Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts

Journal damn_registrars's Journal: So September 11th is on a Monday this year ... 147

Journal by damn_registrars
As we keep seeing one indictment of the former POTUS after another, I'm left to wonder if anyone would dare to release an indictment against Trump - and potentially Giuliani - on September 11th? Giuliani had so taken ownership of that day as his greatest achievement that it is practically called "Rudy Giuliani Day"; it would seem like it would be quite the shot across the bow to hand him an indictment on that day.

Not that he has a political - or legal - career left to salvage after what he has sacrificed at the altar of Saint Donnie, but an indictment on his favorite day would put a little more emphasis on what he has thrown away.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

So September 11th is on a Monday this year ... More

So September 11th is on a Monday this year ...

Comments Filter:
  • The indictments are as believable as the impeachments were.

    If anything, this is symptomatic of the general collapse of our system of government.
    • So actively working to overrule a legitimate election is now OK, as long as you feel you were wronged? Or is it only OK if you are from the right team?

      If anything, this is symptomatic of the general collapse of our system of government.

      You don't really expect me to believe that you'd be calling for anything less than public execution if the shoe were on the other foot (or belonging to the wrong team), do you? Trump openly asked for an elected official to commit a criminal act on his behalf. The overwhelming majority of people who were questioned by the grand jury in Georgia were registe

      • Too tired to wad through your settling pond here right now, sorry. Do consider that you may have been brainwashed.

        • Do consider that you may have been brainwashed.

          So are you saying the recorded conversation of Trump asking Raffensperger to come up with another 11,000+ votes did not actually happen? Or was it actually staged by some clever "leftist" operative that impersonated Trump's voice and hacked the white house phone switchboard to make it look like it came from Trump - and then after the fact convinced Trump that he made the call himself?

          That's some next-level conspiracy there, smitty. Are there reptoids involved at that point as well?

          You can twist rea

          • The people in whom I have zero trust are telling me that there are entire worlds within words uttered by Trump.

            OK. Rebuild some credibility first.

            • entire worlds within words uttered by Trump.

              It is possible for words to be the basis for criminal trials (and convictions). If someone declares their intent to shoot the POTUS that is enough to get them in jail. For that matter if someone is recorded asking for someone to kill someone for them for money, that can be enough for a conviction on murder-for-hire.

              Here we have Trump recorded asking someone to fraudulently overturn an election. That is indeed a crime. Just because he wasn't smart enough to know it to be a crime is not an excuse.

              • Here we have Trump recorded asking someone to fraudulently overturn an election.

                Hasn't been proven in court one way or another.

                • Here we have Trump recorded asking someone to fraudulently overturn an election.

                  Hasn't been proven in court one way or another.

                  It is going to court. The grand jury found the evidence was substantial enough to warrant bringing charges. What part of it are you trying to defend, and on what basis?

                  Notably here you are setting the bar at trial. When your team was screaming for someone else to be thrown in jail you were happily parroting that mantra, without any concern for any criminal charges or criminal trial proceeding that jail time.

                  • What part of it are you trying to defend, and on what basis?

                    I would like to defend the part of the system that can be audited, which is none of it.

                    • What part of it are you trying to defend, and on what basis?

                      I would like to defend the part of the system that can be audited, which is none of it.

                      What kind of "audit" are you asking for in response to criminal charges, beyond a fair trial?

                      You have enthusiastically paraded a large number of different meanings of "audit" on behalf of the wishes of your team before. I don't expect you to tell us what that word means to you this week - if it even has a concrete meaning to you currently - but could you at least tell us what it is that you want to "audit"? The trial is going forward like any other criminal trial (save the fact that your hero is grant

                    • I am asking for an election system with enough integrity to support a formal audit.

                      As Scott Adams has astutely pointed out on his podcast, when there is a system (like elections) with high payoffs and minimal risk when engaging in shenanigans, the likelihood of said shenanigans goes to 100%.

                      And there are copious highlight reels and documented evidence of Democrats getting as pissy as Trump over prior elections. We needn't rehearse all that.

                      What I would like from you and the rest of the country is a so

                    • I am asking for an election system with enough integrity to support a formal audit.

                      Beyond the fact that you never asked for such a thing after a win for your team, could you please expand on that and say what that would actually look like? So far all it has meant is the ability to keep recounting until you get the result you want.

                      And there are copious highlight reels and documented evidence of Democrats getting as pissy as Trump over prior elections.

                      Please, show me one case of a democrat inciting a riot or asking someone to come up with thousands of votes from nowhere to overturn an election. I have never once heard of that happening. Nor have I ever seen a democrat refuse to concede a presidential elec

                    • Audit. Them. All. "You didn't ask for one when 'your team' won" is an example of your gaslighting.

                      Please, show me one case of a democrat inciting a riot

                      George Floyd.

                      What...does reform actually mean?

                      As I've stated copious times: Article V.

                    • Audit. Them. All. "You didn't ask for one when 'your team' won" is an example of your gaslighting.

                      You did not ask for an audit after the 2000 or 2016 elections, both of which were closer than the 2020 election. In both cases you and your team told the rest of the country to "move on" and "suck it up".

                      Please, show me one case of a democrat inciting a riot

                      George Floyd.

                      Interesting editing, there. That said George Floyd did not incite a riot himself. His murder did that.

                      What...does reform actually mean?

                      As I've stated copious times: Article V.

                      Yeah, yeah. Except Article V could lead to any number of things, including no reform at all. Would you care to state what it is that you want your appointed Senators to do in a "convention of states

                    • I thought that you were about the voters? This is the way they effectively rise up. If you hadn't noticed, our elections are otherwise owned by the RNC/DNC.

                    • You did not ask for an audit after the 2000 or 2016 elections,

                      Oh, just piss right off with the false insistence upon useless consistency. Right. Off.

                      Except Article V could lead to any number of things, including no reform at all.

                      Well, chumly, Obama/Trumpen/Bidenomics have us on a course for economic explosion, so maybe we reject elite opinion and do something smart instead?

                    • You did not ask for an audit after the 2000 or 2016 elections,

                      Oh, just piss right off with the false insistence upon useless consistency. Right. Off.

                      So you're claiming it's merely coincidence that the close elections you don't want to audit are the ones your team won the white house?

                      Bidenomics have us on a course for economic explosion, so maybe we reject elite opinion and do something smart instead?

                      The only plan your team ever offers is Reaganomics. It's been tried three times and has decimated the middle and lower classes every time. Every. Single. Time. The smart thing to do would be to go far, far, away from Reaganomics.

                      Now whether Biden's plan is far away enough from Reaganomics to repair some of the damage done by the third iteration of Reaganomics will

                    • "simply"

                      And yet, they do not. So perhaps your analysis is preliminary and incomplete in terms of describing the situation.

                    • you don't want to audit

                      Why, no. I am saying that this is a filthy lie and I want to audit them all, continuously, whether or not there is substantial risk of cheating. I have said this, but you seem to have a nearly erotic lust to invert the meaning of my posts.

                      The only plan your team ever offers is Reaganomics.

                      Yeah, all of those tent cities and riots in the 80s were so, so, wretched.

                    • you don't want to audit the 2000 and 2016 elections

                      Why, no. I am saying that this is a filthy lie and I want to audit them all, continuously, whether or not there is substantial risk of cheating. I have said this, but you seem to have a nearly erotic lust to invert the meaning of my posts.

                      I have never before now heard you say that. Until now I have only heard you say that elections that did not result in victory for your team deserved audit.

                      The only plan your team ever offers is Reaganomics.

                      Yeah, all of those tent cities and riots in the 80s were so, so, wretched.

                      Just because people weren't rioting didn't mean they were in any way doing well. Your team has forced Reaganomics on us three times now, and all three times it shrunk the middle class, drove up unemployment, and conveniently enriched the pockets of the wealthiest Americans.

                    • I have never before now heard you say that.

                      It seems that you un-hear whatever supports your current gaslighting campaign.

                      all three times it shrunk the middle class, drove up unemployment, and conveniently enriched the pockets of the wealthiest Americans.

                      As you say.

                    • I have never before now heard you say that.

                      It seems that you un-hear whatever supports your current gaslighting campaign.

                      No but if your team wins the 2024 election and you try to join in on their inevitable anti-audit campaign in response, I will hold you to your promise to support the auditing of every election.

                      all three times it shrunk the middle class, drove up unemployment, and conveniently enriched the pockets of the wealthiest Americans.

                      As you say.

                      Perhaps all three times you were fortunate enough to not be harmed by Reaganomics. Those of us who found ourselves in the bottom 90% each time found them painful each time.

                    • you were fortunate enough to not be harmed by Reaganomics

                      Success is un-magical:

                      1. Stay sober

                      2. Stay married

                      3. Stay connected to a community of faith

                      4. Eschew debt

                      5. Hoover up knowledge

                      Given all that, one will do just fine. We can extend compassion to those who fall prey to disease and disaster. Understand that anyone preaching "Behold: thou art a victim" is selling a bill of goods.

                      I myself group up as a military dependent on the cutting edge of food stamps. During Jimmy Carter's Hollow Force Navy, and the Reagan Administration.

                      Those of us who found ourselves in the bottom 90% each time found them painful each time.

                      We were lower half, if

                    • Success is un-magical:
                      1. Stay sober
                      2. Stay married
                      3. Stay connected to a community of faith
                      4. Eschew debt
                      5. Hoover up knowledge

                      I rarely drink, I don't do any drugs. I've been married for quite some time now. The only substantial debts I have are my mortgage and my car payment. I hold a PhD in Biochemistry that I earned as a married man.

                      Yet the 2nd and 3rd iterations of Reaganomics have been disastrous for me from a career standpoint. Every time it looks like I have a chance to get a little closer to saving money to send my children to college or - god forbid - save money towards retirement, another financial disaster hits

                    • Or we could really think about community and restructure our health care system into something that doesn't drive people into insurmountable debt through no fault of their own.

                      My contention is that we've seen the value of concentrated power: it breeds corruption and a quasi-aristocracy. Some fools even think that the "two party" system with electoral bread and circuses is more than so much facade.

                      The correct answer lays in the direction of individual liberty and decentralization.

                      Otherwise we have, to drop an example at random of the contradictions at work, the spectacle of a wide open Southern border and a Mayorkas spewing falsehood before Congress about how secure that non-e

                    • My contention is that we've seen the value of concentrated power: it breeds corruption and a quasi-aristocracy.

                      Yet nobody concentrates power as much as the fascists from your team. As we've already seen, fascism is all about the concentration of power, and fascism is exclusively a movement of the right wing. The only times we've ever seen anything like a federal

                      quasi-aristocracy

                      in our country has been when your team has held the white house.

                      The correct answer lays in the direction of individual liberty and decentralization.

                      Then you are definitely not voting for the right candidates for president.

                      But to go back to my point on health care - and I'll remind you that two comments ago you were talking about it

                    • Yet nobody concentrates power as much as the fascists from your team.

                      Please. What a tendentious thing to say.

                      there is no "decentralization" solution for it that works. We've seen what happens when we try that, we get terrible results

                      No, we have not. And the reason we have not, in a character, is $

                    • Yet nobody concentrates power as much as the fascists from your team.

                      Please. What a tendentious thing to say.

                      Really? Under GWB, VP Cheney forced congress and the courts to bend to his will, and made many decisions that had never previously been granted to the VP. Under Trump, the cabinet and administration was packed with cases of nepotism and yes men to make sure that nobody dared to make a decision that would anger the Dear Leader. Those are just a couple blatant cases of power concentration by your fascist teammates.

                      there is no "decentralization" solution for it that works. We've seen what happens when we try that, we get terrible results

                      we have not

                      I'm afraid you're wrong there. We have the most decentralized health care system of any in

                    • We have the most decentralized health care system of any industrialized nation on the planet. The decentralization is exactly why it wastes tens of billions of dollars annually. If you push for more decentralization you will only increase that waste. Do you want it to waste hundreds of billions annually? That can be done if you want. We could push for a cool one trillion annually if you want.

                      I'm just unsure that economics supports your viewpoint. Are the words "pharmacy benefit manager" familiar to you? The system reeks of cartels and regulatory capture.

                    • NIH is NIN without the beat.

                    • replace it with single payer

                      Yes, and where your democrats when they had the majority, and the presidency?

                      I don't know where you were, but I called out the democrats on their cowardice on the matter many times. If I were POTUS I would have vetoed the ACA and told them to try again; I would have rather had my legacy tied to sending that down in flames than on signing up for a bailout of a disgustingly profitable industry.

                      so please, you can't single out any particular faction of the Party for any of this

                      In the case of the insurance industry - be it health, life, auto, homeowners, whatever - both sides of the aisle in DC are under the same ownership. The choices signed off in DC are not part

                    • We have the most decentralized health care system of any industrialized nation on the planet. The decentralization is exactly why it wastes tens of billions of dollars annually. If you push for more decentralization you will only increase that waste. Do you want it to waste hundreds of billions annually? That can be done if you want. We could push for a cool one trillion annually if you want.

                      I'm just unsure that economics supports your viewpoint.

                      Can you be more specific? I've laid out the math before for how the insurance industry wastes tens of billions of our dollars annually. You can try to refute it if you want. Or are you arguing against some other point?

                      Are the words "pharmacy benefit manager" familiar to you?

                      Yes I am well familiar with them. That's a small part of the insanely profitable corruption.

                    • Can you be more specific?

                      https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730/ref=sr_1_1 [amazon.com]

                      a small part

                      My wife has had a two-decade career at a second tier pharma. It's a cartel, and regulatory capture abounds. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_khH6pZnHCM [youtube.com] for a humorous send-up.

                    • The first couple of iterations of Pretty Hate Machine weren't too bad.

                    • both sides of the aisle in DC are under the same ownership.

                      And 98% of you continue to reelect them anyway, over and over, so you can stop with the blame game please

                      I noticed you did not include the opening part of that sentence, where I mentioned "in the context of the insurance industries". That is very important here. There are plenty of other industries and fields of work where there are strong partisan divides, but the insurance industry found their optimal ROI came when they just bought everyone.

                    • Can you be more specific?

                      https://www.amazon.com/Basic-E... [amazon.com]

                      First of all, I took Econ 1001 in undergrad.

                      Second of all, no Econ book refutes the simple math of the tens of billions of wasted dollars that come from our broken health care system. If you want to challenge it, please at least use something that relates to it. You might as well have cited the Urban Dictionary or Atlas Obscura instead, those would be just as meaningful for refuting the fact of the waste that we uniquely get from our system.

                      a small part

                      My wife has had a two-decade career at a second tier pharma.

                      And my wife currently works for a PBM provider. Neither of th

                    • The first NIN release.

                    • Inviting more companies in to the system will only drive costs up.

                      Then perhaps some regulatory reform is needful in addition to competition.

                    • I noticed you did not include the opening part of that sentence, where I mentioned "in the context of the insurance industries". That is very important here.

                      No, it's a distraction.. The only important thing is each individual's choice to reelect bought politicians over and over in the ethereal quest for preferential treatment. Everything else is bullshit blame passing.

                      Perhaps in your quest for philosophical purity, voting for someone who cannot win is acceptable if they are most perfectly aligned with your wishes. In the reality I live in, I see that often candidate A wants something that is more similar to what I want than candidate B, and candidate C might be even more so but has no chance of winning. Therefore rather than risk candidate B doing something particularly detrimental to me, I will vote for candidate A.

                      It's called compromise. I know a lot of politic

                    • Inviting more companies in to the system will only drive costs up.

                      Then perhaps some regulatory reform is needful in addition to competition.

                      As I already said, competition will only drive costs up. There is no alternate possibility. We have enormous costs already that exist only because of the number of companies that are fucking us repeatedly in the current system. Adding more of them does not mean they will start to use lubrication - though we'd be overpaying for it if they did so that wouldn't be helpful. Adding more of them only means we're going to make health care yet more expensive.

                      I don't know what kind of regulatory reform you

                    • Love me some Fresh Fruit. Not that I agree with Jello Biafra necessarily, but getting contrary input is huge for minimizing bias.

                    • competition will only drive costs up

                      That's a load of crap. There is no competition.. and there is no opposition.

                      Oh, just shush! d_r is an expert, and we peasant scum are to know our place and abdicate cognitive effort in favor of His Team's Narrative. It is the only way to preserve Our Democracy.

                    • The votes are bought at both elections and Congress. If we can't get to Article V and do something meaningful internally, than the laws of economic gravity will eventually catch up with us. For example, if the BRICS unseat the dollar as the reserve currency successfully, we shall move from Jack Around Mode into the dreaded Find Out Mode.

                      Given organizational behavior, the latter may be the way the idiocy halts.

                    • competition will only drive costs up

                      That's a load of crap. There is no competition.. and there is no opposition. The voters have made sure of that.

                      The voters have had no say in the structure of the insurance industry. The insurance industry has maximized on profit - as their boards demand - and this is the result we get. The only way to improve it is to destroy it completely. No amount of regulation - or de-regulation - will solve this problem, the monster needs to be killed.

                    • The voters have had no say in the structure of the insurance industry.

                      Very simply, you cannot know that until they make the effort.

                      The decisions that keep us tied to the insurance industry are not ones that the voters get to make. They should have a say in it, bu they don't. This is of course by design - designed by the insurance industry.

                      So please, don't hold out on us, what is your workable alternative?

                      Eventually as the body count continues to pile up and the consumers get fucked over again and again and again and again and again, people will start to revolt against this idiotic mayhem. At that point we will finally work towards joining the civilized world and establishing a single payer system

                    • Frankly if they want to burn down the multibillion dollar offices of the health insurance industry I'd be fine with that. Seems like that might make a pretty good statement. It puzzles me that the insurance industry somehow manages to have a higher approval rating than congress; as much as I don't care for congress I really truly hate the insurance industry. If I had to choose between lawyers and insurance industry execs to socialize with I'd take the lawyers every single time.
                    • I think most people see at least one thing as completely irreparable and beyond redemption. To me it's the insurance industry. They are all a bunch of crooked capitalist bastards in my view. When I was in undergrad, an arbitrary decision they made with no advance warning nearly forced me out of school (permanently) and into permanent debt. It had collections calling me at 3am every morning for months on end. It took months to figure out what they did, and they couldn't even be bothered to apologize. T

Slashdot Top Deals

"Just think, with VLSI we can have 100 ENIACS on a chip!" -- Alan Perlis

Close