"The Peeler" wrote in message news:626KF.5171$dz5....@usenetxs.com...
>On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 06:27:18 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
>bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
>sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Kernal Korn", farted again:
>>>
>>>EAT SHIT & DIE!!!
>>
>> Well SAID, KKKohen!
>That was none other than your former gay whore Loose Sphincter, spreading
>her asscheeks WIDE for you again. Obviously you took her up on her offer,
>dreckserb Razovic!
Indeed the mangina did.
Now here is Jack Marshall writing about the ethics of impeachment.
http://ethicsalarms.com/2019/12/17/impeachment-ethics-update-holiday-edition-part-one/
Impeachment Ethics Update, Holiday Edition, Part One
DECEMBER 17, 2019 / JACK MARSHALL
1. A recent exchange in a Facebook debate: I challenged someone who said
that the President had extorted a foreign government to get “dirt” on a
likely opponent in the election, thus personal gain. This, he said, was
impeachable. After pointing out that the evidence of “extortion” is
speculative at best, since a) no money was ultimately withheld, b) the
government at issue says they did not feel extorted, and c), as many have
pointed out, using such goodies as foreign aid and state visits as carrots
to persuade governments to agree to various U.S. requests and demands that,
among other results, might help a President or his party win an election is
international politics as usual, and has only been called sinister during
this administration.
Then I asked, “If all the facts were the same, except that Joe Biden had not
entered the Presidential race, would there be anything wrong, much less
impeachable, about the President asking the Ukraine to investigate what
appears to have been possible illicit influences on the Vice President of
the U.S. through benefits being showered on his son?”
No answer was forthcoming.
So much for impeachment article #1.
2. Alan Dershowitz explained last week that the Supreme Court “pulled the
rug out of part two of impeachment” by agreeing to hear a trio of cases
involving subpoenas for the President’s financial records. He is quite
right; I would say inarguably so.
Dershowitz explained that by granting certiorari in three cases where Trump
had challenged a congressional subpoena, SCOTUS had made a statement that
there was a legal question regarding whether the subpoenas were valid.
Because the Supreme Court said the issue needed to be settled, the message
was that the President was right,, that he does not have to comply with a
subpoena by Congress unless a court orders him to comply.
“Now, we don’t know how the court is going to come out,” the former Harvard
professor said. “But they made it clear that’s a viable issue. So, that
charge, that ground of impeachment, should be immediately removed by the
House and not sent to the Senate. There’s nothing to it anymore after the
Supreme Court today said you’re entitled to a review on an issue when the
President challenges the subpoena power of Congress.”
And that’s it for #2. “It’s all done. It’s over,” says Dershowitz .
3. Trying to pick just one hysterical rant by one of the New York Times’
coup collaborators on the op-ed pages is tough; there’s at least one new
brain-melting screed every day. David Leonhardt had a strong entry last week
with “The Eight Counts of Impeachment That Trump Deserves” Leonhardt is not
a lawyer, nor a political scientist. He’s mathematician who has been in
journalism since college, and his strongly worded opinions on government
matters typically have more certitude than scholarship behind them. His
“Eight Counts” contained such howlers as “5. Acceptance of emoluments: The
Constitution forbids the president from profiting off the office by
accepting “emoluments.” Yet Trump continues to own his hotels, allowing
politicians, lobbyists and foreigners to enrich him and curry favor with him
by staying there. On Sunday, William Barr, the attorney general, personally
paid for a 200-person holiday party at Trump’s hotel in downtown
Washington.” Of course, Trump does not receive direct enrichment from hotel
bills, since they are owned by a corporation. A recent study indicated that
Trump’s hotel brand has suffered since he became President, and there is no
evidence that he has profited from being President. Then there’s “6.
Corruption of elections.” He writes, “Very few campaign-finance violations
are impeachable. But $280,000 in undisclosed hush-money payments during a
campaign’s final weeks isn’t a normal campaign-finance violation. The 2016
election was close enough — decided by fewer than 80,000 votes across three
swing states — that the silence those payments bought may well have flipped
the outcome.” He’s talking about the Stormy Daniels scandal. Actually, there
is no precedent suggesting that any campaign-finance violations are
impeachable, or that conduct prior to becoming President was the object of
the Founders’ impeachment clause. Moreover, the idea that paying off a
shakedown by a mistress is a campaign finance violation has been almost
universally debunked. None of Leonhardt’s Big Eight are more than anti-Trump
spin regarding conduct that can just as easily be justified.
But still, he loses the competition to Michelle Goldberg, whose “Democracy
Grief Is Real: Seeing what Trump is doing to America, many find it hard to
fight off despair” is a masterpiece in the genre of projecting one’s own
unethical conduct onto the innocent. It’s also a classic example of Big Lie
#5: “Everything is Terrible.”
The thing is really quite spectacular: while Democrats are abusing the
Constitutional impeachment process as a culmination of three full years of
trying to defy and undermine our democracy by undoing a lawful
election…while they are giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens and
plotting to give them the vote…while they are pursuing limits on the First,
Second and Fifth Amendments, elimination of private health insurance,
subjugation of areas of self-government to international bodies, and the
required dictatorial powers to force businesses and citizens to accept
Draconian measures to address speculative climate change in the future,
Goldberg writes of despair because “democracy is dying” —because of the
President who opposes these policies. It’s pretty clear by now what the Left
means when they say things like that: democracy is dying any time they lose.
Goldberg talks to a whiny progressive, who says,
“It’s like watching someone you love die of a wasting disease” (speaking of
our country), she says. “Each day, you still have that little hope no matter
what happens, you’re always going to have that little hope that everything’s
going to turn out O.K., but every day it seems like we get hit by something
else.” Some mornings, she said, it’s hard to get out of bed. “It doesn’t
feel like depression,” she said. “It really does feel more like grief.”
Seek psychiatric help, dear. What hits you? Mean tweets? I could fisk this
garbage with ease, but it’s 3 am, and Goldberg’s fantasy is self-rebutting.
My serious question: how brainwashed and biased does someone have to be to
read such nonsense and not react with rolled eyes and a cancelled
subscription?