon administration worked closely in promulgating the Watergate regulations.

    If Rosenstein refused an order to fire Mueller, and instead resigned, the obligation would fall to Rachel Brand, who was recently confirmed as the Associate Attorney General. Brand made no such promises during her Senate confirmation, and may disagree with Rosenstein about the need for an insulated prosecutor. After Brand, according to Trump's February 9, 2017 executive order, the task would fall to the U.S. Attorneys for the Eastern District of Virginia (Dana Boente, who fired Sally Yates when temporarily elevated to Acting Attorney General), Northern District of Illinois, and the Western District of Missouri, respectively. At least one of these officials would have to decide whether Mueller could be fired at will, notwithstanding Section 600.7(d) and would have to consider to what extent they are bound by Rosenstein's initial determination. As a constitutional matter, however, a single Deputy Attorney General--one who holds his office at the President's pleasure--cannot forever bind the President's powers.

    Watergate teaches a third lesson: If someone in the chain of command follows Trump's order to fire Mueller without a showing of "good cause," Section 600.7(d) will serve as no constitutional barrier. That said, invariably suit will be filed under the APA seeking Mueller's reinstatement, even though Section 600.10 expressly precludes any rights "enforceable at law or equity."

    I think what we've got coming is a real constitutional crisis, and a real test for Republicans (and given what seems to me to be Republicans' woefully lacking understanding of constitutional principles, the problem of first getting past the cacophony of stupid is going to be daunting).  

    And then there's the now-more-important-than-ever Supreme Court, which may make the Bush v. Gore case seem minor in comparison.

    Add to this scenario the growing plans for protests around the country that are showing potential for being massive, and we may need to add in a worry about things like martial law.

    Something wicked this way comes - has been coming for some time in all areas of government.

    Wicked and ugly like we've never seen before.


    Probably a Better Option for Trump (none / 0) (#144)
    by RickyJim on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 06:15:48 PM EST
    would be to immediately  pardon whomever Mueller indicts instead of firing Mueller.  Then Fox News will parade out "legal experts" saying the pardons don't constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.  

    Let (none / 0) (#135)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 10:10:05 AM EST
    us hope that Mueller has set up a doomsday device.

    Protests will be needed but probably futile, if the FBI and the Justice Department fold we are doomed.

    Fox is ramping the anti-Muller vitriol to eleven, astonishing even by FOX standards. tRump will not deny them, I agree probably after he signs the Oligarch Enrichment Act and Congress is adjourned

    I'm wondering if Mueller won't launch a preemptive strike with some big indictments and arrests. Kushner?  


    I'm wondering (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 10:22:52 AM EST
    The same thing.

    Shorter version keep your antenna up.  And buckle up.


    WaPo now reporting that behind (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 18, 2017 at 09:18:34 AM EST
    Closed doors Trump is saying Rosentein is a threat to his Presidency. And Trump is complaining about Rosenstein being a Democrat even though the man is a Republican.

    I would hazard a guess (none / 0) (#149)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Dec 18, 2017 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    that the dotard doofus assumes anyone who's name ends in "stein" is of the Jewish faith and further assume they are Democrats. None too bright that one.

    It does (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 17, 2017 at 11:09:00 AM EST
    seem that way the way the GOP is ratcheting up the rhetoric.

    I wonder if Mueller wouldn't stay even if Trump fired him because suit could be filed to test the legality of Trump repealing the rule.

    However maybe Mueller will just hang everyone of these jokers out to dry by putting the indictments out at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.


    Appeals court to rule on Curtis Reeves (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    self defense claim. (BTW, is it appeals court, appellate court or court of appeals?)
    "What the defense did so well in this case is create such a good record for the appellate court to rule on. What they are asking for the appellate court to do is review all the evidence as they were the ones hearing this case," explained Rickman. Reeves is appealing Pasco judge Susan Barthle's ruling in March...
    ..."If Reeves wins his appeal, the case is over and he walks away a free man," said Rickman. If he doesn't, Reeves goes to trial. For now, the case is on hold until the appeals court rules.

    Reeves is charged with the shooting and killing of Chad Olsen during a movie theater dispute, possibly involving popcorn, in 2014.  Here's a  video of the incident.

    In the state courts system in Florida: (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 07:00:10 PM EST
    Court of Appeal.

    Apparentl the Fox legal analyst did not specify how this case ended up at the court of appeal prior to trial. Assume defendant filed a writ, the appellate court did not issue a summary rejection, and has now set the date by which the prosecution must file its brief in opposition to defendant's brief. In other words, the court of appeal has not ruled on the merits.


    Say what? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 07:14:32 PM EST
    If Curtis Reeves -- a retired Tampa Police Dept. captain -- shot Chad Oulson merely because the man threw some popcorn at him, then he clearly overreacted or has an anger management problem, and either way he's likely guilty as charged of second-degree murder.

    And if the 2nd Florida Court of Appeals inexplicably rules that throwing popcorn at a 71-year-old man in a movie theatre is grounds for justifiable homicide under that state's "Stand Your Ground" law, then the Florida judiciary is likely just as unhinged, as well.

    Reeves' story, as he related to the trial judge, is that he took exception to Oulsen's text-messaging in that movie theater. Specifically, Reeves alleges that when he complained to the now-deceased Oulsen, the guy threw his cell phone at him, which prompted Reeves to then pull his gun and shoot him in "self-defense."

    Needless to say, Oulsen's widow Nicole -- who was also shot and wounded in the hand by Reeves while instinctively attempting to get her husband, who had stood up and turned around to confront his accuser, to sit back down in his seat -- takes issue with the defendant's version of events.

    She does not dispute that Reeves complained to her husband several times about the texting, and further testified that her husband ignored Reeves, prompting the older man to leave the theatre to complain to an employee or manager. Was Chad Oulsen being rude and obnoxious? Perhaps. Did his rudeness and obnoxiousness constitute an imminent threat to Reeves, thus providing legal justification for the older Reeves to subsequently take the young man's life? You've got to be kidding.

    Per Sec. 776.013(3), Fla. Stat., a person is justified in using deadly force when that person:

    • Is attacked in a place where he has a legal right to be;
    • Is not engaged in any unlawful activity; and
    • Reasonably believes that it is necessary to use force to prevent death or great bodily harm.

    For her part, Judge Susan Barthle ruled that the video evidence introduced by the defense from that theatre's security camera does not support the defendant's contention that the deceased threw his cell phone at him, and further found that based on that video evidence, the defendant "was not in fear of great bodily harm of death." She therefore dismissed Reeve's claim to "Stand Your Ground" as not credible, which leaves him subject to the murder charge and an accompanying trial.

    Speaking as someone who is not a criminal attorney but who knows how criminal law is first proposed, and then debated, amended and enacted, as I would understand it, it was the clear intent of Florida lawmakers that "Stand Your Ground" require an affirmative defense when staking such a claim. This means that the defendant must first establish an entitlement to immunity from prosecution based upon the preponderance of evidence, before such immunity can be granted by the Court under the law.

    I say "nominally," because the defense now apparently contends that just because the video evidence -- which they themselves were attempting to use on their client's behalf -- doesn't conclusively show the defendant being struck with a cell phone or anything else, for that matter, that "doesn't mean that something didn't hit him in the chest."

    (What was that "something" -- popcorn?)

    Or in other words, it sounds to me like the defense is arguing that Reeves should be entitled to assert a "Stand Your Ground" claim merely upon his own testimony and little or nothing else, regardless of whether or not there's any actual physical or eyewitness evidence to support or corroborate such a claim.

    Personally, I think if there was ever a legal "slippery slope," the defense's contention is certainly one. Do we seriously want to argue that one should be justified in shooting and killing another human being, on the sole basis of one's own personal affirmation that he or she felt an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm? Talk about a legal windfall for the paranoid!

    And I'm sorry, but that practically invites people to undertake personal vendettas by first confronting someone and then afterward, claiming that the injured or deceased party posed an imminent threat to their physical well being or life, with no physical or eyewitness evidence required in support. I really don't think we either need or want to go there as a modern and civilized 21st century society. This isn't Tombstone, AZ circa 1881, and we're not the Earp, Clanton and McLaury clans.

    It's been nearly four years since Curtis Reeves shot and killed Chad Oulsen in January 2014. The defendant is now 75 years old, and judging from his physical appearance, he doesn't look to be in the best of health. Is the defense trying to run out the clock here? Or are they hoping that witnesses' memories start to fade with the subsequent passage of time? It's a legitimate delaying tactic in either event, so I don't blame them if they are -- but I'm just sayin' it, nonetheless.



    What's painfully obvious is that Reeves, (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 07:22:30 AM EST
    despite years in law enforcement, apparently had no ability to interact with people in a way that didn't escalate situations to dangerous levels.  Or perhaps his years in law enforcement left him with the deluded notion that he must prevail in all interactions with the public.

    So, he didn't like that someone was texting during the movie.  Okay, that's reasonable (although texting would seem less irritating - to me, at least - than people talking on the phone or talking to their seatmates).  And sure, it's irritating to ask someone to stop, and get pretty much a MYOB response.  

    If it's that aggravating, and you're actually interested in watching the movie you paid to see, and it's clear that pushing the confrontation isn't going to get you anywhere, and will be disturbing to others who didn't pay to have their evening ruined, the smart thing is to get up and move to another seat - and  get over yourself.  Let it go.

    But no.  He was not going to be denied.  And now someone is dead.  

    Doesn't feel much like winning to me - over something as petty as someone texting during a movie.  And after starting the confrontation and doing nothing to de-escalate it, claiming he was just defending himself feels a lot like the classic case of the person who kills his parents and then wants special treatment because he's an orphan.

    Some observations: bullies - and Reeves sounds like a classic case - don't belong in law enforcement (yes, I know he was retired, but it's fair to think his attitude wasn't new).  Having a gun is a recipe for tragedy in the hands of someone who always has to win.  Everyone else out for a nice evening has a right to be and feel safe, and not worry that some bully with a gun will take exception to something to the point where he decides it's time to start shooting.  What will set someone off next time - making too much noise chewing your popcorn?  Coughing?  Having to get up too many times to use the bathroom?

    I'm sick of these incidents.  They are a drain on the system, they contribute nothing to public safety, and they are a terrible argument for why unfettered gun rights are good.


    I don't believe Stand Your Ground (none / 0) (#9)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 07:37:18 PM EST
    applies to this case.  It's hard to tell by the grainy video but when approaced by Oulsen, Reeves doesn't really have the ability to retreat. If anything, this is a regular self defense case.

    Again, hard to tell from the video, but I see an argument in favor all three of the requirements you listed...

    • Is attacked in a place where he has a legal right to be;
    • Is not engaged in any unlawful activity; and
    • Reasonably believes that it is necessary to use force to prevent death or great bodily harm.

    It looked like Oulsen was about to get physically violent.
    Do we seriously want to argue that one should be justified in shooting and killing another human being, on the sole basis of one's own personal affirmation that he or she felt an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm?

    If there's legitimate reason to believe that, yes, I think so.

    It "looked like" (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 09:22:31 PM EST
    at that point, why didn't you or any of the other attendees attempt to intervene, McBain?

    Of course we know these things sometimes happen in a flash..

    My question is, after presumably getting up from his seat once already, why did the man carrying the loaded gun decide to keep sitting behind the one person in the theatre he had a problem with rather than relocating?


    Reeve's perspective (none / 0) (#22)
    by linea on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 10:24:12 PM EST
    From the filing - 71 year old Reeves was attacked by a 6 foot 4 inch tall, 43 year old man, who grabbed a bag of popcorn from Reeve's hand and then shoved it back against Reeve's body.

    Mr. Reeves had no advance knowledge as to the type of physical attack or assault that Mr. Oulson was going to inflict upon him at the time Oulson's hand and arm approached the 71 year old.



    Reeves had advance knowledge (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 10:50:20 PM EST
    of the sort of lethal attack He was willing to inflict -- over someone texting too much in a darkened movie theatre.

    no idea (none / 0) (#25)
    by linea on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 11:22:17 PM EST
    I don't have a knowlegable opinion on this case. I was simply posting Reeve's claimed perspective from his legal filings.

    He literally a hundred effin' places (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 11:08:00 AM EST
    to sit in the theatre, yet he chose to take his loaded gun and go back and sit behind only person in the place he had a problem with -- in the great Florida tradition of protecting one's "ground."

    If he gets off, is he going to start posting pictures of Oulson's dead body and hawking confederate flags, or is that only done in Florida when the victim is a trophy-quality black man?


    I love that bit about (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 11:15:20 AM EST
    "he didn't have a chance to retreat"

    Somebody saw too many of those fifties-sixties tv cowboys who "never goes looking for trouble, trouble always finds him."


    By arming himself (none / 0) (#36)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 10:43:22 AM EST
    ...with a loaded firearm before entering the theater, Reeves shows that the shooting was premeditated.  Clearly he didn't know WHOM he was going to shoot, because the other attendees would obviously be strangers, but there is no other reason to carry such a weapon into a theater if you DON'T plan to shoot someone.

    There is no expectation in a movie theater that one will have to defend his life, so the purpose of bringing the gun in was to TAKE a life, any life.

    I believe the circumstances, which show that the shooter planned in advance to shoot someone in that theater, make it First Degree murder.  Is it First Degree murder if the victim is not known to the killer but is randomly selected to be killed?  Ask any serial killer.


    I don't know... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 10:46:13 AM EST
    if leaving the house with a loaded weapon to go anywhere but hunting makes you a premeditated shooter if you shoot somebody, but I'm damn sure it makes you a premeditated arsehole.

    Donald I'm with you all the way. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 08:12:08 PM EST
    But I want to point out that cops seem to get away with killing people all the time by simply stating "I was in fear for my life."

    You can thank SCOTUS for affirming that ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 02:26:18 PM EST
    ... as a legitimate legal claim. Even when video evidence underscores such a claim as preposterous, juries have proved very reluctant to convict police officers of murder or even manslaughter.

    The Hawaii Supreme Court just cleared the way for former federal LEO Christopher Deedy to be tried a third time in Honolulu for the shooting death of Kollin Elderts during a drunken brawl six years ago at a Waikiki McDonald's.

    I have little confidence that this one will end any differently, even though the security video clearly shows that Deedy -- who'd been out drinking all evening -- aggressively instigated the confrontation, and numerous eyewitnesses testified to that effect.

    But no, Mr. Deedy was in fear for his life, don'tcha know, particularly since he was obviously getting his a$$ kicked by Elderts, and never mind that he started it. So, he gets to pull out his gun and kill him. It's sad that such cowards get the benefit of the doubt, merely by hiding behind their badges.



    According to the link you provided (none / 0) (#102)
    by McBain on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 08:17:01 PM EST
    In the second trial, the judge told the jury they could consider a lesser charge of manslaughter even though the prosecutors didn't ask for it.  How often does that happen? Then the jury came back with not guilty verdict for murder but were hung on manslaughter. Now there's going to be a third trial? Doesn't seem fair to me.    

    i agree (none / 0) (#105)
    by linea on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 09:03:07 PM EST
    At this point, an independant judge should evaluate whether the prosecution is acting in good faith or simply retrying the same case over and over to get a conviction.

    Meanwhile, Deedy's attorney says he plans to appeal the Supreme Court ruling to the federal courts.

    "We're committed to making sure there will never be a third trial in this case," said attorney Thomas Otake. "It is just wrong to continue to try somebody time and time and time again until you get the result you want."

    Six years ago, Deedy was in Hawaii as a U.S. State Department agent participating in the APEC summit when he fatally shot 23-year-old Kollin Elderts during an altercation inside the McDonald's.

    The jury deadlocked on manslaughter. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 09:59:29 PM EST
    Christopher Deedy was acquitted of second-degree murder, but a decided majority of jurors (I think it was 10-2) favored his conviction on a manslaughter charge. The Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled on the matter in accordance with state law. He will stand trial again, this time for manslaughter, regardless of whether or not you believe it to be fair.

    After this post, I'm not going to comment any further on the Deedy case because the late Kollin Elderts was a high school classmate and friend of my elder daughter, and his killing upset her greatly. Suffice to say that I have my own very decided opinions about Deedy, based upon what I learned from friends of my daughter who were with the deceased that night celebrating his birthday, and who know what really went down in that McDonald's.

    Let's just say that while you are intoxicated from a long night of drinking in an unfamiliar city where you are a complete stranger, you really shouldn't butt into an animated conversation between two people who are unknown to you.

    Further, when told in no uncertain terms by both parties -- who also so happen to be longtime acquaintances -- to get lost because it's none of your business, you shouldn't then make it your business by calling one of them (who's a Native Hawaiian) a "ni GG er," saying that you have a gun and then threatening to shoot him right in front of his friends. (NOTE: Deedy, who's a Virginia native, never identified himself to the deceased or his friends as a federal law enforcement officer.)

    Finally, having done all that, you shouldn't be completely shocked when that Hawaiian immediately perceives you as a mortal threat and responds by punching your lights out. And afterward, you shouldn't now get to claim that you're an officer of the law who had to shoot and kill the Hawaiian -- whom you had just threatened moments before -- in self-defense.



    What strikes me (none / 0) (#150)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 18, 2017 at 12:37:30 PM EST
    is that many accept that, by all accounts, Elderts was very aggressive toward Deedy after Elderts knew that Deedy had a gun.

    In fact the un-armed Elderts "lunged" at the "armed-and-dangerous" Deedy right after Deedy tried to shoot him.

    Honolulu Deputy Prosecutor Janice Futa said: "The defendant is up and draws from his right rear hip area the gun. Kollin turns around and sees him and the defendant within three feet of Kollin Elderts and fires his gun. He misses. Kollin, now having been shot at by the defendant, lunges toward him reaching for the gun.

    Yet in the Mike Brown case, a similar scenario took place when the un-armed Brown reportedly charged at the "armed-and-dangerous" officer Wilson.

    But many find it unreasonable, or unbelievable, that Brown could have possibly "gone after" Wilson.

    Obviously I wasn't at either shooting, but I would suggest that people do sometimes do things in the heat of the moment that might seem odd to us, afterward, in the cold light of day...


    Pretty silly article (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 03:20:41 PM EST
    But I enjoyed it.


    "Were the Moores really fellowshipping with rabbis? There was only one way to find out. I decided I would try to call every rabbi in Alabama. Here is what happened."

    Spoiler alert - the reporter did not reach every Rabbi in Alabama, nor did they find one who fellowshipped with the Moores.

    They also failed to mention (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 05:43:39 PM EST
    that their "Jew Lawyer" is one of the Jews for Jesus crowd.

    Members of Jews for Jesus may be ethnically Jewish (4.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 08:05:40 PM EST
    or come from Jewish families, but they are not Jews in the sense implied by Ms. Moore, that is, adherents of a different religion. J4J is a conservative Protestant Christian sect (I refrain from saying "cult"). Her association with one or more of them therefore does not refute a suggestion of religious bigotry.

    I have a friend (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 09:32:49 PM EST
    who went to Passover at someone's house who was hosting it. She's Jewish of course. She went there and he had all these pictures of Jesus all over the place. She asked him about it and he said he was a Messianic Jew. She thought it was the craziest thing.

    They found the Rabbi.. (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 06:48:53 PM EST
    and it immediately became apparent why the Moores didn't mention him by name, considering that it's a Rabbi who has publicly stated that gay marriage was the cause of both the Biblical Great Flood and Hurricane Sandy.

    Rabbi Noson Leiter (none / 0) (#16)
    by linea on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 09:35:40 PM EST
    I don't believe Rabbi Leiter's views would be considered extreme within Orthodox Judaism as orthodoxy is strongly opposed to male homosexuality:
    Jewish law holds that no hedonistic ethic, even if called "love", can justify the morality of homosexuality any more than it can legitimize adultery or incest, however genuinely such acts may be performed out of love and by mutual consent.

    The assertion that male gay marriage was the cause of Noah's flood is a citation of the Midrash Rabba which states:

    Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Joseph: The generation of the flood was not obliterated from the world until they wrote marriage contracts from males and beasts.

    Certainly true of the traditional Orthodox, Linea (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 10:06:36 PM EST
    There are also "modern Orthodox" who would not agree. Judaism is a perfect example of how there is no group too small to be divided into numerous subgroups. (This is true of all three religions that I know well, including as parts of my family, that is, Catholics, Jews and Quakers.) Can you say (or spell) "schism"?

    I think we should start a ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 07:35:41 PM EST
    The Trump Family (none / 0) (#10)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 08:03:18 PM EST
    ...tried to vote in the recent NYC mayoral election..  All their votes were rejected for failure to fill out the form properly.

    So white people who can't fill out a voting form are the same people who want to make it harder for Black people to vote.

    seems (none / 0) (#17)
    by linea on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 09:48:05 PM EST
    Pretty easy to confuse county with country on a legal form. I do that all the time and I'm a fluent/native English speaker with a University degree.

    I thought you had previously identified (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 10:09:01 PM EST
    yourself as not being a native English speaker, Linea. Please clarify.

    not true (none / 0) (#23)
    by linea on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 10:44:17 PM EST
    I'm a U.S. citizen. I have `Native / Bilingual Proficiency' in two languages one of which is English, `Full Professional Proficiency' in a third and `Elementary Proficiency' in a fourth language. I'm very educated.

    That's all very interesting, but not the question (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 08:58:30 AM EST
    that I was trying to ask. Unless my own English proficiency is lacking on this point, I thought "native" proficiency (as opposed to "fluency") means that you were born in an English-speaking country and raised from a baby speaking English. It does not address the question of citizenship, multilingual capacity, or education. Nor even proficiency per se. A native English speaker, I thought, was one whose primary language was English from birth, due to the person's nativity, that is, where she was born.

    When in almost every thread we seem to (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 10:02:17 AM EST
    find it necessary to devote more than a few comments to what words mean, it strikes me that either "native/proficient" doesn't mean what we expect it should mean, or the standards for such a designation are lower than we had probably assumed.



    I have a high school (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 10:33:57 AM EST

    I have a black belt (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    It's leather with a silver buckle.

    I suppose I could divulge (none / 0) (#79)
    by linea on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 01:26:42 AM EST
    That I have a High School Diploma.

    Cue the sound ... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 08:54:15 PM EST
    ... of a horrendously loUd "WHOOOOOOOSSHHHH".

    BTW - My grandmother was fluent in 2 languages and conversant in 2 more.  She was not remotely "educated" having only a few years of schooling, and yet she was more intelligent than most people I know with graduate degrees.


    Anne is right (none / 0) (#73)
    by linea on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 07:27:52 PM EST
    Nobody wants to read arguing definitions for native fluency and formatively acquired or similar terms.

    Ha! Thank-you for this comment, Linea. (none / 0) (#78)
    by vml68 on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 12:05:49 AM EST
    I found it deliciously funny.
    Peter, Anne, it is time to concede defeat. Linea proves once again, she is "very educated". ;-)!

    Proficiency in the meaning of symbols (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 01:29:14 AM EST
    tells me that, in this context, the diagonal slash in Native/Bilngual means Natve or Bilngual.

    You are not, you have told us, born in this country and a native speaker of English.

    But you are bilingual, including in English. And we can see that now includes capitalization! Congratulations on improvement..


    Peter G (none / 0) (#108)
    by linea on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 01:46:26 AM EST
    I feel it unfair to have pressured me to publically provide details of myself on a forum which has people who are overtly antagonistic toward me.

    I thought you had previously identified
    by Peter G
    yourself as not being a native English speaker, Linea. Please clarify.

    I never previously identified myself as not being a `native' English speaker. Other people have announced things about me that are incorrect or inaccurate. The only things that I previously mentioned on this forum is that I'm a woman, in my 20's, and that I live in Seattle and work in technology.

    For the record, I consider English my primary language and the language in which I am most proficient. I have been a U.S. citizen since early adolescence. I was not `naturalized' and have never been married. I have a High School Degree from a United States school district. However, my University degree is not from the United States; the language of instruction was a new language for me and required a full credit-year of college study as prerequisite.

    If you require additional details, I feel it would more appropriate to ask privately in an email.


    With no intention of being dismissive, (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 08:30:45 AM EST
    I'm not sure anyone cares, really; Peter wasn't fishing for personal data, just trying to reconcile what you have previously shared with your earlier comment. You are the one who keeps dropping little bits of personal info into comments, as a way of defending yourself, but those tidbits then end up confusing more than clarifying - and that's not getting any better.

    I've had - we've all had - the meaning of our words, comments and expressions questioned; it's a function, often, of the written word not being adequate: no one can "hear" the tone, "see" facial expressions or body language. I've never felt it necessary to provide the kind of information you do, I've just made additional efforts to expand and explain my meaning and intention.

    And believe it or not, questioning what someone means is more often about wanting to be sure the response that follows is to the original meaning of the comment and not the one being read into it.

    That being said, I can't think of another commenter whose comments consistently result in a series of explanatory and defensive follow-ups the way yours do. Is it that the community is uniformly and inexplicably dense where your words are concerned? Is that possible?

    My sense is that you try too hard. Maybe you would say you do that because we have you under a microscope and you're preemptively trying to fend off the follow ups, but I think that just sets you up for pushback.

    Try just "talking" as you would if you were hanging out with friends/acquaintances, and see how that goes.


    I have never fished for personal information (5.00 / 5) (#118)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 11:21:50 AM EST
    about you, or anyone else here ... despite being curious sometimes, of course. You more than anyone else here, other perhaps than Repack Rider and Donald from Hawaii, keep volunteering personal information. But the information you offer is sometimes hard to understand. My questions have only been an effort to comprehend the meaning of what you have volunteered, the sole purpose of which is to attempt to engage seriously with the substance of your comments.

    The problem is... (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 04:31:10 PM EST
    ...in my opinion, of course, is that you are new here and you jumped in with both feet before we even had a sense of who you are or why we should care what you think.

    I lurked here for quite some time before I commented. When I did finally did comment, I knew who was who and had a good sense of what made them tick. There was a connection to them even though I'd not interacted with anyone.

    Over the years, if one cared to pay attention, people would know though my comments where I was born and raised, my high school, where I went to college, where I live now, where my family lives, what my job is, what music I like, my medical problems and many other things that made me me. In other words, I put a little bit of myself out there, not just my opinions. The same is true of most of the people that have been here awhile. We are like a large extended family in many respects.

    Again, in my opinion, you are still a stranger here that we know very little about. It is up to you to let us know who and what you are and why we should invest in what you have to say.


    You should probably assume any personal (1.00 / 2) (#113)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 10:25:18 AM EST
    information you divulge here will be used in some kind of insult or personal attack.
    I feel it unfair to have pressured me to publically provide details of myself on a forum which has people who are overtly antagonistic toward me.

    I agree... it's not fair.... but that's just how it is here.  Don't expect good behavior from people who have demonstrated the opposite on several occasions.  


    Poppyock! (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Dec 18, 2017 at 08:56:18 AM EST
    When you "assume" you make an a$$ of YOU and me.

    YMMV (none / 0) (#152)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 18, 2017 at 02:41:24 PM EST
    You should probably assume any personal information you divulge here will be used in some kind of insult or personal attack.

    Silly me, I post LINKS to my personal information here.  That's because I use the Internet to direct people's attention to various commercial enterprises I am engaged in.

    Also, because I am not hiding anything from anyone.


    Trial. Trail (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 09:51:50 PM EST
    Calvary.  Cavalry

    Dessert.   Desert


    The one that terrifies me (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 10:10:00 PM EST
    in my professional writing is "public" and "pubic."

    And rightfully so (none / 0) (#27)
    by Towanda on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 11:32:40 PM EST
    as I well remember, when I worked in public relations -- at a religiously affiliated college - that a colleague had to have thousands of tickets to an event tossed, and thousands more printed, because of exactly that error on the tickets.  

    Opposing counsel's letter referenced (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 12:15:31 AM EST
    "pubic" entities.

    This is where over (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 11:30:44 AM EST
    reliance on spell check will bite you in the arse.

    Pennsylvania Governor. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 09:33:30 AM EST
    Women Can `Make Their Own Health Care Decisions'. Yeah. I voted for that guy. Good on Tom Wolf. (He lives about 5 miles from me.)

    Putin and Roy Moore (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 10:16:46 AM EST
    Mother Jones

    there is more news about this today.

    IN YER FACE VLAD (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 10:27:59 AM EST
    adieu Omarosa (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 11:15:59 AM EST
    we hardly knew ye

    but that was way fu@king more than enough

    It seems her departure (none / 0) (#41)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 11:20:22 AM EST
    is bigger news than anything she actually DID whilst in the job. Where's the photos of her walking down the WH driveway with her rollaway bag behind her?

    Good work if you can find it... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 11:26:32 AM EST
    170 grand a year to do...umm, nobody knows!  

    180 (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    i read

    179,700... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    the maximum allowed under the WH staff salary cap...thank goodness for socialism, otherwise we'd have been scammed for much much more.

    I do hope she has a lovely wedding since we paid her to plan it and all...lol.


    180 (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 11:40:29 AM EST
    Just draining that swamp. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 11:52:41 AM EST
    I just love that (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 06:39:00 PM EST
    Now, after literally being dragged out of the white house she is NOW going to tell us all what a terrible place it was.

    There are really no words for my contempt for this person. Well,  there are but they are disallowed

    Her 15 minutes were up about 14 minutes ago.


    A federa judge ordered (none / 0) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 12:11:02 PM EST
    a tightening of restrictions for Dennis Hastert, the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House (1987-2007).  As a part of his two-year term of supervised release from federal prison in July of 2017, and after serving 13 months of a 15 month term, Hastert was ordered not to possess stimulating materials and to undergo a s*x offender evaluation.  

    One day after the probation department submitted a report on Hastert, the judge ordered the tightening of the restrictions including barring him from possessing p*rnography, using s*x chat lines, and having contact with minors except in the presence of an adult who is aware of his sexual abuse of boys under age.

    Hastert entered a plea arrangement after illegally structuring bank withdrawals to keep "Individual A", a former high school wrestler when Hastert was wrestling coach, silent about wrongdoings from his past.  A lawsuit is pending in which Individual A claims a breach of contract..in the amount of $1.8 million plus interest.  

    Clarification, (none / 0) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 02:04:55 PM EST
    Hastert represented Illinois 14th Congressional District (1987-2007), was Republican Speaker of the House (1999-2007).  

    Disney to buy 21st Century Fox assets (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 12:12:49 PM EST
    Disney to buy 21st Century Fox assets in a deal worth more than $52 billion in stock

    Iger has been pretty much genius so far.

    He really has (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    I used to work for Disney and I hate him.

    But yeah, pretty much.


    I have a number of friends who work there. (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 12:36:44 PM EST
    Iger extended his contract from 2019 to 2021.

    He likes the game.


    From our local paper: (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 12:19:37 PM EST
    Dababneh leaving Assembly

    Local Democrat accused of sexual misconduct

    A special election is expected to be called to replace Assemblymember Matt Dababneh (DEncino), who announced Dec. 8 that he will resign from his position on Jan. 1.

    The news came four days after he was accused of masturbating in front of a woman in a Las Vegas bathroom last year.

    Dababneh, a San Fernando Valley native in his second term in office, denies the allegation.

    So Politico has a rumorish piece (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 01:20:33 PM EST
    That Paul Ryan plans on leaving office after the 2018 elections, after he has destroyed Social Security and Medicare. He plans to "fix" them and then leave the political stage forever after that.

    Politico did (none / 0) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 03:28:11 PM EST
    quite the fluff piece on Ryan, they should have gotten a room.   However, retirement does make sense that he is determined to reform (i.e., cut) Social Security, and Medicare in an election year. Ryan also has some serious challengers back in his home district.  Besides, he has realized all the dreams from his old college keggers. And, then there is that Freedom Caucus that is never up for governance.

    Ryan's curative for the massive lowering of taxes on wealthy individuals and big (and foreign) corporations is for women to have more babies.   There is a people problem, we need to have a greater birth rate to pay the taxes owing to the reduced revenue from lower taxes.  And, of course, curtailing immigration also exacerbates the situation.


    The planet is dying from over population (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 05:25:34 PM EST
    If you don't do this tax cut so you then can tell everyone you must destroy their social security and medicare, and you just allowed immigration, our economy is even more robust.

    It's like he had one dream in his teens, to destroy entitlements for Ayn. But he knows when he does it he's finished as a politician. So he hopes to reach this childhood dream and then he will run away?


    That's (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 05:29:43 PM EST
    Probably why he ran for vice president

    Historically average rates (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 11:33:08 AM EST
    of immigrations solves all ills.  Social Security for evah.

    it seems the "tax bill" (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 06:52:23 PM EST
    that i have been preaching for months would fail might be in some serious trouble

    to define "trouble" (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 07:21:24 PM EST
    Hayes just did a segment on this.

    Corker was a no in the last round, Flake has said hes a no without a Dreamer fix and is under a lot of pressure, Collins has said no unless the health care market is stablized-it is not and there is no indication it will be, McCain and Thad Cochran may be unable to vote and now Little Marco and Mike Lee say no unless there is an expanded child tax credit which there is no money to do.

    when you roll that all up with what happened tuesday in some senate race i heard something about it almost starts to look like light at the end of the tunnel.  of course that could be a train.  but as you know i am an optimist.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#72)
    by FlJoe on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 07:24:41 PM EST
    but cutting taxes for the rich is so rooted in their DNA I fear they will find a way.

    i actually think (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 07:41:10 PM EST
    ultimately the biggest danger could be they are beginning to realize they are doomed if they do and doomed if they dont so why not leave the counry with a big FU

    CNN (none / 0) (#88)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 02:23:17 PM EST
    reporting Rubio and Corker are now yes, looks like they have the votes now.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    As the saying goes, if you life depends on Rubio having a spine you are already dead.

    I will remain hopeful until the large lady sings


    From the too little... (none / 0) (#75)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 14, 2017 at 08:46:47 PM EST
    too late files, a new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows tRump's appoval rating dropping to 40%, closer to 538's 37% national rating.

    Trump is unpopular across a wide range of demographic groups in the state.
    Sixty-nine percent of women, 68 percent of Iowans making less than $50,000 a year, 67 percent of city-dwellers and 62 percent of independents disapprove of his performance.

    Sadly, in the Senate, Grassley (51%) and Ernst (48%), while having their approval ratings trend downward, still enjoy too much support.

    On the plus side for the midterms, D's are favored 40 to 34% statewide. In the 4th District, currently held by Steve King (Repugnant), its 36 to 39% with 14% undecided.

    The D's currently control one safe Congressional seat with one trending D and two toss-ups. With decent people running effective campaigns, there is hope for a sweep.

    I can only hope the people of my birthstate realize the harm done in the last election and make some amends.

    Lisa Bloom sought money for Trump accusers (none / 0) (#90)
    by McBain on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 03:52:21 PM EST
    according to this article.
    California lawyer Lisa Bloom's efforts included offering to sell alleged victims' stories to TV outlets in return for a commission for herself, arranging a donor to pay off one Trump accuser's mortgage and attempting to secure a six-figure payment for another woman who ultimately declined to come forward after being offered as much as $750,000, the clients told The Hill.

    I'm going to guess this isn't a crime or against the rules of law and politics?  But if true, it doesn't help the credibility of these accusers.
    Bloom told The Hill she had no contact with Clinton or her campaign, but declined to address any contacts with super PACs that supported the Democratic presidential nominee.

    There's a shocker (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 09:07:35 PM EST
    I'm going to guess this isn't a crime or against the rules of law and politics?  But if true, it doesn't help the credibility of these accusers.

    You mean in your mind it hurts their credibility?


    That's funny.

    BTW - You don't need to "guess" about whether it's against the "rules of law and politics (heh)".  It's absolutely legal - unlike assaulting women, conspiring against the United States, soliciting illegal campaign contributions, lying to the FBI. money laundering, lying to the FBI or on your SF-86, etc., etc., etc....


    word is Trump is pressuring (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 04:07:24 PM EST
    the house to shut the Russia thing down so he can bloviate about "no collusion" and to use as an excuse to fire Mueller.  Adam Schiff seems to think so.  just saw him and it was weird.  he is usually so careful about what he says.

    this reeks of desperation.

    it SO feels like something big is just around the corner.

    Very lengthy tweet from Schoeff on this (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 04:55:39 PM EST

    Saw that (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 05:08:00 PM EST
    The truth is the house thing was always a bit of a farce. Schiff is great but he was always crying in the wilderness.

    I am not panicked.  Yet.  In spite of the news also coming out today that some members of the house committee have suggested a massacre is eminent.  McCabe was scheduled to testify next week and they apparently hinted to Fox news he would not be in the job by that time.  And Sessions and Rosenstein might not either.

    But lets step back.  If he fires Sessions his replacement would have to be confirmed by the Senate.  There are plenty of republican senators, who btw run statewide, who will not jump on the crazy train.  

    I think shutting down the house investigation is just part of laying the groundwork to discredit whatever comes.

    As I said, I think something WICKED this way comes.


    Just heard an interesting thought (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    Ty Cobb recently announced "white house interviews are done".  Which was a bit if a head scratcher since that not only is that not his decision there is really no reason he would know that.

    The thought was that and this stuff with the house Intel committed was because they might know Mueller is about to announce he plans to interview the President and VP.  

    Everyone seems to think he would have to do that at some point.

    IMO that qualifies as WICKED.


    The worry (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 06:20:37 PM EST
    and the screeching from the GOP is apparently based on Jared's time in the house committee. Didn't he talk to them this week or maybe that was Usay or Qusay that was there.

    Anyway on twitter the rumors are that Jared is going to be indicted. Jared being indicted since he had the keys to Cambridge Analytica and a lot of other things is what the GOP thinks is going to be the end. And I would imagine Jared going down could very well be the end.


    The presidents legal team (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 07:49:57 PM EST
    Will meet with the Mueller team next week.



    Yeah, what's that about? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 08:35:49 PM EST
    I would guess setting up a time for Trump to testify under oath. We can all thank Ken Starr for that one I guess. Good lord with as much as Trump lies Mueller could give him 100 perjery indictments in that one sitting.

    Just finished (none / 0) (#96)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 05:29:01 PM EST
    "Collusion" by Luke Harding.   Certainly, more than enough to impeach...and Mueller must be crossing his "ts" and dotting his "is".  Collusion may well be the least of Trump's problems.  The country has made a serious mistake in electing Trump..the only surprise in that Trump has not fired Mueller long ago,  no matter the risk to that action, letting the chips fall as they may, will make Trump wish that the losing of  his good job as president, is his best outcome.

    Well I wish Meuller.. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by desertswine on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 11:06:18 PM EST
    would hurry up.

    I wish the same, and then I don't (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 11:12:58 AM EST
    Hurrying up is not conducive to producing one's best work, and in my experience this is particularly true of legal work.

    I love it (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 11:35:20 AM EST
    Haste makes waste.  It is the Christmas season, extensions for all!  Jubilee!   An extra 10 days......

    I feel as if we're running.. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 01:31:18 PM EST
    out of time.

    Trump Admin v. Birth Control Mandate (none / 0) (#98)
    by linea on Fri Dec 15, 2017 at 07:03:01 PM EST
    Court Temporarily Blocks Trump Order Against Contraceptive Coverage
    WASHINGTON -- A federal court on Friday blocked Trump administration rules that made it easier for employers to deny insurance coverage of contraceptives for women.

    Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Federal District Court in Philadelphia issued a preliminary injunction, saying the rules contradicted the text of the Affordable Care Act by allowing many employers to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage if they had religious or moral objections.

    Pentagon UFO program (none / 0) (#126)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 16, 2017 at 08:55:35 PM EST
    In May, Bigelow told "60 Minutes" that he's "absolutely convinced" that aliens exist and he doesn't care if it makes him sound crazy. There has been and is an existing presence, an ET presence. And I spent millions and millions and millions -- I probably spent more as an individual than anybody else in the United States has ever spent on this subject."

    How about making all the UFO files public?

    They have a plan for Trump right? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 18, 2017 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    Most of 2018 (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 18, 2017 at 08:55:04 PM EST
    not even close to the end

    WASHINGTON - White House lawyers are expected to meet with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office late this week seeking good news: that his sprawling investigation's focus on President Donald Trump will soon end and their client will be cleared.

    But people familiar with the probe say that such assurances are unlikely and that the meeting could trigger a new, more contentious phase between the special counsel and a frustrated president, according to administration officials and advisers close to Trump.

    People with knowledge of the investigation said it could last at least another year - pointing to ongoing cooperation from witnesses like former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, as well as a possible trial of two former Trump campaign officials. The special counsel's office has continued to request new documents related to the campaign and members of Mueller's team have told others they expect to be working through much of 2018, at the minimum.

    Dotard doofus (none / 0) (#155)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Dec 19, 2017 at 08:04:28 AM EST
    can crow at his next rally how many good paying, long term jobs he's created at the Justice dept.