mspart

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. They could wait 4 years when he is not a sitting president. But they chose not to. You can take from that anything you like. mspart

At the risk of using a commentator on this I will just post a snippet of what he said. Jonathan Turley is his name. Here is the snippet. https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/14/smiths-supreme-obstruction-special-counsel-explains-how-he-was-planning-to-circumvent-the-supreme-court-decision-in-fischer/ Smith repeats the same conclusory evidence, such as citing how Trump said “fight” ten times in his January 6th speech. He minimized the immunity decision by removing some evidence but kept largely the original indictment. However, the treatment of the obstruction claims was the most telling and indicative of Smith, who has repeatedly lost cases due to overextending constitutional and statutory authority. The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States rejecting the use of obstruction of legal proceedings against January 6th defendants will potentially impact hundreds of cases. For some, it may lead to dismissals or, in the cases with multiple charges, resentencings. One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of former president Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts. It was not clear if Special Counsel Jack Smith would yield to the decision or possibly take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence. However, Smith tended to push the law to the breaking point to bag defendants. That was the case when his conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously reversed as overextending another law. As I wrote previously after the decision, “It is doubtful that [Smith] will go quietly into the night after the Fischer decision.” In most cases, a prosecutor would go back and secure a superseding indictment in light of the loss of the obstruction claims. Those claims were central to the narrative of the government under the Trump indictment. However, I wrote that it “is not Smith’s style” to yield to precedent and that he would likely “take a not-so-subtle hint from Jackson in her concurrence.” Jackson supported the majority in finding that the obstruction provision, Section 1512(c), was enacted after the Enron case to address the destruction of documents and records. Section 1512(c)(1) prohibits corruptly obstructing an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. However, a second provision under subsection (c)(2) allowed for charges that would “otherwise” obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. The Court held that the obstruction cases under Section 1512(c)(2) must be tied to impairing the integrity or availability of evidence. However, in a single justice concurrence, she added a way that Smith and other prosecutors might still be able to shoehorn January 6th into a Section 1512 offense: “That official proceeding [Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote] plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. And it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding “in ways other than those specified in (c)(1).” Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.” Once again, no other justice joined Jackson in the concurrence. Right on cue, Smith revealed that he was going to do precisely what I feared in taking a position supported by a single justice. In his report, Smith wrote: “Mr. Trump’s and his co-conspirators’ obstruction involved replacing valid elector certificates from the contested states with false ones they had manufactured-the Office anticipated the possibility of such a result in Fischer and confirmed that the evidence would prove Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even under a narrow interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).” Just saying that a proceeding involves “certain records” is transparently artificial and forced. Even the submission of an alternative slate of electors is not the destruction of electors certified by the secretaries of state. Interesting that Turley predicted what Smith would do and by what is written and put in bold and underlined, it seems he was correct. These are arguments beyond my ability to reasonably know about. So I must gain education from others as has been explained. I don't post this for any other reason that to show that Smith was overreaching as he has done in the past. And in the past, he has gotten convictions but they were reversed upon appeal. The lesson here is that he was a dog that couldn't learn a new trick. Or the lesson here is that he is a one trick pony. Either way, his prosecution was full of holes and this is just one of them. mspart

Still waiting. What would need to happen so that you can be proud of this country? mspart

We won't know that until a jury trial happens with associated appeals. You can't tell that from this report, you only have his opinion and he has been reversed a number of times so his opinion is not that reliable. But this case is over. That is why the report can be released. I don't think they would have done that if this was a slam dunk as some think. They could wait 4 years and go get him then. But then there is no political point to that. But DOJ dropped the cases against Trump. That might tell a person something if they were open to it. mspart

Maybe this is their future fire prevention for the area. Proscribed burn so to speak. mspart

UB, Yes, the Hillary deal was political but it was held in a political theater. This thing with Trump was a DOJ issue prosecuting him in a court of law. Very different and you know it. mspart

It is apparent from the report that Trump said he was running for President on Nov 15 and on Nov 18, Smith was appointed to prosecute him. Maybe that's just a coincidence, maybe not. But this tells me this was politically motivated. That's what is important here. mspart

Yeah, well, all those liberals that live in the Palisades are not happy with their government right now. mspart

Love him or hate him, Musk is providing Star LInk to the LA fire fighters. https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/elon-musks-aid-to-la-fire-victims-free-starlink-internet-security-personnel-and-food-article-117184758 mspart

Or someone Jack Smith had working for him. mspart

https://katv.com/news/nation-world/la-times-owner-regrets-paper-endorsing-mayor-karen-bass-thats-a-mistake-pat-soon-shiong-the-owner-of-the-los-angeles-times-wildfires-fires-palisades-socal-southern-california LOS ANGELES (TNND) — Pat Soon-Shiong, the owner of the Los Angeles Times, said Monday it was a mistake for the newspaper to endorse Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. Soon-Shiong said during an appearance on the online show “The Morning Meeting” that “we’ll accept some blame” as wildfires cause damage in parts of southern California. “So, at the L.A. Times, we endorsed Karen Bass. I think, right now ... that’s a mistake, and we admit that,” Soon-Shiong said. “So, I thought it was very important early on for me to come out.” The Los Angeles Times endorsed Bass for mayor in 2022. The newspaper categorized her as a leader who could bring city residents together and had a holistic vision for a better community. On Monday, Soon-Shiong advised against having “professional politicians whose only job is really to run for office.” “It's an interesting thing is that maybe we should think about how we elect people on the basis of did they actually run a job? Did they actually make a payroll? Do they understand what it is?” he asked. Even the owner of the LA Times sees what is going on. mspart

They need to get more than 3 matches in my opinion. This is a great start though. We need more of this, or more USA participation in the international tourneys. Seems like a desert of wrestling action of late other than college. mspart

I'm suggesting you will make excuses for the government even if your house burned down in the fire. It seems that that is exactly what you would do. Theoretically. mspart

I'm looking for ideas about smoking some beef jerky. Techniques, recipes etc. Technique for me is really limited to lighting the propane burner to burn wood chips and the meat is above that. The smoker is as bare bones as you can possibly have. I can watch the inner box temperature but that's it. Any ideas will be much appreciated. mspart

So let me get this straight. If you lived in Pacific Palisades and lost your home to this fire, you would be arguing with everyone that said the government was to blame for not stopping the fire saying it is not the government's fault and they have done what they can and this is just too bad. It was not their fault that there was no water in the hydrants. There is only 13% containment today after a week of this fire. Do I have that correct? mspart

What would need to happen so that you can be proud of this country? mspart

I do not blame CA or LA for the fire starting. I blame them for letting a residential area burn to the ground. I blame them for pricing insurance out of the market so no one had fire insurance. I blame them for not maintaining areas where fire fuel was allowed to grow and did nothing to abate. I blame them for emptying reservoirs during fire season. I blame them for having a LA assist fire chief saying she can't get a 250 lb man out of a house, it is because the guy was in the wrong place in the house. https://nypost.com/2025/01/12/us-news/lafds-diversity-chief-sparks-fury-for-defending-dei-by-blaming-the-victim/ In a video defending the department’s DEI hiring practices, Deputy Chief Kristine Larson — who heads the Equity and Human Resources Bureau — addressed accusations that female firefighters aren’t strong enough to carry a man out of a burning building. Her response: “He got himself in the wrong place if I have to carry him out of a fire.” What fire department official talks like that? That is gross negligence!!! mspart

Of course they need to maintain things. But don't do the repairs when the fire season is on. Basic common sense. mspart

https://apnews.com/article/los-angeles-wind-wildfires-climate-change-weather-42b55ae1e66b56a6375300e448f01946#:~:text=The Santa Ana winds are,contributes to vegetation quickly drying. Santa Ana winds are from Sep through May. See above. They plan maintenance years in advance. Someone must have forgotten fire season. That does not rest with the average Joe. That rests with the government. If item 3 is true, why is the state looking into it. https://www.yahoo.com/news/pacific-palisades-reservoir-offline-empty-163924460.html mspart

I didn't see anything there about a reservoir being empty, it just says it was off line for repairs. How long was it off line? Why was it offline and/or empty during santa ana winds when the fire danger is elevated? Who planned this? It certainly wasn't Joe Schmoe down the road. It was the government that planned that. Generally speaking, who is to blame when there is no water? Whoever manages the water supply is the first in line for blame. Who is that? Who was in charge of mowing down the grasses so such a fire didn't have the fuel to become catastrophic? The answer to these two questions will be the same. Unfortunately, the voters are ultimately to blame for voting in incompetent leaders and placing them in positions of responsibility for the safety and welfare of all citizens. mspart

Projection is your go to move my little crustacean friend. mspart

Sad week last week. I was for PSU and TX. During the Tx game, a lady came over with the chain saw I borrowed her, and she talked for roughly 45 minutes. The game was just tied 14-14 when that happened, when I got back to it, the game was 28-14. I really don't like OSU but they are a strong team. Notre Dame has their work cut out for them. mspart

Who empties a reservoir when the Santa Ana winds are coming? Seems like fire safety 101. mspart

Except for the reservoir that is empty. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/reservoir-pacific-palisades-was-commission-fire-started-rcna187217 mspart

It helps when they don't have an empty reservoir. mspart