Category Archives: Media

October 23, 2020 · 23:33

Is avoidance & evasion the same?

The stage has been set from the very beginning, Ghislaine Maxwell is out and there is a firing squad, she had hoped that it is was all going towards Epstein, but he offed himself, or so they say. So at this point there is the setting where Ghislaine Maxwell is out and in front and the firing squad wants its day, it want to fire bullets, so that they can say “I was in a firing squad”, yet the setting is less simple and when we see the deposition, we see more than we want, from the very beginning. From the very beginning those who read closer to what is actually said will see that Ghislaine Maxwell was well prepared, perhaps too prepared. I understand, this does not make sense to you, so let’s show you.

The very first question towards the girls involved is:

Q. When did you first recruit a female to work for Mr. Epstein? 

This is followed by the immediate response:

MR. PAGLIUCA: I object to the form and foundation of the question. I believe this is confidential information. I ask anyone who is not admitted in this case be excused from the room, please. 
MS. McCAWLEY: So the response to that question would — 
MR. PAGLIUCA: The subject matter of this question is confidential and I’m designating it as confidential. 

As we see here, her attorney labelled the information ‘I’m designating it as confidential’

This is the light in which this deposition sets, As I personally see it, there is a larger play at work, I would presume that the attorney has a view on a much larger playing area. This is further exposed  after certain parties are expelled from the room. 
Q: So Ms. Maxwell, when did you first female to work for Mr. Epstein? 
MR. PAGLIUCA: Again. I object to form and foundation of the question.
Q. You can answer the question. 
A. First of all, can you please clarify the question. I don’t understand what you mean by female, I don’t understand what you mean by recruit. Please be more clear and specific about what you are suggesting.

And we see more of this

Q. How old was the youngest female you ever hired to work for Jeffrey? 
MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. 
Q. You can answer.
A. I have not any idea exactly of the youngest adult employee that I hired for Jeffrey. 
Q. When you say adult employee, did you ever hire someone that was under the age of 18?
A. Never 

This deposition is filled, filled to the brim of avoidance and evasionary tactics, Ghislaine Maxwell was indeed well prepared and the part you just saw is also the gravy of the train, if any of the ladies were ever under 18, that is the ballgame and she knows it, more importantly her attorneys do. This is not someone who cared, this is not someone who cared about the protection of children, and in this ABC does an even better job. They give the audience “Ms McCawley persists and asks Ms Maxwell, in different forms, a further 27 times if she believed Epstein sexually abused minors. Among Ms Maxwell’s responses were lines about how she believed Ms Giuffre was a liar and that she was not aware why Epstein had gone to jail in 2008. Epstein was originally convicted of securing and procuring an underage girl for prostitution in a plea deal that has been widely criticised” (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-23/ghislaine-maxwells-secret-jeffrey-epstein-documents-unsealed/12806036)

The fact that the same question was asked 28 times and evaded shows a larger stage and this deposition is merely one of a few pieces of paper to set the stage that her time is up, there is only so much the people will allow for and she knows this, even if she claims that she does not. So when we read: “Prosecutors will argue she lied when she gave the deposition released today when she denied knowing of Epstein’s alleged crimes”, you see the larger stage is not merely the fact tht she lied, if any of these questions, questions she evaded 27 times show that she lied, the prosecutor will have made a stage of intent, and that is a much larger setting in court, it will be the largest setting towards the 35 years in prison, a place she will not leave alive, so we see Ghislaine as a wounded animal trying to get out of the trap she laid for herself, a trap that sprung when someone allowed Jeffrey Epstein to commit suicide, because that too is still under review. So when we see “I never observed Jeffrey having sex with a minor”, whether true or not will not matter, if a minor was there and there is enough showing that she allegedly hired this person, or knew of this person, we have a stage where she is almost quite literally in the doghouse. Because either she hired the minor, or she knows who did and that is what she is seemingly desperate to avoid. Her having to point at someone else, if that person can enough reasonable doubt it will all tick to Ghislaine Maxwell and the deposition of 465 pages will have the foundation of being the rope that hangs her. This is to some degree seen on page 113 where we see 

Do you remember him visiting you and Jeffrey in New York in the spring of 2001? 

A socialite that cannot recall dates? Especially dates of important people? I have met a few socialites in my time and they all have an amazing ability to capture dates, more than I ever will, as such “spring of 2001” is almost a given, and as such the answer 

I have a recollection — you’ve asked me if I have a recollection of being in New York but if you are asking for a date, I cannot confirm that date. 

I merely see more evasion and avoidance, and any prosecutor will go over this position with a fine tooth comb, they will find more than I ever will. I merely notice one thing on page 412

MR. PAGLIUCA: I think we are out of time, counsel. 

After dozens of evasions and avoidance and countering the simplest of questions by statements of non-comprehension, we are faced with the response: I will state for the record there were questions today that remain unanswered because the witness has been instructed not to answer those questions and we will be raising our objections with the court to be able to have those questions answered in the near future.

And there we have the turnaround, at this time, there is every indication that the travels and settings of Ghislaine Maxwell are now out of time. 

I am not attaching the deposition at this time, even as it is out there on the internet, I am not sure if I am allowed to place the full 465 pages (with a massive word index at the end). Yet if you want to see the deposition, you can find it (at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/ghislaine-maxwell-epstein-questions-dodged-unsealed-deposition-2020-10).

In my opinion, when any jury driven court gets a load of this, there is no way that they have will not have the ‘What is she hiding vibe’, and that does not stop a trial from being fair, it sets the stage where minors were in at the very least in danger, and optionally Ghislaine Maxwell let it happen, that and the Miami Dade Police affidavit shows a larger stage and that stage is about to get the limelight, every corner of that stage, so anyone caught in that stage will be in serious trouble and anyone seen in that stage will also illuminate the involvement of Ghislaine Maxwell. I see no other way to see this, but then I am not an administered US court professional, am I?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , ,

October 21, 2020 · 19:58

Intentionally creating imbalance

This happens, it happens more often than you think, but that is a separate issue. Yet too often have you seen that the media all over the world have thrown evidence to the side of the road, just to aid in imbalance? Consider that stage for a second. We all have our own windmills to fight, it is not simplifying to Don Quixote, even though it is tempting. I would be drawn to “The truth may be stretched thin, but it never breaks, and it always surfaces above lies, as oil floats on water”, even as some might rely on “Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness”, a stage we all all face, all sides of it. In this Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra might have been a larger philosopher than anyone realises, even if it made little sense in those days, it does in these days, in the age of digital awareness, sides of insanity and madness finally make sense.

In this I start with ‘Jamal Khashoggi: Journalist’s fiancee sues Saudi crown prince’. It is not the first page but it is another page that in isolation makes the most sense to use. Yes, there are all kinds of people telling me how insane I am, the madness that I show in this when soo many sources telling me otherwise.  A stage that I would accept if the soup wasn’t getting cooked on a high flame. In the BBC article I start with the fiancee is the one party I would give a pass on. I believe that she was hurt and she is filing, but there is the real matter, is it not? 

Even as we are given “Hatice Cengiz and the rights group Khashoggi formed before his death are pursuing Mohammed bin Salman and more than 20 others for unspecified damages”, so a group formed before his death? It is the ‘unspecified damages’ that takes the cake, the biscuits and the pot of tea. In the matter we need to look and address ‘a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, accusing him of ordering the killing’. This part we need to see with a clinical view. What evidence exists? The term ‘ordering the killing’ requires proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The infamous UN essay by Agnes Callamard showed that there is no evidence, there is no body and the work of fiction called ‘Blood and Ice’, shows even more lack of truths. As I personal see it ‘Blood and Oil’ is a fictional work by Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck, a fictional work with a collection of facts based on people who actually exist. It reads easy and is seemingly created for a longer term, a stage I have not seen in Journalistic work, but this is not that, is it? It is an important take to realise, as the case created by the ‘Hatice Cengiz and the rights group Khashoggi’ calls for it. Consider the stage of a court, the costs involved. I will concede that there are leagues of people willing to set the stage through pro-bono work because of the limelight the case will get, but in the end, there was no evidence, the bast we can hope for is that Jamal Khashoggi is missing. This is not about personal feelings or personal knowledge, it is what can be proven in court and even if any evidence EVER comes to the surface, the setting that it can be linked to the Crown prince is close to impossible to prove. A stage where a person no one cared about (except his mum and the person he shares a bed with) has received close to 80 million hits online and that is merely a conservative guess. At some point I saw the counter go well over 60 million and that was a year ago. So has something bad happened to him? Personally I believe tht to be the case, but I cannot prove it. I was not there and NO ONE presented any evidence to the fact that this has happened. It happened in  nation that is the puppet of Iran and tht nation has the most incarcerated journalists in the world and that nation has been the discussion of a whole range of murdered journalists, murders that cannot be proven, but they state that they have the evidence on this, yet they never properly presented it. As I personally see it, the acts of a puppet nation without evidence. 

As such, when we see “After listening to purported audio recordings of conversations inside the consulate made by Turkish intelligence, UN special rapporteur Agnes Callamard concluded that Khashoggi was “brutally slain” that day”, the UN report does not show any evidence to positively confirm that the person allegedly being interrogated was Jamal Khashoggi, in the UN report at [398] we see “In an international forum at least, a review of the rules of evidence and jurisprudence conducted by the Special Rapporteur shows that the admissibility of the tapes and potentially other intercepts relating to Mr. Khashoggi’s death will depend on the form in which they are ultimately produced, their reliability, the fairness to the defendants of using such evidence, and the interest of the international community in providing justice to Mr. Khashoggi and his family”, here we see no mention that the tapes PROVE that the tapes are beyond the shadow of a doubt the recordings of Jamal Khashoggi. Yet at [41] of that report we are given “Recordings of only seven different conversations over a two-day period were made available to the inquiry. Combined these amounted to 45 minutes of tape, when, according to Turkish Intelligence, they had access to at least seven hours of recordings. The remaining six hours and 15 minutes may or may not be relevant to the inquiry, but without doubt there remains much more recorded information than that made available to the Special Rapporteur”, consider that allegedly only 10.7% of the available recordings were made available, so in what universe does that not constitute reasonable doubt or even an alleged form of tempered evidence? This is merely a setting of 2 elements in a much larger report. None of it proves murder, to a much larger extent it is a document that due to manipulation could set many optionally involved people free. 

My setting is seen in the report at [244] where we see “Much attention has been focused on whether the Crown Prince himself ordered the murder. However, this focus on “ordering” the crime and on finding the “smoking gun” creates expectations which legal systems, both domestic and international, may not be able to meet.  The search for justice and accountability for human rights violations should also and as importantly require identifying those that have abused their influence and power or failed to act with the diligence required of their positions” and the stage of ‘which  legal systems, both domestic and international, may not be able to meet’. It was the stage I had from the very beginning, whatever happened, it cannot be proven and now we get to the good stuff. A report that is well over a year old gives us this, so why continue, this is not about ‘justice’ this is about creating middle east imbalance, optionally this is about people catering towards Turkey and Iran for a third reason and they have no issues burning Saudi needs. The larger stage is however a much more dangerous side. As some seemingly clever people are setting their needs of ‘we need no Saudi Arabia’, we see a stage where Russia and China are willing to set a much larger stage, as such it could cost the EU and the US well over $15 billion in trade deals and goods over the foreseeable future. I will be happy (not knowing whether if I am able) to take over that business. Yet walking way for crumbs from a $15,000,000,000 piece of pastry is even larger madness; of all the windmills I face, an income well below $135,000 a year (pre taxation) is perhaps the easiest to overcome if the opportunity is offered. The moment the two larger players are set in a stage where they lose out, we will see all kinds of demands and contemplated compromises, I merely wonder if it will be too late for them at that point.

And consider the larger issue, how much effort had been made towards all the murdered journalists in Turkey, or even those currently in a Turkish prison? How much articles have you seen on that part of the equation? Some sources give 47 (one less than China) some sources say a lot more, theft that in 2016 well over 100 were in prison gives us question on some data that Forbes presents (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/12/12/the-countries-imprisoning-the-most-journalists-in-2019-infographic), even as we see one source giving us ‘85 journalists and media workers in jail in Turkey’ (complete with a name list) we see a stage of catering and hiding behind ‘media workers’, yet the stage of 47 and 85 is a little too big, so I am willing to go on a madness quest and state that the media themselves are catering to the wrong parties and they need to consider this a lot quicker then they currently are.

Could I be wrong?
Yes, absolutely! Yet consider the evidence and sources. I reflect on the produced US report (which I will happily label a mere essay), and when we see the other stage (like Jeff Bezos and FTI Consulting) and accusation after accusation, all whilst evidence open to the media is ignored, you tell me, Am I wrong?

When a book refers to “dismembering Khashoggi’s body like butchers”, all whilst the body is never found, all whilst evidence of dismembering cannot be produced and whilst there is no digital evidence of any kind, we see “a gripping work of investigative journalism” and in all this, no one is asking questions. I for one do not stand for the hypocritical stage that is exploited by the media on several fronts. Fell free to disagree, yet I feel that there is enough evidence on my side, whilst the lack of evidence on the other side is massively questionable.

I will let you decide on this, like I pretty much always do.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 20, 2020 · 23:06

Is the link real?

Apart from the continuation of the IP I promised as public domain for Sony exclusive products, I was in doubt of some information on ISIS I got my fingers on. This is besides the information that is out in Israel where we see: ‘ISIS urges attacks on westerners, oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia’, the danger of the nfrmaetion I saw is that they are merely parts of something. I need to painty a picture. In one courtyard there is a person selling sweet fruits, they are orange in colour and in the other courtyard there is a person selling sweet fruits but red in colour. Now, I cannot tell if the first one is selling oranges, tangerines or perhaps nectarines. The other person is selling cherries, strawberries, red currant or even tomatoes (are tomatoes fruit). Some will set the stage that fruit sellers are in these two courtyards. Yet I do not know are these sellers an outlier, is fruit all they sell, can I confirm what exactly they sell and what do they call themselves? Even the issue if the two sellers are related is in question. But some intelligence is set on too little data and too often dubious data. Then there is the stage what do they call themselves? Are they actual sellers, or merely two people in a closed setting where they have something for sale? All questions on the stage we see here, so when I see “An Islamic State spokesman called on the terrorist group’s supporters to target westerners, oil pipelines and economic infrastructure in Saudi Arabia”. This set a few issues. In the first the reliability of it all, the western media has actively avoided a few settings in these places, so there is little to go on and for the most they merely copy one another. In the second Saudi Intelligence is pretty efficient in Saudi Arabia, as such ISIS is calling for activity in a place where they do not have any, so is it a hollow threat, is it a call to arms or a red herring to mess with Saudi Intelligence. The additional problem is that any attack could only happen with a much larger support from Iran and ISIS and Iran do not really mix, which gets me to a slightly inappropriate joke. Two hooligans, one Swede one Dane have an argument over Football, they both grab their knives and stab each other in the chest, instantly killing one another. What is the Score? Answer: Norway leads by two points.

OK, not the nicest joke, but the issue gets across (I hope). ISIS is leaking and making claims, yet the stage is not set and there is debate on how effective ISIS is in Saudi Arabia, and that is the larger truth here. ISIS might have followers in Saudi Arabia, but that is hear say, there is speculation, but no active data supporting this. Iran has activity (to some degree) in Saudi Arabia, but there is still debate on how much and how effective it remains. 

In a stage where we see: “Saudi Arabia has stressed the need to step up efforts to reach a lasting and sustainable peace agreement among the Palestinians and the Israelis” we see one side, we see ISIS in opposition, yet no one is looking on where Israel Hayom got its data (at https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/10/20/isis-urges-attacks-on-westerners-oil-infrastructure-in-saudi-arabia/) from. This was not some leak, this was not intelligent by Mossad, the article given to us is from Reuters and ILH Staff, OK, we can accept that, so why doesn’t Reuters have this as front page news on their Middle East section page? And as such, who at ILH had this and more important when did they have it? An article by Reuters not on their website, especially one involving ISIS is a larger set of weird, and guess what, it was about Saudi Arabia, another reason to have it, and the only other source I saw pushing this was oilprice.com. That and the stage of ‘Offshore Oil & Gas Poised For A Major Rebound’, as such, in light of all this, I have questions, don’t you?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

October 18, 2020 · 06:11

Creation of doubt

We all have doubts and sometimes we create them. I like many others are appalled by the beheading in France, as the news gives us “The teacher killed in a suburb of Paris in an Islamist terror attack has been named as Samuel Paty” as well as “The history teacher, who is said to have discussed images of the Prophet Muhammad with his pupils, was beheaded”, as a Catholic I am appalled, yet as an academic I wonder why the matter was set into motion. In 2015 many learned “If you set aside for a moment the issue of whether satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad are insulting, there’s a separate and complicated debate about whether any depiction – even a respectful one – is forbidden within Islam. For most Muslims it’s an absolute prohibition – Muhammad, or any of the other prophets of Islam, should not be pictured in any way. Pictures – as well as statues – are thought to encourage the worship of idols”, as such we see that Islam FORBIDS any representation of the prophet Muhammad. So is the stage one where a person was beheaded, or is the stage where secular France, knowingly and intentionally disrespects a religion? This is a much harder question isn’t it? I took the events of 2015 at I was against them, yet at that point I was not aware about the Islamic rule of their prophet. As a Catholic, I have an issue of people intentionally disrespecting any religion, it is for that same reason that I refused to read the Satanic verses by Salman Rushdie. I have nothing against the man, I was in those days completely in the dark on Islam and the book was an open attack on Islam. I heard people I knew commenting on how brilliant a book it was, but I knew that they too had no knowledge, none what so ever on the rules and believes towards Islam. As a Catholic, I still laugh over the joke Sir Ken Robinson made “He shares this story of a teacher who asks a 6 year old girl, “What are you drawing?” And the girl said, “I’m drawing a picture of god.” And the teacher said, “But nobody knows what god looks like.” And the girl said, “They will in a minute””, idols and images of the Catholic faith are not a taboo, it sets the joke of anticipation and the premise towards the willingness to fail, a fear most Christians have in abundance. 

As such, why would Samuel Paty create a situation where he got ahead of himself? I do not condone what was done to him, but in defence of any Islamic person, why did he openly offend any religion in a school class? There is no way that there were no Islamic children in that school. I wonder if there is any school left where we share the classrooms with non-christians. Can we set the stage where we openly mock a religion whilst demanding respect from these very same people at the same time? As I personally see it, we create doubt, in ourselves and we create doubt in others. Why is that?

When we take a step back and we consider the Crusades (1096), we need to realise the state where we see “The crusader presence remained in the region in some form until the city of Acre fell in 1291, leading to the rapid loss of all remaining territory in the Levant. There were no further substantive attempts to recover the Holy Land after this”, consider the middle east being in a war for 196 years, this sets a stage (in those days of close to 7 generations that know a stage of war, a never ending war where hatred is taught (to at least some degree) from grandfather, to so to grandson, and that stage is made worse by intentionally disrespecting Islam, and you wonder why there are angry people? This is a stage that goes back to the Council of Clermont, where in 1095 it was decided that “capture Jerusalem for Christendom from its Muslim occupiers. The Pope’s speech to the church hierarchy and crowd of laymen at Clermont famously promised all participants a remission of their sins, a strategy which proved hugely popular amongst Europe’s nobility and knights and which was copied in all crusades thereafter”, apart from the stage where the reward was ‘promised all participants a remission of their sins’, basically on the promise of killing any saracen in sight. Can someone enlighten me where slaughter was approved in the Bible? All whilst Pope Urban II was viewed as “a reformer and active promoter of the idea of expanding Christendom by whatever means necessary. Hailing from a noble family from Burgundy, France, Urban II would establish himself as one of the most influential popes in history”, yes and a war lasting a few centuries longer 196 years achieved that? 

So as we get to “On 27 November the cream of the French clergy and a crowd of laymen gathered in a field just outside Clermont for the finale of the council. It was here that Urban II made his now famous speech in an obviously pre-prepared set piece. The message, known as the Indulgence, was addressed in particular to Christian nobles and knights across Europe. Urban II promised that all those who defended Christendom and captured Jerusalem would be embarking on a pilgrimage, all their sins would be washed away, and their souls would reap untold rewards in the next life. In case anyone was concerned, a group of church scholars later went to work and came up with the idea that a campaign of violence could be justified by references to particular passages of the Bible and the works of Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE)”, The man (not the actual Hippo) got his fame with the Just War theory. A stage where we are taught “The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: “right to go to war” (jus ad bellum) and “right conduct in war” (jus in bello). The first concerns the morality of going to war, and the second the moral conduct within war. Recently there have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory—jus post bellum—dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction”, perhaps the French UN essay writer, might reflect on the Just war theory, I mean, she has such a great handle on fiction, might it not be an idea to set the record straight on historic events? I see and understand the stage of ‘Just war theory’, there is nothing wrong with it, but consider the stage we were at in 1095, the middle east was not a christian bastion. In 1000bc Jerusalem was Jewish, in 586 bc it became Babylonian, Alexander the Great made it Greek, after that is became Egyptian, then Roman, after that it became Muslim, 400 years before the first crusade. Can anyone even tell what Jerusalem was supposed to be? 

But Christians needed expansion and the famine and destitute in Europe gave them the idea to tap into the wealthy reserves of the Arab nations. This is a stage that had war upon war, all whilst none had any clue who they were up against, merely that their enemy was non-christian, can we afford a repetition? Well, I actually do not care, if it decimates 96% of the population, I’ll be happy, because this planet will end up with all kinds of live stopping it become extinct. So back to Christians, can we tell how many versions there are? There are dozens of bibles all different, there are Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, 7 day advents, Quakers and a whole range of subversions and additions. Yet there are as far as I can tell, two forms of Islam, Sunni Islam and Shia Islam and they both have the same Quran, to the letter. Sunni’s and Shia’s pray together and their pilgrimage takes them all to the same to places. I believe that we create the doubt in ourselves and I do not care on secularism, armistice or atheist values, which of them allows for the open and wanton disrespect of Islam we see?

It does not make the violence acceptable, but we created that stage ourselves, we need to see that and we need to see it quickly. In case you wonder if it is just Islamic violence. I offer you the setting of another challenge. Buy a cow, go into Mumbai with that cow and slaughter your own cow, good luck getting out alive, your changes are not that good. If that setting offends you, then why allow the entire stage towards an image of Muhammad, in a school no less.

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Religion

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 17, 2020 · 23:23

Follow Dick the Butcher

Yup, this is one for the record books, and one for publications. First of all, people who follow me here know that I have to the largest part no real love for most of the media, I tend to flock to those giving us the clear views, and I make fun of (read: chastise) all the others. That is how it should be. Yet, I have stayed short of actual violence (as it tends to be counter productive). One of the good media outlets is the Dutch NOS, it is government run, but to the largest degree for well over half a century it gives the Dutch the real deal, it has no issues going after government issues with the subtlety of a mallet. They have done this for pretty much for the length of my life (before that I was enjoying the view from my dad’s left testicle, so I cannot vouch for the time before I was born). 

So as I have been taking in the news of the NOS having to hide their logo, NOS journo’s getting attacked, I was a little dismayed and I wondered, especially in light of the population requiring a really large decrease in numbers to sae nature, the idea formed ‘Lets kill all the stupid people’, it is based on an idea submitted by Dick the Butcher given to Henry VI, it must be true, because Shakespeare wrote about it.

I was for a little while wondering why I am the only one coming up with this brilliant idea, but I was wrong, I was not and a book was published on this concept. The book (see image above) gives us the stage we have today. I will not go into the book (copyright issues) but if you want to catch up, it can be found (at https://www.amazon.com.au/Saying-Stupid-People-Warning-Problem/dp/167518836X), and also because I have not read it yet. The cover was all explanatory to me.

I also found a T-Shirt, but that reflects on a virtual kill, so basically a non-kill and even as there is a second of relief, there is no legal issue, yet the fact I that there is a larger stage, whether these people are scared or frustrated, the stage to attack journalists or health care officials is a separate class of stupid. Now I have seen the ass kissing journalists out there and there is an inner need to become violent, take an image of Paul Dacre, who does not have the feeling to attach his picture to a dart board and have some fun? The same can be argued on a whole range of newspapers and publications, Yet when we go after people of the Washington Post, the NY Times, The Boston Globe, Dagens Nyheter, the NOS and a few others, we seemingly lost the plot. In part the politicians are to blame here, they wanted all the papers out there, they catered to Rupert Murdoch and his ‘assistants’ and the problem becomes slightly clearer, the people cannot tell the difference anymore, although in the UK the difference between the Daily Mirror and the Guardian is rather large, in the Netherlands it is a little harder, their journalists are for the most pretty high end, and we agree every basket has its rotten apples, but those tend to not be around in the Netherlands for too long. The Guardian gives us ‘Dutch state broadcaster pulls logo from vans after attacks’ with the added text “the national counter-terrorism agency warned of a heightened risk of far-right violence in the Netherlands”, for the most I have no issues with political differences, but this far-right violence is completely unheard of in the Netherlands. The stage as the Guardian gives us “almost daily, journalists and technicians on the road to report are confronted with verbal abuse, garbage is thrown, vans are blocked [and] people bang on their sides or urinate on them”, as such we see a shift and people wondered what got into me when I proposed a movie called ‘How to Kill a politician’ with a likeness towards Geert Wilders, when people ask me why, I can now point at the NOS situation saying, “Because of this!”

A stage that is ignored for the longest time and consider that Geert Wilders is not even close to the worst. That part is seen in Foreign Policy (at https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/28/the-new-face-of-the-dutch-far-right-fvd-thierry-baudet-netherlands-pvv-geert-wilders/), where we see “On election night, Thierry Baudet, the leader of FvD, addressed his audience with a speech that was broadcast live to well over 1 million households by the Dutch national broadcasting organisation, NOS. Baudet did not, as is common, address the crowd in front of him and thank staff and volunteers. Instead, he spoke directly into the cameras. Baudet repeated his core political message of the last two years, conjuring a stark image of the near-total decline of the “boreal world”—a term popularised on the French far-right as an alternative to the discredited “Aryan”—imagining a white cultural and political space “from Gibraltar to Vladivostok.” A quaint word to the uninitiated, the term “boreal” has long been recognised as a deafening dog whistle to white supremacists.”

For me it means to swallow for a second, I knew that neo nazi and white supremacy organisations were around, but the idea that they have Dutch origins is a little more than I am ready for, the Dutch are in a stage where they blamed the Germans the last to decades for something the Dutch themselves created. I would never have guessed that and it seems to me that these players fear the NOS the most, the NOS has never had any scruples holding politicians to the sunlight and let everyone see what they were looking at and for those people the NOS is scary, the NOS never hesitated to set light to the things not making sense. 

In the stage where nearly all politicians voiced negatively against the violence against the NOS, we see Thierry Baudet give us (at https://www.alkhaleejtoday.co/international/5101936/Distressed-reactions-after-decision-to-remove-NOS-logo-‘Terrible’.html) “according to him it is his job as a politician to express ‘cultural criticism’. “But the idea that that could be translated into threats in the physical sphere is of course terrible, absurd and abject and must be fought with the fiercest of terms,” he told Een Vandaag”, when we read this carefully we get to “the idea that ‘cultural criticism’ could be translated into threats in the physical sphere is of course terrible and absurd”, I am not so sure, it is his side that sets the stage of violence, and he is not calling optional transgressors to stop violence, he is giving the world a political statement declaring himself not responsible, they are not the same.

The problem is larger, it is not merely the stage of inactions and the stage of ultra right, the budgets have dwindled to zero pretty much all over the EU, setting a much larger stage where inaction is all that we see and as such the situation will get larger soon hereafter, how much worse it will get? There is absolutely no way to set any kind of expectations here, but as long as the far right keeps on getting away with it, they will continue. That is how things tend to go, hence the power of one book cover.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 17, 2020 · 02:54

Without trial

It happens, and most often it is some American source that gives us the alleged goods. I state here alleged, because I am not now, not ever willing to take the media at their word, there have been too many events where the media goes free because someone whispered to them ‘as far as we can tell’, or ‘an anonymous sources close to the matter at hand told us’, the media hs had too many of these events. Yet when Reuters give us goods, it is time to take notice, mainly because Reuters does not go out on a limb that often. So when I became aware of ‘Why 4,998 died in U.S. jails without getting their day in court’ (at https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-jails-deaths/), I woke up pretty quickly. 

Apart from the images, the article starts with “The U.S. government collects detailed data on who’s dying in which jails around the country – but won’t let anyone see it. So, Reuters conducted its own tally of fatalities in America’s biggest jails, pinpointing where suicide, botched healthcare and bad jail-keeping are claiming lives in a system with scant oversight”, I get why the US government wants to keep a lid on it, yet 5000 deaths is not something that goes unnoticed. So what is going on? The setting only gets worse when we see “Death rates have soared in those lockups, rising 35% over the decade ending last year. Casualties like Hill are typical: held on minor charges and dying without ever getting their day in court. At least two-thirds of the dead inmates identified by Reuters, 4,998 people, were never convicted of the charges on which they were being held”, as such we see an institution that has failed on several levels, 35% over a decade is quite the increase, when we look at lives lost, any percentage change that is a mere one digit is seen as disastrous, so how does this happen? I am asking because the institution that we can laughingly call the Human Rights branch of the UN, seems to have no problems going after Saudi Arabia, and when we are told “Capital punishment is a legal penalty in Saudi Arabia. The country performed at least 158 executions in 2015, at least 154 in 2016, at least 146 in 2017, at least 149 in 2018, with possibly 184 executed in 2019”, as such can someone explain why the UN has such loud trumpets on the 791 death, all whilst the US put 4998 to death without a trial. With the Saudi allegedly ending the lives of close to 15% of what the US might categorise at ‘Business as usual’, ‘the cost of doing business’ or even ‘workplace accidents’ (with the optional oops! At the end). Yet this is not about Saudi Arabia, it is to some degree about Reuters (the good part) and to a large extent about the United Nations (the bad part) where we heard an essay writer and French Human Rights expert and the Special Rapporteur for the UN how she shouted (debatable) events, she never gave us the 4998 inhumane endings of life, did she? So as Reuters treats us to “The U.S. Constitution grants inmates core rights, but those provisions are hard to enforce. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees fair treatment to pre-trial detainees, but “fair” is open to interpretation by judges and juries. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel punishment forbids “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners,” but proving deliberate negligence is difficult. The Sixth Amendment assures speedy trials, but does not define speedy”, we see the larger picture and we understand and get that some events cannot be anticipated, but 4998 losses that continue to go on is a much larger stage. It is optionally a stage where we see that the debts of the US are now the almost given guarantee to loss of life in the US, all whilst there is a larger stage where there is a chance that the largest percentage of these 4998 losses are not criminals, they are people caught in a bad setting and awaiting a chance to explain themselves. All this, in a stage where people in the US are calling Saudi Arabia bad, all whilst they are in a setting where they have killed 631% more people, all innocent people, you are innocent until proven guilty and these 4998 people never got their day in court, all whilst the 791 executed people, were proven to be guilty in a Saudi court of law.

So who represents the larger failure (apart from the UN who never acted, perhaps because their HQ is in New York). Yet Reuters is nowhere near done. When they give us “Many jails are not subject to any enforceable standards for their operation or the healthcare they provide. They typically get little if any oversight. And bail requirements trap poorer inmates in pre-trial detention for long periods. Meanwhile, inmate populations have grown sicker, more damaged by mental illness and plagued by addictions”, it is my personal view, yet a stage where we see “not subject to any enforceable standards”, a stage that merely escalates bad situations quickly towards what could be regarded as ‘worse nightmares’. There is however a small gem there too, but you will miss it when you read the article too quickly. The quote “Reuters was not able to identify the race of 9% of inmates who died”, you see this is a stage with a much larger frame of mind. In my personal opinion, this either sets the stage of a shoddy administration, or optionally a party wanted to make the identification of 9% of the cases close to impossible. There is the case of multi-racial stage, but to admit to such a failure gives rise to an inmate registration failure that should have been fixed well over two decades ago, as such I see a much larger stage, yet with the limited information available I cannot say which is the more accurate one.

The article is much larger and it has several sides that make this dynamite on several levels and to see this in Reuters and not in the Washington Post or the New York Times is a larger stage. So the last part I will look at is “The Justice Department has grown more secretive about the fatality data under the Trump administration. While BJS never has released jail-by-jail mortality figures, it traditionally has published aggregated statistics every two years or so. The 2016 report wasn’t issued until this year”, the stage has a few items that are debatable and optionally a larger stage that has issues all over the board. The lack in mortality figures is the largest and most visible one, you see, this stage was much larger in the 70’s and Robert Redford gave us the low down in the movie Brubaker in 1980, a movie that is a gem on several levels. So 40 years ago there was a clear stage where mortality rate was a visible issue (11 years after the fact), a large one and someone swiped that issue OFF the table. The movie was based on a fictionalised version of the 1969 book, Accomplices to the Crime: The Arkansas Prison Scandal by Tom Murton and Joe Hyams, detailing Murton’s uncovering of the 1967 prison scandal. The unsettling stage of something that came to light when he had the wardenship of the prison farms of Arkansas. 

It is when we consider this stage we see the largest failure in the US, a stage where side entries into society (criminals) are set to a stage off the board making them marginalised. There is one little issue, the 4998 people were innocent, they were never convicted, they never had their day in court and the system failed them close to 100%. And even if we give credibility to Michelle Deitch, she might be right on her turf, the setting of “these gaps make comprehensive nationwide statistics all the more important. “You can’t have good policy without good data,” she said. “Data tells us what is going right and what’s going wrong.””, the fact that racial info was missing in 9% of the cases give rise to a faltering system that has never properly overhauled, or the system is fault due to possibilities of data manipulation, that part is given a level of clarity when we realise that out of these cases the racial data of 450 people could not be ascertained. It is not a flaw or a data gap, it should be seen as a systemic failure. When a person is arrested, from the arrest (2 people) to local arrangements, to transport, to arrival into a jail, well over a dozen people missed it, and more important, they missed it 450 times. This is a systemic issue from day one and no one has rung the bell, at least not to the degree that this bell should have been rung. 

Well done Reuters!

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 15, 2020 · 23:44

Hindsight intelligence differs

Yup, there is. rather large different between the hindsight intelligent that comes from the Monday morning quarterback and the intelligence that we see when we look at the timeline. There is a large difference between the two and I will not explain the difference. I will however show you some hindsight intelligence.

The information is gives in a few ways, but I will rely on ‘Saudi air defences shoot down Houthi drone’ (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/1746741/saudi-arabia). Here we see “An explosive-laden drone targeting the southern part of the Kingdom was intercepted and destroyed by the Arab coalition backing Yemen’s internationally recognised government on Saturday”, you see it is not different, it is not not unexpected. The stage of the operator differs, as such it goes to support that Iranian troops were actively engaged when the Aramco site was attacked by drones and missiles. Yet the western media does not report, and it will not act on Iranian actions against civilian targets. So the group that misses again and again, had several perfect hits on two target sites? There is no way that this is an actual case, leaving us with optional additional evidence that Iranian forces were behind the Aramco attacks.

Even as we are told “Iran-backed Houthi militias have been launching missile, drone and rocket strikes targeting civilian centers in Saudi Arabia for the past few years”, the stage is not merely ‘Iran-Backed’ there is a larger stage where Iran is actively training and handling equipment in active engagements against Saudi Arabia. This is not some speculation, the evidence is there, the levels of engagement, the act then and the lack of skills by the Houthi forces, the last one is not an issue, but it shows the situation when we re-consider the attack on Aramco sites. And even as we think that journalistically it is sound to use ‘Iran-backed’, the setting of active engagement is seen on a much larger scale. The most recent news is from Reuters a month ago, most western media will not even report on acts against Saudi Arabia, even then we are most likely to see “Abha airport, near the border, has been a regular target for Houthi drones and missiles in the last two years. Many have been intercepted, but some have hit, causing deaths and injuries” with little to no mention of Iran at all. Yes the stage of an impartial press and a so self-stated of their honest press is missing the beat of honesty to a much larger extent. We can agree that they are cautious to blame Iran for this, yet for the most several of the attacks got no news coverage at all, which sets a much larger stage of anti-Saudi sentiment, with optional one sided reporting. And as we the notice of “Al-Maliki said the launching of the drone shows how the Houthis continue their systematic attacks on civilian targets in Saudi Arabia” we see the ignored stage in intentional targeting civilian targets by Houthi forces, with additional support from Iran, the last one is not in question as Houthi forces have no ways to create and manufacture drones in Yemen. I reckon the press forgot about the latter part. As such we wonder why Saudi Arabia is very defensive on accusations against them? When they are openly attacked by Hezbollah and Iranian forces acting with impunity from Yemen (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/1630276), we need to wonder, can we blame them? 

When you want something, remaining ignorant and in denial of what is happening there is not the best way to go about it, but that might merely be me.

Have a great pre-weekend prep day (Friday).

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

October 15, 2020 · 02:12

Deciding moments

We all have them, there I no exception, I had a deciding moment when I was confronted with the Probable Cause Affidavit of the Palm Beach Police Department, it was a 24 page setting that gives us the anger of what on earth ANY judge would consider Jeffrey Epstein to get away with what he did, and I wrote about it in January 2015 in the article ‘As we judge morality’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/01/07/as-we-judge-morality/), at that point I felt that NO ONE, and certainly not Ghislaine Maxwell should get away with hat happened to these minors, not because she was a socialite, but as a woman letting this happen to underage girls whilst she profits is so far below the belt that the belt cannot be seen anymore. Yet, I am also a person with some faith in the law (even thought judges giving way to Epstein here certainly dented the law and its champions). As such I was on the fence, leaning towards a ‘hell no’ when we were given ‘Ghislaine Maxwell lawyers attempt to keep deposition details secret’. And I in part understand “Lawyers say unsealing details related to Maxwell’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein will undermine her right to a fair trial”, there is the additional “The Manhattan US attorney used the deposition – which Maxwell believed was confidential – in its perjury allegation against her in the criminal case, claiming she lied under oath”. I believe there is an additional issue. It does not come to light in most articles, but when we consider ‘THE USE OF A CRIMINAL AS A WITNESS: A SPECIAL PROBLEM’ (at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/informant_trott_outline.pdf), we see something more. We see “A cooperating criminal is far more dangerous than a scalpel because an informer has a mind of his own, and almost always, it is a mind not encumbered by the values and principles that animate our law and our own Constitution”, I personally believe that Ghislaine Maxwell (or her lawyer) forgot hat it could also backfire to her and there is every chance that she could have opened a larger stage by her demanding immunity. The unsealing gives rise that she set no stage of any form of special consideration. This is seen in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 446 (1972). So even as her testimony was against Jeffrey Epstein, without the tied immunity, she can now be prosecuted and there is. stage where she is entitled to the 5th amendment, the right to not self incriminate, yet her own testimony is not linked to any immunity and now she is caught between optionally being found guilty and set against perjury, which is now being read as the optional stage that she lied under oath. And tht is merely one side, the Boston Globe is giving us ‘Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers scouring more than 300,000 pages of evidence from prosecutors in case linked to Jeffrey Epstein’ (at https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/10/09/metro/ghislaine-maxwells-lawyers-scouring-more-than-300000-pages-evidence-prosecutors-case-linked-jeffrey-epstein/). From my point of view, thee I the need to push towards the dead duck as much as possible, the more that can be pushed to one, the larger the stage of her somewhat protective escape. This is seen in “The government, the filing said, “is continuing the process of reviewing and preparing productions of electronic discovery materials, which include extractions of data from numerous electronic devices. The Government expects that it will meet the November 9, 2020 deadline for the completion of electronic discovery productions. Additionally, the Government recognises that its disclosure obligations are ongoing, and the Government will continue to review the Prosecution Team Files for any additional discoverable or exculpatory materials.”” Yet her arrest showed that she was digitally savvy, which now gives ‘preparing productions of electronic discovery materials’ and ‘additional discoverable or exculpatory materials’ are an issue as she had well over a year to get rid of any incriminating digital evidence, as such there is a much larger stage, in the work she was accused of, there is every chance that the digital fingerprint linking her to devices is no longer in existence (if it ever was), and as such the perjury stage might be the optional grass straw we see the Manhattan US attorney rely on to get a start and a grip on Ghislaine Maxwell. And now the stage of Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) makes sense. There we see “The United States can compel testimony from an unwilling witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by conferring immunity, as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 6002, from use of the compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom in subsequent criminal proceedings, as such immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege and is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege”, the affidavit helped again Jeffrey Epstein, even as (in my personal view) Alexander Acosta screwed that up royally, the 13 month stage especially when you see the Probable Cause Affidavit of the Palm Beach Police Department. The witness account by Ghislaine Maxwell is useable as she (as far as I can tell) never considered asking for immunity, she wanted to steer clear, I wonder who her lawyer was there? Was he ever asked the questions that are on my mind (as well as anyone taking a serious look at this)? Consider that the witness stage was set and supported by the lawyer whomever it was at the time. As I far as I can tell, if there is immunity, the witness account cannot be used, whatever comes from their taints her in immunity turning that court event into a farce, there is the stage that the testimony is used to set perjury and from there is becomes a rough game for Ghislaine Maxwell. You see, there is a stage that gives us “The court held that the principle of witness immunity does not extend to immunity from punishment in respect of witnesses who knowingly make false statements under oath”, and thee the perjury is set in motion, if there is one part, one part is all that is needed to shred her testimony, she is fried bacon t the very least. And consider the expose to filth that we can see in the Jeffrey Epstein case, it is exceedingly more likely than not that one part could be found shredding any hope for Ghislaine Maxwell, she cannot hide behind some friends anymore and the rest were never friends and see her as way too toxic, as I personally see this stage, it is covered in cum-break-your-neck-gel, with the optimum patches of coconuts oil. 

If she keeps standing in this trial it is mot likely because there is a whole range of rich people too scared to be mentioned in any of this. That is the other side, her label (handed by the media I reckon) as Madam and her stage of houses and travel, that cannot have been from one person, I personally refuse to believe that, as such this trial, even as it is set to a 2021 event will out more than one surprise.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

October 13, 2020 · 21:47

One matter is not another

Yup it is that flaky, it all started with two events, I saw the first event, but I basically ignored it, it was more of old news and politicians getting in on the tailcoats of another is a setting we have seen too often. Then there was the other new news, the was based on the old, and I will start with that, it makes more sense that way.

I got the news (and I had seen it) Pikmin 3 is coming to the Nintendo Switch. I knew it but I had not made up my mind yet. A budget implies that I cannot go out and buy whatever tinker trait is out there. I am not in the worst setting, but blatantly buying a game is jut not on. What made it interesting is the Nintendo added a demo to their shop, so I went out and played the demo (twice) and I recaptured the feeling that the first Pikmin on Nintendo Gamecube left me, the endearing feeling of using the Pikmin and keeping them safe, it is a weird setting, the feeling that came to me almost 19 years ago (18 years and 49 weeks to be a little more precise). The game was a true original and never disappointed, a full blown homerun for Nintendo. I am not exaggerating when I say that Shigeru Miyamoto outdid himself with that one. There are times when we rejoice when something is knocking on our door and we see it is something we have seen before, this is quite the opposite to the first matter and is when we see ‘Australians sign Kevin Rudd’s call for inquiry into Murdoch influence’, you see, he is now in full show with a goatee, perhaps so that he looks as endearing as Rolf Harris once did. Oh, no, it is more of an actual beard, my bad.

Yes Kevin Rudd is calling for an investigation into Murdoch industries, something he never achieved when he was Prime Minister, did he? When we look back there was the Leveson inquiry that focussed on the UK and gave us a series of public hearings were held throughout 2011 and 2012. It resulted in the Leveson Report in November 2012. I remember it because I have it, all 2200 pages. In April 2012 we were given ‘Rupert Murdoch gives away more than planned at Leveson inquiry’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/25/rupert-murdoch-planned-leveson-inquiry), so whilst Kevvie was Prime Minister, what did he call for? Nope, he left that apparently to get back into politics, now it is ‘‘A cancer’: Kevin Rudd calls for royal commission into ‘Murdoch monopoly’’, so that took him 8 years to figure out? If it takes that long, he has no business been in politics in the first place. But I agree slapping around an 89 year old multibillionaire might optionally be entertaining, yet in this I find the sanctimonious actions of a former Prime Minister who did nothing when he was in office a bit much. And I am not alone here. When we see ‘Rudd has become Murdoch’s accuser, but once he was his cheerleader’, with the added “Under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, Murdoch took over the Herald and Weekly Times publishing company, which gave him control of newspapers accounting for about two-thirds of daily circulation”, so not only does Rupert Murdoch have the power he has now, but it was the Labor party the enabled it, can sarcasm be any prettier?  As such, when we get to “The Herald reported that “cabinet colleagues were appalled at Rudd’s flagrant courting of News’ favour”” we see the mess he made of it, and now he wants to get back into politics by opposing he former friends? Well, that is politics I reckon. And the result? Well, I have to agree with “But what could a royal commission achieve? It is impossible to see any legislation improving the situation. Journalists often justify their efforts to bring transparency as being in the public interest with the words of American Justice Louis Brandeis that sunlight is the best disinfectant” (source: Sydney Morning Herald), the Leveson inquiry showed us how useless this path is, the media will cry like prissy little bitches all claiming that they can do better and continue in the same way they did. We merely need to look at the headlines on MH-370 we were given in 2014, basically the ink of the Leveson report had not even dried at the point. Politics and media, it is a stage where one hand feeds the other, whilst the left and remains ignorant of the actions of the right hand, a stage that will not improve until the laws get adjusted FIRST, a stage that is never ever going to happen. So whatever Kevin Rudd has planned, voting for whomever is the other person remains the safer bet. He did this to himself, a sage that is fraught with danger, yet like the Pikmin, they are the consumers getting the idea of what is safe, but in this case it is not Captain Olimar guiding the consumers (Pikmin players will get this), it is Corporal KRudd the we must trust and he will guide the red Pikmins through the shallows and uses the Yellow ones for the Bulbears, in this I fear for the lives of consumers (sorry, I meant Pikmin), I am slightly surprised that he got 100,000 foolish enough to sign his so called ‘intent’ all whilst there is absolutely zero chance that is ends up amounting to anything at all.

I agree, that one matter is not the other, but both are pages we have seen before one leaves us happy and relaxed, the other does not, for those wondering, the political side is not the fuzzy one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 13, 2020 · 04:45

The Jet joke

The old joke goes “How do you know the plane is full of politicians? When the engines shut down and the whining goes on”, I believe it should be followed by a da-dum-dum. Yet the stage is set and it has been going on for a while now. The BBC article ‘Amy Coney Barrett: Democrats attack ‘shameful’ Supreme Court hearing’ got the better of me and the whining (in an age where we we have actual problems) got on my nerves. OK, I will admit that I am mostly Republican in mind, the issue of this president is one that I am not happy about. From my personal point of view, this president is no Republican, I consider him a greed driven loon, yet he was elected and as I wrote earlier, the constitution allows him to nominate a Supreme Court Judge, and the senate gets to confirm the nomination, this is what the American constitution gives us, yet the BBC gives us “But one Democratic senator on the committee described the process as “shameful””, so which Senator was that BBC? Do the people not have a right to know? In addition, what legal premise is this senator working from? In addition, the BBC gives us “The Republicans – who currently hold a slim majority in the US Senate, the body that confirms Supreme Court judges – are trying to complete the process before Mr Trump takes on Democratic rival Joe Biden in the election”, which is correct, but what are the names in the panel? The BBC also gives us “this process has been nothing but shameful. Worse, it will almost certainly lead to disastrous consequences for Americans”, as such I wonder what evidence can Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy give us? So far he is giving us nothing but air, not even hot air. At what moment in time, has any supreme court judge been anything but legal? Yes, we get it, they all want to have liberal judges and no one denies that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a force to be reckoned with and she was a liberal judge. Yet the law was clear, the elected president gets to nominate a Supreme Court Judge during his tour as president of the United States, electing a Supreme Court Judge is one of the few long term policies he can set, and as such President Trump is allowed to do what is happening today, but the media is nothing if not ‘appeasing’, they will print the ramblings of Democrats, because the larger belief is that this president is most likely a one term president and the media needs brownie points. 

So when we see “Democrats demonstrated that they want Amy Coney Barrett’s hearings to be about the Republican rush to seat a new justice before the elections and the possibility that she could be a deciding vote to strike down the increasingly popular healthcare reforms passed under Democratic President Barack Obama”, so where does it state in the constitutions that this is about  “the Republican rush to seat a new justice before the elections”, all whilst all parties (except the Republicans) ignore the constitution that states “When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice”, that is the law and the law was abided to, it might not please the Democrats, but the is what it is, so now they all whine like little bitches (I meant like jet engines). Yet in all this we see no clarity on the panel, do we?

As such, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court , who exactly are these members?  Well there is a majority group which consists of Lindsey Graham (SC), Chairman,  Chuck Grassley (IA), John Cornyn (TX), Mike Lee (UT), Ted Cruz (TX), Ben Sasse (NE), Josh Hawley (MO), Thom Tillis (NC), Joni Ernst (IA), Mike Crapo (ID), John Kennedy (LA), Marsha Blackburn (TN). These 12 members are the majority, the 10 minority members are Dianne Feinstein (CA), Patrick Leahy (VM), Dick Durbin (IL), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Chris Coons (DE), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Mazie Hirono (HI), Cory Booker (NJ), Kamala Harris (CA). 22 members ‘interrogating’ the next Supreme Court Justice, but the confirmation is set when all senators vote and the Republicans have a majority, a very slim one, as such the Democrats have one option, to ask the right questions, as they pound on those, they can merely hope to sway 3 senators away from the ‘Yay’ vote when the confirmation vote starts and they need a majority to make it pass, if ALL democrats agree this will not happen. The is as good as it gets for the Democrats. Will this happen? I do not know, the previous confirmation was Justice Kavanaugh and took 48 hours as well as more than 1200 questions. Will we see a repetition of this? We are about to find out. 

I wonder how much media will actually be focusing on the questions the democrats asked, and why they were asked. A similar setting does apply to the Republicans, yet the setting of “Democrats are avoiding the divisive topic of abortion, which motivates political adversaries as much as it rallies allies, for what they feel is more favourable political ground”, as such we see the chance of finding a justice with a focus on law is low compared to the Democrat need to find a person that is politically convenient. I merely wonder why they want judges to begin with.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,