December 9, 2017

At the Sunset Café...

IMG_3783

... you can talk about whatever you like.

Meade texted me that photo from the bike trail while I stayed warm inside.

And if you've got some shopping to do, here's the good old link to Amazon.

16 comments:

Deb said...

Still no power and no Internet. We have a generator thank goodness.

Rick said...

While I was writing you put up a new cafe post so I'm pulling it over:

I'd like to see you "live" blog your reading of the Wisconsin John Doe report. (Did I miss a post on this?).


I'm reading it and I am just stunned at how it (1) reaffirms everything the right believes about the venality of the left and (2) how it has been entirely ignored by essentially every media outlet. A few thoughts :

1. "Reserve Judge Nettesheim granted this request [to expand Governor Walker's original requested investigation] on June 25, 2012.
(a) What evidence was this grant based on?
(b) Do other instances of the circumstances identified in part (a) exist?
(c) What percentage (if any) of these circumstances resulted in John Doe investigations?
(d) What percentage of investigations identified by (c) were against Democrats?

2. In several cases government officials (ADA Robert Robles, GAB Attorney Johnathan Becker)) claimed to believe Walker activities violated the law. These are described as erroneous beliefs without elaboration.
(a) What specific circumstances led to these erroneous conclusions?
(b) Do the circumstances identified in (a) exist at any other time and place?
(c) If (b) is yes do these specific officials or did any other official conclude they were legal violations?


3. "Based at least in part on this evaluation by GAB, the Milwaukee DA’s Office
decided to start a new John Doe proceeding. "

(a) What evidence exists of the DA exercising independent judgment of the assertions justifying the investigation?
(b) If none what is the normal level of review when political opponents are not the targets?

4. [The] assignment [of Reserve Judge Barbara Kluka to the John Doe II ] was approved by then–Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson on September 5, 2012.

(a) Why did Abrahamson - an extremist left wing partisan - not recuse herself from this ruling?

5. "Approximately nine months into the John Doe II investigation, on June 26,
2013, four district attorneys met with DA Chisholm at the offices of GAB to discuss
the John Doe II investigation."
(a) How did these DAs come to join a "secret" investigation starting with how did they even learn about it?
(b) Are there any previous instances of government officials joining such investigations en masse?
6. The GAB obtained and then held thousands of private emails from Wisconsin Republicans in several folders on their servers marked “Opposition Research.”

This proves without question government officials were using a supposed government investigation of legal matters as a subterfuge to gather political attack information.
(a) What action has been taken against any of these individuals?

I'm not even a third of the way through the document and I can't finish this moment. But it's already clear your state is corrupt.

Michael K said...

The John Doe scandal was a preview of the Trump Russia scandal that is going on now except nobody in the world could get Trump to be silent about this crap;

Narayanan Subramanian said...

How convincing i.e. legally legitimate, (wow a needed qualification) was the threat of fearsome retribution to the John Does ... Ignorance of law or timidity due to cheese eating induced surrender syndrome ;-)

Narayanan Subramanian said...

And no victim has sought redress for the grievous wrong. Don't they know their Constitution in WI

MountainMan said...

I hope some of you took the time to watch a great Army-Navy game this afternoon. Thst’s football the way it ought to be.

narciso said...

They did but the 7th circuit , said the raids were fine on the likes of cyndi archer. Because they secured convictions onnother officials.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Alcee Hastings is next in the sexual harassment lottery. It looks like the government paid his victim $220,000. No surprise since Hastings has already been impeached and removed as a federal judge and now a corrupt CongressCritter.

Will he be forced to resign. Will anyone be left in the CBC.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Will he be forced to resign. Will anyone be left in the CBC.

His constituency would just reelect him again. Why doesn't he listen to president lightbringer, at some point you've made enough money. Especially when it's off the American people.

Excuse me, Ex-president.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

I see that Cindy Archer filed a civil rights complaint. Why not 4A? Again who provided legal advice ... A RINO?

FBI was involved under Obama regime too.

I am not an admirer of civil rights legislation ... As they can be and are aimed at wrong target ... against Citizens by the government functionaries!

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

For your viewing pleasure.

*More proof the MSM is leftwing-DNC sack of crap.

Ken B said...

Glenn Greenwald has a swingeing piece on the fake news pushers. This is devastating.

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/

Ken B said...

Incidentally, when I say fake news pushers I mean pushers like drug pushers.

narciso said...

The appeals court, asserted a blanket case of immunity for all actions conducted by chisholms directives. It was under as broad an interpretation as the ethics complaint abuse directed against the huntress.

james james said...

I mentioned Fat Gay Sam previously, as an example of a somewhat unfortunate nickname at the bar. Yes: he is fat. Yes: he is gay. But the nickname came from there being two Sams at the bar. The other Sam is lean, and hetero. When there are two people with the same name at least one of them will get a nickname. So: there is Sam, and there is Fat Gay Sam.

Of course, Fat Gay Sam could've been just Sam, and the other Sam could've maybe been Lean Straight Sam. But it usually doesn't work that way. The one farthest from the perceived norm gets the nickname. Unless the person closer to the perceived norm already has a cool nickname. Like Reno, say. Or Chain Dude. Then he gets his nickname, too. And -- no -- you cannot pick your own nickname. You will be laughed at mercilessly. Unless people are afraid of you. Then 'Eight Ball' it is. For instance.

This nickname dynamic happens outside the bar, of course, albeit in a more neutral form. Say there are two Johns in the office: to differentiate in conversation one might be called Tall John, and the other Short John. Because you have to give both a nickname so it doesn't seem like you are picking on one of them.

And Tall John isn't really that tall: he is just taller than Short John. Who really isn't that short. Tall John is also balding, and Short John is also fat. But you can't be caught in the office calling one Bald John and the other Fat John. Even though it would make the distinction much clearer. When women are involved it is even more carefully neutral: the Carol with eyeglasses, say. Who is significantly older than the Carol who doesn't wear glasses. Who is hot.

So: Fat Gay Sam. Fat Gay Sam is pretty comfortable with who he is. And part of who he is, is that he want to get laid on occasion. Not a lot of opportunities there at our bar for him. Not a lot of opportunities there for most of the regulars either, but Fat Gay Sam does something about it: he goes and hits the bars in Capitol Hill.

And then he sometimes gets laid. People think of the gay community as being obsessed with youth and fit bodies, and that is probably true for most. But there are some who aren't particularly young or particularly fit, and they want to get laid, too. And they often find each other. So Fat Guy Sam gets laid on occasion. Which is better than most of the guys at the bar.

This makes some of the straight guys at the bar jealous: Fat Gay Sam can get laid, and they can't. Well, there are differences: for one, Sam goes out and looks for it, he knows it is not going to come to him. Another difference is that straight guys need to find a woman who is looking for sex that night, or at least leaning that way; when both of the people are guys, and both are looking for sex: well, the chances of getting laid increase dramatically. Because most guys, gay or straight, want to have sex. That night. As I said: this makes some of the straight guys at the bar jealous.

Some at the bar have insinuated that Fat Gay Sam is a Bottom, and there are more Tops than Bottoms in the gay community, so his chances as a Bottom are better. By insinuated, I mean they have said that. This is pure speculation, I believe -- and, I suspect, sour grapes -- on their part: most straight guys' knowledge of the inner workings of the gay community comes from TV shows. Or the Internet. Or maybe one of the gay guys at the bar, who might just be an Unreliable Narrator.

There are a lot of Unreliable Narrators at the bar, gay and straight. Diversity.

- james james

Kevin said...

Glenn Greenwald has a swingeing piece on the fake news pushers. This is devastating.

"At minimum, these networks – CNN, MSNBC and CBS – have to either identify who purposely fed them this blatantly false information, or explain how it’s possible that “multiple sources” all got the same information wrong in innocence and good faith. Until they do that, their cries and protests the next time they’re attacked as “Fake News” should fall on deaf ears, since the real author of those attacks – the reason those attacks resonate – is themselves and their own conduct."

Even Greenwald has to admit Trump is right.