OT the PIT - reincarnation

Authorities in Australia have arrested close to 200 people for deliberately starting the bushfires that have devastated the country, yet the media and celebrities continue to blame “climate change” for the disaster.

The fires have caused at least 18 deaths, destroyed thousands of homes, millions of hectares of land and killed hundreds of millions of animals.

A total of 183 people have been arrested by police in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania for lighting bushfires over the last few months, figures obtained by news agency AAP show.

In New South Wales, 24 people were arrested for arson, risking prison sentences of up to 25 years.

In Queensland, police concluded that 103 of the fires had been deliberately lit, with 98 people, 67 of them juveniles, having been identified as the culprits.

“The link between arsonists and the deadly fires that devastate Australia every summer is well known and well documented, with the rate of deliberately lit fires escalating rapidly during the school holiday period,” reports Breitbart’s Simon Kent.

Around 85 per cent of bushfires are caused by humans either deliberately or accidentally starting them, according to Dr Paul Read, co-director of the National Centre for Research in Bushfire and Arson.

“About 85 per cent are related to human activity, 13 per cent confirmed arson and 37 per cent suspected arson,” he said. “The remainder are usually due to reckless fire lighting or even just children playing with fire.”

Read also highlighted the link between school holidays and kids starting fires, commenting, “School holidays are a prime time for fire bugs, but especially over summer.” The kids have got time to get out there and light, and the most dangerous adults choose hot days.”

Copy & paste from an email I received this morning from a Canadian friend of mine...

1. "Quid pro quo" - quid pro quo is Latin for "If this, then that." It is the cornerstone of every contract you have ever entered into, from a baby's "If you feed me, then I will stop crying," to "If you pay me $12,000, then I will bury your grandma." There is nothing "illegal" about "quid pro quo."

2. Even if there were something illegal about quid pro quo, there was no quid pro quo.

3. Res ipsa loquitor - "the thing speaks for itself." The House did not need witnesses to testify regarding what they "thought" the president said or meant; under the "best evidence rule," they had the transcript of the telephone conversation and they could read for themselves what the president said, and extrapolate from that what he meant. And what he meant was, "No quid pro quo."

If the House wanted to bat around Latin phrases, maybe it should have stuck to "caveat emptor" (buyer beware) or maybe "quantum meruit" because the American public certainly doesn't deserve the economy that this administration has provided.

4. "Hearsay" is inadmissible in evidence because it is inherently unreliable. A person must have first-hand knowledge of what occurred before he is even remotely qualified to be a witness. This is why "Well, when he got home, the first thing my husband told me was that the other guy ran the red light" is inadmissible in evidence. You know what your husband told you happened. You do NOT know what actually happened. Therefore, House witness' statements that they "heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another he's been messin' around" was not admissible evidence that Trump meant quid pro quo.

5. But even if he HAD meant quid pro quo, quid pro quo is not illegal. (See #1).

6. President Clinton was impeached for committing two CRIMINAL offenses: Perjury to a federal grand jury (18 U.S.C. 1621(2) and Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. 1505).

President Trump has been impeached for a) Obstruction of Congress (not a federal offense) and b) Abuse of Power (also not a federal offense).

7. The Constitution provides that the president can be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." (Art. II, U.S. Const.). In other words, the president must commit a CRIMINAL offense in order to be impeached. He has not done so. (See #6, above)

8. The president has no obligation to assist the House of Representatives in their attempts to illegally remove him from office, any more than you have an obligation to help the sheriff build the scaffold from which he will hang you for stealing a horse. Most especially, you have no obligation to help him hang you if, in fact, you were never convicted of stealing a horse (See #6, above).

9. The House serves the function of the grand jury in impeachment proceedings. All they have the obligation to do is to provide the Senate with Articles of Impeachment. The president has no obligation to provide witnesses, or evidence, or testify, or do anything at impeachment hearings.

10. HOWEVER, once the articles go to the Senate, there is actually a TRIAL, with witnesses, and due process, and testimony and evidence and objections to evidence and all the stuff that goes along with a trial.

Nancy Pelosi does not want this to go to trial. Why?

11. Although the Democrat-controlled House voted to approve Articles of Impeachment in which they do not assert that the President committed a criminal offense (See, # 6 & #7 above), so now Speaker Pelosi is contemplating NOT sending the articles to the Senate for trial. This is the equivalent of a grand jury saying "We found probable cause, (well, really, we didn't but we want to bring charges anyway, because WE JUST DON'T LIKE THIS GUY) but we don't want him to go to trial -- we just want to be able to say we indicted him for the show of it." This is UNPRECEDENTED in criminal procedure.

Nancy Pelosi does not have the authority to do that. If Trump goes to trial, he CANNOT be impeached, because the Articles of Impeachment do not state an impeachable, criminal offense. Moreover, it is unconstitutional under the "void for vagueness" standard to convict someone of something which is not, in fact, a CRIMINAL OFFENSE. That's like convicting Trump of wearing his hair funny. Which may be true, but it's not ILLEGAL. Which explains why Pelosi was opposed to impeachment, right up until the time that she jumped onto the caboose of this train that is now going off a cliff.

12. Going off a cliff, because: Surprise!! Articles of impeachment do not remove the president from office. Once the Democrat base (who CLEARLY have never taken a civics class in their collective lives) figure this out, they will turn into either a snarling pack of hyenas or a bunch of apathetic and weeping losers, either of which reaction will, in all likelihood, cost the House its Democrat majority in the 2020 elections.

13. Statements like: "The President should testify to prove his innocence" only reflect a person's woeful ignorance on the subject of things like criminal prosecution and burden of proof, and should not be tolerated by right-thinking people. In a criminal proceeding, the STATE must prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not have to prove a damn thing. Don't espouse the burden of proof applicable to the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials unless you want to be shunned and shamed for your ignorance -- you sound like an absolute and unmitigated idiot.

14. The Democrats are flagrantly and deliberately insulting our collective intelligence by presuming that the vast majority of American citizens cannot be bothered to read and understand the foregoing.

This is the left's version of comedy:
George Lopez trended on Twitter Monday morning after commenting on an Instagram account that he would kill President Trump to secure a bounty mentioned during a eulogy at Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani’s funeral over the weekend.

News of the $80 million bounty — which hasn’t been confirmed as actually being sanctioned by the regime and instead was a comment from someone speaking at the funeral — was posted uncritically as fact to an Instagram account Sunday.

Lopez commented, “We’ll do it for half.”

Hopefully, he gets a visit from the bracelet-toting Secret Service.

Sheesh, they better get their shit together

#amaturehour

#amateurthreeyears

TRO

The crooks win again:

ATLANTA (AP) — Atlanta's police chief has ordered a halt to all police car chases after crashes that killed or injured people.

"I don't want to see us cost someone their life in pursuit of an auto theft person or burglar when the courts aren't even going to hold them accountable. I mean, how can we justify that?" Chief Erika Shields said during a news conference Friday afternoon.

True, and you know my past so you know I don’t like it...but I also get the chiefs point. We’ve gotten so soft on crime...is it worth it to chase people who are going to skate anyway? I wouldn’t want my family hurt/killed in a police pursuit of a car thief who's only going to get released outright or at a minimum released very early. I’m a little surprised this is happening in Georgia though. 

A majority of police Deptd in the Bay Area have Ford Explorers. They must have gotten them cheap

And it really starts...Iran is launching cruise missiles at US bases in Iraq right now. For those of us that pray...pray for peace and for our military.