Crap Throwing Monkey

First, I'm not dumb enough to post my picture here with all these idiots. Second...I'm every bit the pasty-white doofus you picture me to be, anyway.

He's probably just prompted by security. "Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man Alert! Steve, cross to the other side of the street, quick!"

How utterly unsurprising is it that a thread about posting one's picture turns into yet another "Let's All Hit On Lana" festival. And why the hell wasn't I invited???

Ed, you are every bit the pasty-white doofus I always pictured you to be.

Don't you mean "Autistic kid gets to meet Jason McElwain"?

As far as I can tell, the judge didn't want to declare a mistrial and be responsible for the decision that took the death penalty off the table. So she did the next best thing: took all the government's evidence and testimony away, but told them they could try the case without it. Same effect: he gets life, as the government now has NO case whatsoever. But now the prosecution gets to fumble around and look like idiots for a little longer, and the judge isn't a lightning rod. I'm not sure if the decision is creative and elegant, or craven and cowardly. I don't know...but the key thing to note is that the system in this case worked: the judge very properly laid the ground rules as to what could and couldn't be done, and very properly slapped the prosecution down hard for their "win at all costs" attitude. I'm just waiting for someone to jump up and scream about this judge "legislating from the bench" for effectively avoiding the death penalty statute that "should be" applied in this case. You know one of our resident uber-right wackos here is thinking that right now...

On the one hand, I tend to dismiss Robertson as a fanatic who represents his own narrow viewpoint the vast majority of us don't share and recognize is whacked. On the other hand, we tend to accept as representative of Islam those whose narrow viewpoint the vast majority of Muslims don't share and recognize is whacked. Pat, want to take a wild guess at how you're making us normal Americans look in the world's eyes?

Hell, anyone want to take a guess how many foreign companies contract to DoD?

I thought that was the Clinton bill. It is different from Hunter's. If anything, it's actually worse...Hunter at least tries to phrase it in terms of overall national security infrastructure. Clinton et. al. (I'm not even sure she's the main sponsor, just the name that sticks in my head for obvious reasons) specifically forbid "ownership" of US ports by companies owned by foreign governments except those that already "own" our ports as of October 2005. It's not even subtle...

Well. That certainly put me in my place. I can see now that a guy who didn't play at Tulane but has a secretary certainly has more football knowledge than I. Anyone who considers "having a secretary" as an accomplishment seriously needs to get a life.

Because he got a scholarship and didn't play...

I'd believe that about a normal person. But this gomer? Don't underestimate his stupidity.

It's been around longer than "zeitgeist", I think.

And the death penalty's a moot point anyway. How long does anyone think this idiot will survive prison?

Every president since FISA was passed has argued that the executive can operate outside the restrictions of FISA (and therefore WAY outside the 4th Amendment) under certain conditions. One of the unique things about this situation is that aside from the various precedental arguments raised by previous administrations, one of the conditions is actually an act of Congress - namely, the war resolution. And like I've said, I don't agree with it...but it sure as hell isn't an invalid legal argument. Of course...as GG's pointed out, FISA likely wouldn't stand up to a constitutional test. So Congress is bitching about the president unconstitutionally violating an unconstitutional law that they arguably gave him authority to violate. Makes one wonder if the entire US government shouldn't just be declared unconstitutional at this point...

Hell no. Haven't you been listening to me B word the past three years that it's not even being discussed?

It's about the principle of the thing. Principles do sometimes matter. The Constitution was written on them.

Blows my mind. It's almost like no one's thinking past the end of April. Only thing that gives me any comfort is the hope that the UAE realizes that Islamic militant terrorism is as much a threat to them as us, and will remain pragmatic and not end their strategic cooperation with us in a fit of pique.

Not in this case. Call it what you want, sharing the testimony was enough to blow the trial.

It doesn't matter. Whether or not the distinction has been made between "foreign-owned" and "foreign-government owned" is immaterial to the simple fact that opposition to foreign-government-owned companies operating US ports is focused strictly on DPW, and not the Asian government-owned companies that operate the West Coast ports. And regardless...if the distinction wasn't made, then why do the bills introduced into the Senate specify companies owned by a foreign government...

Why do you think they're avoiding it like the plague?

Actually, I'm levelling charges of racism not just at Democrats. I'm levelling it at the entirety of American society. The irony's just thicker coming from the party that supposedly fights against it.

Never mind, I found it. Here's what I think: Direct quote from Feingold's statement. Replace "approve" with "censure", and that's what I think. I'll bet Feingold not only disagrees with me, but wouldn't even see the hypocrisy.

Link to a transcript?

No, actually the judge is right for declaring a mistrial because the government disclosed (accidentally, according to reports - "coached" may be an overstatement. It's certainly loaded) previous testimony and transcripts to future witnesses, thereby tainting the case. F'in dumb...and yet, oh-so unsurprising.