POP QUIZ: A Guy Walks Into A Crowded Bar...

Scenario #1 

So, a guy walks into a crowded bar waving a baseball bat and says to the barkeeper, "Gimme all your money." The barkeeper thinks for a moment and says, "Sure, I'll just open the cash register." While he's opening the cash register he trips the silent alarm. The cops come rushing in the door. What happens next?

1. The cops ask the bartender what happened, and he says, "This guy threatened me with his bat and demanded I give him all my money."
2. The cops ask guy with the bat what happened, and he answers, "Nothing. I asked him for a donation and clearly he called the cops. I didn't do anything wrong."
3. The cops ask the other people at the bar what happened and they say the didn't see it. 

Did you pick your description of the event? Okay. What do the cops do?

1. The cops arrest the guy with the bat and charge him with attempted robbery
2. The cops arrest the bartender for calling in a phony cop call.
3. The cops explain to the bartender that since the guy didn't threaten to bash his head in or take any money, no crime had been committed. The cops leave the bar.

Scenario #2

So, a guy walks into a crowded bar carrying a baseball bat. He sets it down on the bar and says to the bartender, "I would really like to help you with your crime problem. All you have to do is give me information about every time Vasily, Ivan, and Vladimir come in, and I'll make sure that nothing happens to your little bar. If you don't agree to this, I'll make sure you have no protection and every crook in the neighborhood is gonna rob you with my blessing." The bartender happens to be wearing a wire and the conversation is recorded. After the guy leaves, the bartender calls the cops and tells them.  What happens next?

1. The cops listen to the recording, then go arrest the guy for extortion.
2. The cops go find the other guy who tells them it was a genuine attempt to help the guy out. It was perfectly innocent. 
3. The cops explain to the bartender that the guy really just wanted to help him and no crime was committed. 

Scenario #3

The guy with the baseball bat gets arrested for attempted robbery and extortion. The district attorney files the charges. The case goes to court. The jury, as it turns out, was pre-selected and empaneled before anyone arrives at court. The judge is related to the baseball bat guy and owes him. The prosecution objects, and the judge overrules the objection. Opening statements proceed, and when they are done, the judge announces no witnesses will be permitted to testify. He instructs the jury to retire to another local bar to render their verdict. 

TRUE OR FALSE: This is permitted in a US Court of Law?

TALK AMONGST YOURSELVES and JUSTIFY YOUR ANSWERS.

According to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This is the part I don't get. If the accused is entitled to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, why didn't the GOP want anyone at all to testify? One would think having witnesses speaking upon one's behalf would be a good thing, an entitlement one would want. 

But no. The GOP didn't even want witnesses for the defense. What does that tell you? Everyone on that side, all those God-fearing good Christian soldier souls did not wish to perjure themselves under oath? That's the only logical thing I could come up with. 

 But wait....there's a phrase for this! Can you say, KANGAROO COURT, boys and girls?

If you've heard the expression but are not sure what that means, here's the definition:

A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.                                                                                   Wikipedia

I am past party identification with this thing. I don't give a rat's ass if you're Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Pastafarian, Green, or Purple with Pink Polka Dots. It doesn't freakin' matter. What matters is that while all this bull-oney was going down, NO ONE was paying attention to the man behind the curtains as crucial regulations for land, water, and air were rolled back. We were too busy staring at the big green head. And near as I can tell, we're gonna keep staring at its hypnotic qualities until Wednesday morning, November 4th, when we wake up to learn that no matter who actually won the election, Feckless Leader will still be POTUS....even in Kansas City, Kansas.

The Senate's greatest crime is not the acquittal of a criminal, but in the preservation of the great lie...that ethics and morals have no place in American. As a body, the Senate has overturned the Constitution and replaced it will nothing short of the Great Lie. Which makes me wonder why they don't want witnesses. That is such a complicated paradigm I do not even wish to unpack it. 

Yes, I do have a theory as to why they don't want witnesses: because of transcripts. They do not want a written record taken verbatim from the testimony in Congress. As soon as an official transcript is created, it's all set in stone. And the last thing the GOP wants are incontrovertible, irrefutable, unimpeachable facts.

More than democracy dies in darkness. So does hope. 

The Wifely Person's Tip O'the Week

This is not original thinking, although I wish it was. 

From George Orwell:

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'                                                     

Part 1, Section 3 ,  Nineteen Eighty-Four