this blog develops the idea that a theory of man in history can be worked out around the theme that man's self expression in culture and society is motivated by the desire to find meaning in man's existence. i proceed by summarizing seminal works that provide insights into the dynamics of this process, with the view that the culmination of this exploration was reached with god's self revelation in jesus. i'll hopefully also explore the developments that followed this event.
We are suffering through a power outage, which is why Comments are only just now being enabled. No word on when it will be over. This may be it tonight.
UPDATE: Just got power back about 1/2 hour ago. Will have some catching up to do.
I don't follow Sundance, except really from the times he's mentioned here. But from another site I followed to a post which says "will first share the name of the primary Durham investigator to media previously briefed on the documents we assembled. From there, and within 24 hrs, we will make that name public and direct inquiries can begin."
I really don't understand the threat. What will naming this primary investigator do for my knowledge of this conspiracy? Will in initiate indictments?
I follow him from time to time because even eccentric people can have something sometimes. He's been so cloak and dagger about it, whatever "it" is. It's supposed to be based on entirely public information, so that would seem to be nothing that needs to be hidden.
Whatever...when he discloses anything he thinks he has found, it will land in better hands to do something with it if the connections he has drawn amount to anything. In some ways, he is playing the part of carnival barker which draws an audience and good for support of his site in the short run. It's high risk because if what he has is a nothing-burger, then he will have alienated his audience.
"In some ways, he is playing the part of carnival barker which draws an audience and good for support of his site in the short run. It's high risk because if what he has is a nothing-burger, then he will have alienated his audience."
Anonymous, exactly right. He switches positions on people (NOT policy) often. Example: when Barr became AG, Barr was going to help PT drain the swamp. Six months later, Barr was a reprobate. He can do no wrong with his followers.
"What will naming this primary investigator do for my knowledge of this conspiracy? Will in initiate indictments?" I gather you mean "Will IT initiate?"
What will naming this primary investigator do? For all it's worth, the point is to force this PI to publish sundance's "insights", lest he be smeared as working to cover-up these "insights".
I wonder what sundance would do, if this PI replied to this threat with "be my guest!"?
Good morning. Welcome back to the world of "power on." It’s a better world, for sure - especially in August :)
Have you already seen Sol Wisenberg's piece where he says he expects very little coming in the way of indictments? bit.ly/2DV4RQy
I'm keeping the faith for now, since my sanity requires it.
And I just can't get beyond the fact [BTW - rant alert!!] that what matters more than anything else is that the voters understand what went down, and that can only happen if conspiracy is actually charged. Anything else and most of the public just thinks, “okay, well maybe people got a little overanxious when they heard the POTUS was a traitor in cahoots with the Russian enemy, but” (and here’s the key) “BUT IF WHAT THEY DID WAS REALLY THIS HORRIBLE CONSPIRACY, THEN WHY DIDN’T TRUMP’S DOJ CHARGE THEM WITH SOME HORRIBLE CONSPIRACY? IT MUST BE BECAUSE THEY CAN’T PROVE IT, WHICH REALLY MEANS AT THE END OF THE DAY IT’S JUST HARDBALL POLITICS OF THE SORT WE’RE NUMB TO ANYMORE.”
I’ll say again, that’s the key. The people will not even begin to believe the wrongdoing committed was any more serious than what is charged. That much is a stone cold lock. And it won’t matter how good a "report" they put out, it will end up as noting more than news-for-a-day and will be flushed down the fake news memory hole tout de suite.
It just can't be allowed to matter one iota that a Democrat dominated jury might nullify at trial. There is no way - none - that you couldn’t get an UNBIASED jury -and that’s supposed to be the standard when considering to indict or not- to agree there was indeed a conspiracy as the term is commonly understood, and the only possible hangup would be whether or not all 12 would say that not only was it a conspiracy as commonly understood but that it also satisfied the legal requirements for the particular conspiracy charged. In other words, if they DID beat the charge, it would only be due to legal technicalities, but the voters and the entire world would know they were still guilty - basically just like what happened in the OJ trial.
Seriously, would justice have been better served if California had not charged OJ because they correctly figured an LA jury wouldn’t convict?
There was & is a conspiracy. Period. Of the nastiest & most democratically dangerous sort. So conspiracy must be charged & fought for, whatever the juries may do. Put these bastards in front of those juries. Make a bunch of them take the 5th (which you know they will.) Make the rest of them give their ridiculous explanations for why it’s all just a bunch of innocent coincidences, not a conspiracy, while the entire world is watching. This is the only way to concentrate the public’s mind on how serious, and dangerous to us all, this matter is.
Sorry for the rant (!!) - I’m just a little fired up over the Wisenberg post.
"the voters and the entire world would know they were still guilty.... that can only happen if conspiracy is *actually charged*.... *Anything* else and most of the public just thinks, 'okay, well maybe people got a little overanxious'."
Exactly. Hung juries can be explained as quirks in e.g. the Voir dire process. Failure to bring charges will reek, of the fix being in (to Righties), or wishful thinking by Righties (to Lefties).
Indeed, failure to bring charges will persuade millions of Righties, that this system is too feeble to be worth fighting to save, and that we need secession, or a Cuadillo.
The caudillo thing I could definitely see, which would mean things had really and truly gotten bad. A Trump reelection will put that to bed in a hurry, so one more reason to hope for that outcome.
And I hope my rant didn't come out in any way anti-Barr or even pessimistic. I'm just saying that justice isn't served (and I'm NOT saying Barr's DOJ is doing this) when those who are supposed to administer it basically say, through their actions, "since DC-area juries will convict Rs for anything & Ds for nothing, we'll just make sure & always charge Rs but never Ds. Cuz hey, the rules say we charge if we can convict, but not if we can't."
That's maybe just a caricature of what we have, but it's got a pretty strong factual basis behind it. Charging decisions have to be made assuming a neutral jury, no matter what the real world jury will be. And I just don't see any way America and the world really get to see what happened short of trials focusing their eyeballs on all the particulars, and only conspiracy charges (whatever name the actual charges may go by) can bring in all the details needed to fill out the big picture.
A story of, "Some really bad things happened but we're not going to charge the perpetrators for them" just rings hollow to most people.
"Charging decisions have to be made assuming a neutral jury", esp. in light of their impact upon a crucial election. Guys like Weissmann don't hesitate to make "the process into the punishment". Why can't Barr/ Durham do the same here?
Did you violate freedom of assembly restrictions?
ReplyDeleteOutage from storm, or from BLM "neighbors"?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, good luck with it!
Don't apologize for having the best blog on the web !
ReplyDeleteYour effort is much appreciated. :-)
Tx!
DeleteI don't follow Sundance, except really from the times he's mentioned here.
ReplyDeleteBut from another site I followed to a post which says "will first share the name of the primary Durham investigator to media previously briefed on the documents we assembled. From there, and within 24 hrs, we will make that name public and direct inquiries can begin."
I really don't understand the threat. What will naming this primary investigator do for my knowledge of this conspiracy? Will in initiate indictments?
I saw that a little while ago and thought it was incredibly juvenile. As you say.
DeleteI follow him from time to time because even eccentric people can have something sometimes. He's been so cloak and dagger about it, whatever "it" is. It's supposed to be based on entirely public information, so that would seem to be nothing that needs to be hidden.
DeleteWhatever...when he discloses anything he thinks he has found, it will land in better hands to do something with it if the connections he has drawn amount to anything. In some ways, he is playing the part of carnival barker which draws an audience and good for support of his site in the short run. It's high risk because if what he has is a nothing-burger, then he will have alienated his audience.
That's from Sundance from yesterday actually. His groupies are collecting soon to figure out the best method to spread the message around the country.
DeleteFurther, I think Sundance is going to bring Romney (2012) into the gambit and make a play with this and the predicate.
Delete"In some ways, he is playing the part of carnival barker which draws an audience and good for support of his site in the short run. It's high risk because if what he has is a nothing-burger, then he will have alienated his audience."
DeleteAnonymous, exactly right. He switches positions on people (NOT policy) often. Example: when Barr became AG, Barr was going to help PT drain the swamp. Six months later, Barr was a reprobate. He can do no wrong with his followers.
"What will naming this primary investigator do for my knowledge of this conspiracy? Will in initiate indictments?"
DeleteI gather you mean "Will IT initiate?"
What will naming this primary investigator do?
For all it's worth, the point is to force this PI to publish sundance's "insights", lest he be smeared as working to cover-up these "insights".
I wonder what sundance would do, if this PI replied to this threat with "be my guest!"?
Good morning. Welcome back to the world of "power on." It’s a better world, for sure - especially in August :)
ReplyDeleteHave you already seen Sol Wisenberg's piece where he says he expects very little coming in the way of indictments? bit.ly/2DV4RQy
I'm keeping the faith for now, since my sanity requires it.
And I just can't get beyond the fact [BTW - rant alert!!] that what matters more than anything else is that the voters understand what went down, and that can only happen if conspiracy is actually charged. Anything else and most of the public just thinks, “okay, well maybe people got a little overanxious when they heard the POTUS was a traitor in cahoots with the Russian enemy, but” (and here’s the key) “BUT IF WHAT THEY DID WAS REALLY THIS HORRIBLE CONSPIRACY, THEN WHY DIDN’T TRUMP’S DOJ CHARGE THEM WITH SOME HORRIBLE CONSPIRACY? IT MUST BE BECAUSE THEY CAN’T PROVE IT, WHICH REALLY MEANS AT THE END OF THE DAY IT’S JUST HARDBALL POLITICS OF THE SORT WE’RE NUMB TO ANYMORE.”
I’ll say again, that’s the key. The people will not even begin to believe the wrongdoing committed was any more serious than what is charged. That much is a stone cold lock. And it won’t matter how good a "report" they put out, it will end up as noting more than news-for-a-day and will be flushed down the fake news memory hole tout de suite.
It just can't be allowed to matter one iota that a Democrat dominated jury might nullify at trial. There is no way - none - that you couldn’t get an UNBIASED jury -and that’s supposed to be the standard when considering to indict or not- to agree there was indeed a conspiracy as the term is commonly understood, and the only possible hangup would be whether or not all 12 would say that not only was it a conspiracy as commonly understood but that it also satisfied the legal requirements for the particular conspiracy charged. In other words, if they DID beat the charge, it would only be due to legal technicalities, but the voters and the entire world would know they were still guilty - basically just like what happened in the OJ trial.
Seriously, would justice have been better served if California had not charged OJ because they correctly figured an LA jury wouldn’t convict?
There was & is a conspiracy. Period. Of the nastiest & most democratically dangerous sort. So conspiracy must be charged & fought for, whatever the juries may do. Put these bastards in front of those juries. Make a bunch of them take the 5th (which you know they will.) Make the rest of them give their ridiculous explanations for why it’s all just a bunch of innocent coincidences, not a conspiracy, while the entire world is watching. This is the only way to concentrate the public’s mind on how serious, and dangerous to us all, this matter is.
Sorry for the rant (!!) - I’m just a little fired up over the Wisenberg post.
Enjoy the air conditioning ;^>
"the voters and the entire world would know they were still guilty....
Deletethat can only happen if conspiracy is *actually charged*....
*Anything* else and most of the public just thinks, 'okay, well maybe people got a little overanxious'."
Exactly. Hung juries can be explained as quirks in e.g. the Voir dire process.
Failure to bring charges will reek, of the fix being in (to Righties), or wishful thinking by Righties (to Lefties).
Indeed, failure to bring charges will persuade millions of Righties, that this system is too feeble to be worth fighting to save, and that we need secession, or a Cuadillo.
DeleteOr, that the only hope for this system is the LP.
DeleteThat party's brass would be fools, to not make this argument the centerpiece of their campaign.
The caudillo thing I could definitely see, which would mean things had really and truly gotten bad. A Trump reelection will put that to bed in a hurry, so one more reason to hope for that outcome.
DeleteAnd I hope my rant didn't come out in any way anti-Barr or even pessimistic. I'm just saying that justice isn't served (and I'm NOT saying Barr's DOJ is doing this) when those who are supposed to administer it basically say, through their actions, "since DC-area juries will convict Rs for anything & Ds for nothing, we'll just make sure & always charge Rs but never Ds. Cuz hey, the rules say we charge if we can convict, but not if we can't."
That's maybe just a caricature of what we have, but it's got a pretty strong factual basis behind it. Charging decisions have to be made assuming a neutral jury, no matter what the real world jury will be. And I just don't see any way America and the world really get to see what happened short of trials focusing their eyeballs on all the particulars, and only conspiracy charges (whatever name the actual charges may go by) can bring in all the details needed to fill out the big picture.
A story of, "Some really bad things happened but we're not going to charge the perpetrators for them" just rings hollow to most people.
"Charging decisions have to be made assuming a neutral jury", esp. in light of their impact upon a crucial election.
DeleteGuys like Weissmann don't hesitate to make "the process into the punishment".
Why can't Barr/ Durham do the same here?
@Mouse
ReplyDelete"Guys like Weissmann don't hesitate to make "the process into the punishment"."
Right. Just ask Michael Flynn.