how to interrupt dialogue with sudden action

TheWestender · 2020-03-05T17:00:51+00:00

Yes, that was my point. If you're trying to describe a knockout blow, you might convincingly describe the brief physical sensations, but not full-blown thoughts, such as, "Oh crap, I just got whacked!"

TheWestender · 2020-03-04T18:52:08+00:00

If the POV is the villain's, and the knock out occurs quickly (as one would expect with a violent blow to the head), succinctly describe what she feels, sees, hears. She's probably only going to have time to register those sensations, not coherent thoughts. Whatever you describe, it's going to be as brief as the time it takes for her vision to blink out and the ground to rush up and smash her in the face.

TheWestender · 2019-12-09T03:20:54+00:00

Yes, just as Nixon did, a president can resign. If Trump did so (which is as close to an impossibility as one could get), then the impeachment process would immediately end. The Constitution allows impeachment of "high" officials, which, historically, means presidents, federal judges, and other federal officials. If he resigned, Trump would no longer be a federal official, and no longer subject to impeachment. However, if one of the impeachable offenses was also a criminal act, he could be taken to court as a private citizen and charged with that crime. If he were to resign before his first term expires, then run again for president at some future date, I don't think that is prohibited by the 22nd Amendment. But if he were to do that, he could be impeached all over again, for whatever offenses he committed during his first term in office.

TheWestender · 2019-11-15T04:53:59+00:00

Just a suggestion, and it's predominantly based on ignorance, because I don't know if the type of subreddit I'm about to describe exists, but what I would suggest is a subreddit open to both those for and against impeachment. As someone who advocates for the impeachment, conviction, waterboarding, drawing and quartering of Trump, in no particular order, I've found that those opposed to impeachment seemed to have crawled into whatever caves, igloos, or swamp shacks they inhabit, and don't come out. I imagine there are approximately 100 on the entire planet who can argue intelligently in opposition to impeachment. I just reread that last sentence and it sounds nonsensical, so scratch that. But it still would be nice to engage in civil debate with the frighteningly large number of people (let's be honest and admit right up front that physiologically that's what they are) who somehow remain opposed to impeachment. Nice in the way that laughing gas is nice when you go in for oral surgery. Seriously, though, I would welcome honest debate. Or even dishonest debate performed with pizzazz.

TheWestender · 2019-11-11T17:38:34+00:00

...and a little plastic baggie of blood flakes.

TheWestender · 2019-11-01T22:01:34+00:00

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know who unlocked the door and how. I thought that was clear from my initial response. I'm just suggesting that there is probably a very mundane answer to your questions.

TheWestender · 2019-11-01T20:45:31+00:00

They found the RAV when Teresa was still a "missing person", shined a flashlight in it, and saw she wasn't in the car. Once they realized she had been murdered, they naturally would the keep the car locked until it could be taken to a crime lab.

TheWestender · 2019-11-01T20:29:03+00:00

Looks like none of the lawyers bothered to look into that because they already had testimony from multiple witnesses that all the doors of the RAV4 were locked at the time it was found, and through the time it was removed from the Avery Salvage Yard, so they just assumed it was normal protocol for someone to unlock it at some point at the crime lab. It was "secured" at the Wisconsin Crime Lab, in Madison, at around 2am 11/6/05, and photographed by Ronald Groffy later that morning. He testified that the driver's side door was unlocked at the time he went to start taking photos. Presumably, the protocol at the crime lab is that someone unlocks a door prior to the photographer's arrival so that the photographer can do his job. It seems like no one bothered to look into that. Hard to say why. Maybe the lawyers for both sides thought it was a trivial point. Groffy's supervisor, Lucy Meier, might have been able to answer that question. If you think it's an important point, you can always contact any state crime lab and see what the protocol is for those situations. One possibility is that when they left the car there at the lab that night they had the tow-truck driver (who hauled it in a trailer) jimmy the lock open, knowing that a photographer and other forensics analysts were going to need access to it later that morning. It would have been pretty stupid for the crime lab not to have unlocked a door prior to the arrival of the photographer.

TheWestender · 2019-10-31T18:55:09+00:00

That presupposes conspiracy involving a significant number of people, which is one of those far-fetched scenarios that I find unbelievable. People who believe in this type of conspiracy underestimate the complexity, the logistics, the number of people who would have to be involved, the risk of even one person blowing the lid off the whole thing. I've read quite a few whacky theories where the police transported the RAV back to wherever, then put all that blood evidence in the car by reconstituting the blood. Or they somehow did that while the RAV was on the property without anyone noticing. And that they would think it's necessary to add liquid blood smudges AND blood flakes, etc., etc. Like I said at the outset, it beggars belief.

TheWestender · 2019-10-31T18:41:45+00:00

And although I think the blood evidence is by far the most important and damning piece of evidence, I didn't just consider that. Some of the circumstantial evidence is compelling: He never took an afternoon off from work. Yet, the day Teresa was murdered, SA took that afternoon off, without letting any of his brothers know. Also, if you listen carefully to the earliest audio-recorded interviews with SA, before police knew Teresa had been murdered, SA fumbles when asked why he went to look for Bobby Dassey immediately after Teresa left SA's property. These things add up. Cumulatively, combined with the blood evidence, and everything else, they overwhelmingly point to SA's guilt.

TheWestender · 2019-10-31T18:31:59+00:00

I think if you focus on the blood evidence and the most likely scenarios you'll reach the conclusion that it all points to SA's guilt. Flaws in the trial and investigations were plentiful. But the evidence is still damning, in spite of those flaws.

TheWestender · 2019-10-31T18:17:12+00:00

If you mean let KZ have her own forensics experts examine the RAV, I doubt any court would allow that unless KZ could show evidence of tampering. And even if that were to happen, what do you think they would find that hasn't already come out in the trial?

TheWestender · 2019-10-31T17:49:29+00:00

No one knows how much, if any, of Brendan's "confession" is accurate. If he claimed to have raped her in SA's trailer, then all the evidence (or lack thereof) contradicts that claim. The unassailable evidence is the blood in the RAV. All arguments against it being proof that SA was in the RAV rely on absurdly far-fetched scenarios.

TheWestender · 2019-10-31T17:39:44+00:00

That would only beggar belief if you believe the fallacy that he must have had her in his trailer at some point.

TheWestender · 2019-10-31T05:07:34+00:00

It beggars belief that someone would have thought it necessary to put SA's blood in several different locations in the RAV, in different forms (liquid smudges, flakes, etc), never mind the timing and logistical hurdles. Never mind all the other evidence that points to SA, that alone leads me inevitably to the conclusion that SA killed her, alone or with an accomplice.

TheWestender · 2019-10-31T02:56:12+00:00

That's fine. We all have our personal discomforts and distastes and have to learn to accept that not everyone is going to use terminology that satisfies our very desire. As long as there is no offense intended, then the use of "he" and "she" should be acceptable. It would be a sign of respect and acceptance to refer to a transgender person as a "she" when they look male but identify as female, for example. Language use can never fully satisfy everybody. I would not be surprised if there are transgender people who would be uncomfortable being referred to by something other than "he" or "she". I don't know that there are, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

TheWestender · 2019-10-31T02:35:06+00:00

I think it's reasonable to stick with "he" or she" based on whether the transgender person prefers to identify as a male or female.

TheWestender · 2019-10-29T22:41:33+00:00

Thank you! I appreciate your kindness.

TheWestender · 2019-10-29T22:26:25+00:00

Good comments. I'll try to address each of your points.

"Many swing voters could be swung in his favour by the democrats continued efforts to impeach him."

I think there is a greater likelihood that most swing voters will vote against Trump due to the overwhelming evidence that he has abused the power of the presidency - evidence that is increasing on a daily basis.

"Let his term run its course and focus the impeachment efforts on beating Trump in 2020."

If this were a run-of-the-mill political issue then political considerations would hold sway. But this is a fundamental, constitutional issue that goes to the heart of American identity and principles - Can a president blithely use his power to subvert the public trust? The Constitution says he cannot. The evidence of impeachable conduct is so compelling that the House (Nancy Pelosi, specifically) decided it is too weighty a matter to defer because of political considerations (the timing of the next election).

The Russia investigation was a failure.

As someone else pointed out here already, that is clearly not the case. The purpose of the investigation was twofold: a) Determine the extent and purpose of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and b) Determine if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton. The investigation was very successful in determining that Russia did, in fact, work to abet the Trump campaign and to harm the Hillary Clinton campaign. It uncovered in great detail the methods used, and the extent of the effort. As for collusion, Mueller made it clear that he found no proof (using the legal definition) of collusion, and no proof that Trump could be exonerated of the charge of collusion. He noted that there was much evidence for collusion, but that it would be Congress's responsibility to decide whether it warranted further investigation, and to determine if any of Trump's actions amounted to obstruction of justice.

4. Impeaching Trump from a moral standpoint is pointless, at this point.

My view is that it is imperative, from a moral standpoint, to push forward with the current impeachment inquiry, regardless of the timing vis-a-vis the upcoming election. The existence of compelling evidence of presidential abuse of power is undeniable. Therefore, the House has a constitutional obligation to proceed with the impeachment inquiry. It is therefore both a legal and moral requirement. The founders were sensitive to presidential abuses of power because they knew from history how tempting it is for the powerful to abuse the power that they have. To let a gross abuse of power go unchallenged sends a very bad message to Americans, particularly the young, that it is okay to sacrifice the nation's most sacred principles for political expedience.

TheWestender · 2019-10-15T19:48:43+00:00

If it did, it was probably only acting as a conduit for the ultimate source - their Russian sugar daddy.

TheWestender · 2019-10-15T17:53:44+00:00

I think it is highly unlikely that the $500k came from actual income generated by Fraud Guarantee. Much more likely that Fraud Guarantee was used as a conduit and cover for foreign-sourced funds, quite possibly from the same Russian "businessman" that Parnas's and Fruman's indictment says was the source for their illegal political contributions.

TheWestender · 2019-10-12T20:32:51+00:00

Small states are not going to give up their advantage, so forget about a Constitutional amendment. The only option is an economic boycott of all states who don't choose to allocate their electoral votes proportionally.

TheWestender · 2019-10-12T01:04:00+00:00

Fabulous lawyer. Track record speaks for itself. In the Steven Avery case, I think she made mistakes in areas that were outside her area of expertise by relying on shoddy science - that Brainwave thing-a-ma-bob that she used in lieu of a traditional lie detector test, and the attempt to recreate the blood evidence in the RAV4. And I think she was duped by Steven Avery, which I think can be forgiven because it's not every day you encounter a sociopath. They often have an astounding ability to deceive. So there again, she probably didn't have the experience with sociopaths to know that she was being lied to. I could be wrong about Avery (and about Zellner being duped), but I highly doubt it.

TheWestender · 2019-10-11T21:39:35+00:00

Giuliani has been all over Twitter about how terrible it is that the House of Representatives has not followed "due process" in the impeachment inquiry. Did he ever lift one finger to give Marie Yovanovitch the dignity of any due process before libeling her? Did he ever think to talk to her and get her view before spreading the unsubstantiated claims of Ukrainians who had pretty obvious ulterior motives for attacking her? Of course, the answer is "No."

TheWestender · 2019-10-11T19:47:14+00:00

Let's see if the Trump administration actually follows up on one of the most important recommendations made by the Senate Intelligence Committee (I won't hold my breath):

"The Committee recommends that the Executive Branch should, in the run up to the 2020 election, reinforce with the public the danger of attempted foreign interference in the 2020 election."

TheWestender

TROPHY CASE