English Hunters Post Pictures Celebrating Dead Trophy Zebras

Facebook

As many of you know, I am no fan of such trophy hunts.  I often hike in remote spots to see bears and other animals in their natural habitat. We have previously followed the controversy over the shooting of “Cecil the Lion” by an American dentist Walter Palmer from Minnesota as well as  subsequent controversies of an Idaho hunter taunting animal advocates and killing giant elephants or giraffes  or famed wolves or mountain goats or  hundreds of hippos for trophies. We also discussed the shooting of an iconic elephant as well as  disgusting videotape has emerged of a trophy hunter shooting a sleeping lion. The latest outrage is over new pictures of English hunters posing with dead zebras. Shooting a zebra is about as challenging with a long-range rifle as shooting a neighborhood dog.

Tour operator and taxidermist, Andy Denson, posted his picture above to memorialize the moment. Pete Livesey was able to display a bloody zebra. These moments were the work of Huntershill Safaris and Umlilo Safaris.. The hunter rave about the joy of shooting a bunch of defenseless animals grazing in some field.

South Africa allows these hunts despite overwhelming opposition from environmentalists and animal rights advocates. The United Kingdom is considering a ban on the importation of such trophies. The latest photos may have galvanized opposition as leaders denounced trophy hunting as “morally indefensible.”

There are less than 35,000 zebras left in the wild, which is less than one-tenth of the number of elephants.

69 thoughts on “English Hunters Post Pictures Celebrating Dead Trophy Zebras”

  1. Well I lost my earlier reply so needless to say I’m pissed.
    Mespo, Allan, Paul. I’m not being paid to argue with the conservative coalition of lawyers who have taken over the blog in recent years and are so upset the president is likely to be impeached they feel the need to turn a post about Zebras into an accusation that the democrats are trampling the constitution. You (Mespo) presented no evidence of that opening claim yet the three of you demand I lay out the case against trump citing statute and case law as if it’s my job and I don’t have better things to do with my time.

    I didn’t ask you to treat this as if you were bringing a case against the democrats merely rather than speaking in generalities about everything I say is wrong, be specific about what it is I said that you take issue with. Mespo has done that here, and although I disagree with his assertion that obstruction can’t be committed since Mueller’s investigation is over (it found 11 instances of possible obstruction but left it to congress to bring charges against trump), considering he’s under an impeachment inquiry and sending threats to a whistleblower stating he wants to know who they are and suggesting back in the day they’d kill them(which as reasonable person could well interpret as a death threat),

    I do respect that Mespo is at least specific in his latest response (albeit he jumps in ignoring the fact that Allan asked for criminal actions since the presidency began, not since the Mueller investigation concluded). I’ll also admit when I’m wrong, and my citation of 1521 was incorrect as Mespo pointed out. I was referring to the slander of a US born judge as a Mexican who couldn’t rule fairly however. I do not think that rules out defamatory slander, and I was largely citing the case from memory. Were I being paid I’d likely put in some effort to researching beyond just glossing over a statute. To say I’ve lost all credibility over one incorrect statement on a blog is a bit dramatic Mespo, particularly when my point to Allan was that the issue shouldn’t be whether he violated criminal statutes but whether he violated the constitution and his duty, and 1521 was cited as an after thought. At any rate should the three of you wish to argue the case for trump I suggest you reference the unresolved issues presented in the mueller report, should you wish to know which acts constitute potential treason I suggest you read the whistleblower report or wait for the rats to scurry as the Republican Party tries to “save its soul” as Flake suggests and should you wish to argue in defense of Trump against all who would point out the obvious, I suggest you get paid for it as even his current lawyer needs a lawyer. I’m not going to continue to put the effort into the back and forth with you when I’m the only one forced to defend his claims as if I were in court billing by the hour or at least actual defense of the constitution, instead of arguing with a group of frustrated right leaning attorneys on a blog post about zebras.

    1. CK07 – I am sorry if it offends your delicate sensibilities, however, when you accuse the President of treason I think it is only fair that I get to ask you to lay out your case for treason. So, where is your evidence. Put up or shut up.

      1. Well Paul, since I was still on the page when I woke up and see you asked so nicely and remain the only one I’ve yet to reply to directly in this post I’ll do you the honor of responding. I’ve already brought up two pieces as evidence, the Mueller report and the whistleblower’s first hand account, now I present a third. The president’s own tweets and statements.

        I seek not to prove from a legal standpoint that the president has committed treason because that would be narrowly defined as providing comfort or shelter to an enemy of the US, typically during war. Rather, in the general sense of the word, which has been around for hundreds of years and is defined as a betrayal of trust (in this case against the US and American people, and putting foreign interests before our own). Under Jefferson’s use of the word, Trump’s corporate acts and dealing with DB would likely constitute treason punishable by death, but that is an extreme viewpoint (read his letters to Madison if you don’t believe me). The President continues to lobby to return Russia to the G7, has repeatedly given favor to Putin’s statements regarding Russian interference in the US election over the CIAs own account, and according to multiple unrequited by sources was open to the idea of allowing Russia to interrogate former ambassador McFaul.

        Trump and his administration routinely put his business interests over that of the US, with Pence staying at Trumps resort 3 hours away from a conference for no logical reason than to support said business interests, repeatedly giving audience to foreign government officials who stay at the Mar-a-lago or trump towers, practically doing the Saudi’s bidding with regard to Iran after they showered him with gifts on his visit and reports that Trump offered Putin a $50 million dollar penthouse for nothing (which might fall under both (besides his promise to recuse himself from his business and leaving his children in charge who appear quite active in his administration).

        Finally there is this latest action in the Ukraine as alleged in the whistleblower complaint (and allegations of sending Barr and Giuliani abroad to Australia etc request further interference in our free elections). Not to mention threats of civil war, pressuring Israel to exclude US representatives, asking Russia if they’re listening to provide illegal intel on campaign rivals, and accusing those trying to uphold the constitution like Schiff and the whistleblowers of being traitors and spies guilty of treason who deserve death. This is a sad day for America and your republican cohorts’ targeting of the democrats as trampling the constitution without evidence only contributes to enable this bad actor (I don’t mean Mespo, I mean the lot of those in congress who make similar accusations without evidence).

        At any rate I’m done here. I’ve answered your question and have got to go. I hope next time you think it’s equally fair to pressure Mespo and Allan to lay out their case for democrats trampling the constitution or Obama being much worse than trump, and engage in a similar back and forth demanding proof beyond circumstantial evidence for a trial that in that case isn’t playing out in court or impeachment inquiry the way this is. Good day sir.

        1. Don;t hold your breath CK. Paul selectively asks for proof and citations while uncritically accepting whatever his allies pull from their butts. Part of this is they mostly drink from the same well and follow the same crackpot theories that help them keep the faith in the cult no matter what inanities and embarrassments the leader takes them through. It’s not easy being a Trumpster.

        2. CK07 – I know this is going to come as a shock to you, however nothing you mentioned is traitorous. You are throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall, hoping some will stick. You don’t have the evidence for one charge.

    2. What would be interesting to see is…if…Trump steps down, prior to the next bubble burst/ economic collapse. We are over due for that book return to the library, and the late fees are accruing.

      What is the economy floating on anyway? Cloud 9?

      The Prez doesn’t want that on his watch while he is in office. Eh, maybe I shouldn’t have used that one, every time I think watches, I think fressmasons. It’s a side note.

      So, he finished term, the economy collapses as the new Prez is taking office, oh joy. Seen that one before…

      But in.all seriousness, he won’t take that lost while he is there, at least I don’t think so, even though he does bankruptcy like no other, its too much of an ego issue.

    3. A lot of words trying to justify a position poorly presented. There is no need to respond because none of the postings provided an accurate accounting of what happened or what “crimes” any individual was involved with. It’s basically an opinion piece based solely on the opinion of CK that I believe is quite soft.

      I do wish to say something about this: “I was referring to the slander of a US born judge as a Mexican who couldn’t rule fairly however.” Trump provided an opinion that I believe was proven justified because our Supreme Court Justice, Justice Sonia Sotomayor who is the sweetest woman in person, said something almost identical to what Trump said about the Mexican judge. She said that her views were needed because of who she is, a minority, and because of that she could see things differently and decide cases in a better fashion based on her personal experience. She is saying exactly what Trump was referring to in his statement about the Mexican judge. That is fine in family court and places where one needs a better understanding of the social dynamics but it is not fine where law is supposed to be supreme and certainly not fine for one that is on the Supreme Court.

    4. CK07 says: October 1, 2019 at 11:27 PM

      “Well I lost my earlier reply so needless to say I’m pissed.
      Mespo, Allan, Paul. I’m not being paid to argue with the conservative coalition of lawyers who have taken over the blog in recent years and are so upset the president is likely to be impeached they feel the need to turn a post about Zebras into an accusation that the democrats are trampling the constitution.”

      Mespo is the only one of the three who is an attorney, just to be clear.

  2. It makes me sick. A human of the animal species keeps on being the worst plague for Earth natural world. No intelligent person should feel proud of killing any living creature just for the pleasure of killing. It is definitely a glitch in the mental development of the individual. We must fund scientific studies that can explain this idiotic error in the human evolution. With individuals like this one our lives are all in danger.

    1. “A human of the animal species keeps on being the worst plague for Earth natural world. No intelligent person should feel proud of killing any living creature just for the pleasure of killing.”
      **********************
      Ever meet a Timber Rattlesnake eyeball to eyeball by flashlight in your tent at 1:00 am? “Pleasure” doesn’t begin to explain the feeling of beating that snake to death with your camping shovel.

  3. Shooting an animal at a distance with a lethal weapon is what pansy and patsy do.

    The man is a coward with a alpha complex, bidding his inner true beta.

    I say, throw him in a ring with a bear or bull, toss him a blade…lets see who wins.

    I’ll get my popcorn ready. I’m putting $$$ down for the bear.

    I see him running and leaping over the side rail terrified of the animal.

    That is the same mental state the zebra was in when getting shot at by the human, running for dear life. Enough said.

  4. The land will only support a certain number of grazers. So the excess needs to be culled by predators. Or else by hunters.

    I suspect that the hunters’ fees help support the wildlife preserve.

    Learn some basic ecology, Turley. Not to mention economics.

    1. I regret your limited mental acuity. Humane culling of herds involves interference with reproduction, not primitive wild slaughter of sentient creatures. Shame on you for your ignorance.

      1. In Africa lions do the culling.

        Here in the West cougars cull the deer population. In the northeast there are too many deer and not enough hunters.

        1. Chronic wasting disease in deer is still spreading. It is our domestic version of mad cow disease, except it spreads via different vectors. The prions persist in the environment for years, infecting deer through grazing. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy spread to cattle through contaminated feed, with animal products of infected animals fed to ruminants. As well, as it resists autoclaves, it can contaminate the slaughterhouses.

          Since deer persist in territory where wolves were long ago hunted out, hunting was an excellent way to control the population, as well as feed families. CWD seriously threatens this system. There may come a day when the entire deer population of certain regions get culled to stop the spread. If this ever infects cattle, there is going to be a huge response.

          This has been going on for years, but you don’t read about it in the news very much. I don’t know why this is not considered more of a story.

      2. lin – spaying a mare involves high risk surgery. It’s not the same as with dogs. That is why male horses are often gelded, but mares are left intact.

        There have been recent experiments using PZP in feral mares in the US. That is a shot that is delivered via a gun, that makes the mare’s immune system reject fertilization. It is in the new class of “immunocontraception” that chemically sterilizes the mares. It is irreversible if used annually over 5 years, and may be reversible before that.

        I don’t know if sterilizing zebras in Africa may be the way to go, especially since, with their striping, it would be difficult to select the right individual for an annual booster, rather than sterilize an entire herd. Plus, if they sterilized half the herd, and the other half were eaten by lions, they just wiped out the entire herd.

        The use of PZP is new and controversial in feral mustangs in the US. US mustangs have virtually no predators, aside from the occasional mountain lion taking a foal. They are mostly restricted to arid drylands that cannot support a large grazing population. Traditionally, excess mustangs are rounded up and sold at BLM auctions, some of which end up at slaughter.

        Current hot topics regarding mustangs are the nature of their feral status, vs wild, and as such invasive species, their impact on the environment, and how to humanely control their population. Personally, I prefer the mustangs stay in the west. After all, wild equines used to exist here before they were hunted to extinction (and/or the silica content in the grass changed), which is why donkeys and mustangs flourish. I oppose helicopter roundups and the resulting deaths and gruesome injuries. And I’m on the fence about sterilization. There seems to be no effort to sterilize weaker individuals, as evolution would have culled them. Rather, they are just targeting any mare they find. This method might be a backdoor way for the BLM to simply get rid of them all, by systematically sterilizing all of the mares.

  5. Poor beautiful zebra. It hurts my heart to see an equine killed. That zebra had a beautiful eye. They are notoriously resistant to being domesticated, as are all of the truly wild equines, as opposed to feral mustangs, and have no withers for a saddle. But they are a glimpse into what horses must have been like before thousands of years of domestication.

    I get why hunters pose with their shots. They are proud of their catch. That is why fishermen pose with their fish, to prove it wasn’t just a fish story. There is a sense of accomplishment in putting food on the table that you provided yourself. Of tracking and bagging an elusive prey, for your family to eat.

    Trophy hunts aren’t for food. It’s legal, so I question the practice of targeting and doxxing people who engage in a lawful activity. But it’s very sad.

    Life is important. I support hunting for food, for defense, and to cull a population where mankind has interfered with the predator prey balance. But hunting to put a trophy on the wall is not for me.

    I guess there is an attraction to seeing a dead wild animal up close. It’s why the halls of natural history museums are filled with taxidermied animals. People who hate hunting pay to see dead wild animals, who were probably hunted. I have always found taxidermy to be very sad, especially when the subjects are young. I have never wanted to linger in the taxidermy section of a museum.

    The hunters that I know hunt for food. It’s viewed similar as fishing. I can’t think of anyone who wasn’t raised to it. The food is organic, and the animal has a far better life and end than a feedlot steer standing in 6 inches of manure.

    1. There are many rationalizations but to say it is legal so stop speaking out ignores the many atrocities of history that were legal. As there is no nutritional requirement for humans to eat animals, there is the rationalization of convenience and enjoyment. The one bad day of death ( that is not always quick) versus the factory farm, ignores the drives of lives, family and good of community. Rationalization solves all the inconveniences of reality.

        1. MB:

          What objectification? They are wild animals in a wild environment. It’s legal, ethical and moral to eat and harvest animals under Western norms. You may be a Jainism adherent but most of us aren’t.

          1. If the Homo sapiens like being powerful over other animals in a cowardly action at a distance…

            ….well then, I say throw the human in a ring with a blade and see who comes out on top.

            I’ll put my money on the zebra, the bear, or other animal.

            The man is a coward. Period.

                  1. i got a slot for pheasant coming up this fall. i hope I get one this year. all i got last year was blisters.
                    they look slow until you draw down on them then suddenly gone out of range.

  6. Any animal with hooves and teeth is not defenseless. And you do have to take the shot at long-range,

    BTW, to say that it is morally indefensible is morally indefensible.

  7. English hunters might be killing and then celebrating dead Zebras, but brainless left-wing Americans are destroying the Constitution and celebrating what they perceive to be its early death.

    1. By beginning an inquiry over whether to impeach a president who threatened to send Americans including a former ambassador to be interrogated by Putin? Who used government agencies to cover his own incompetence in sharpieing a false hurricane trajectory? Who used campaign money to pay off a stripper to cover him paying her for prostitution? Who has hired a dozen individuals either now imprisoned for covering for him or under investigation? Who is attempting to threaten and intimidate a whistleblower calling out his attempts to backdoor deals with the Ukraine for personal gain, and releases a cliff notes version of the call like it’s the official transcript which is hidden on his private server? He tried to install a secret back line to the kremlin, used the presidency for personal enrichment while claiming its losing him money, was found to have committed obstruction of justice over 10 times in the mueller report, and is supported by republicans who once impeached Clinton for lying about an affair outside of marriage, yet he’s the one who’s trampling the constitution? If Barack had said he’d go around grabbing women by the genitals the right would have screamed it’s proof he’s the devil incarnate and demanded he be incarcerated due to evidence of assault & battery.

        1. Mespo727272:

          Which fact did I get wrong? Feel free to start with the one you’re most proud to correct for the record.

          Is it the payment to stormy daniels?
          The bragging over assaulting women?
          The manipulation of the NOAA by Mulvaney?
          His continued threats against the whistleblower?
          Or how the right aren’t complete hypocrites for dragging out Benghazi, impeaching Clinton for far less, or even McConnel saying he wouldn’t allow a vote to be cast in Feb 16 Merrick Garland since it was an election year but saying republicans would Absolutely fill the court in 2020?

            1. Be specific. Which point would you like to contend and why? I’m sure your spin on grabbing women by the genitals is much more appealing. Is he a gynecologist checking them for cancer now?

              1. That has nothing to do with his Presidency and was known to the public when voting. Shall we say Obama missed the toilet is a fact in a political argument? Provide what your statements mean politically today.

                1. It’s evidence of his character. A liar, a manipulator and a megalomaniac. By itself it may be irrelevant (besides his attempts to cover it up). When compared with his deeds or misdeeds in office none of them should come as a surprise. Now which in particular did you have issue with since every other point I provided concerned actions or attempted coverups during his presidency (or hypocritical actions by the GOP). You raised the issue so if you have a point, it’s up to you to explain which point you disagree with and why, or attempt to characterize the actions I’ve called out in a more flattering light. If you can’t do that then all you’re doing’s whining

                  1. “It’s evidence of his character. A liar, a manipulator and a megalomaniac.”

                    CK, We are interested in whether or not Trump can run the country. If your position is you don’t like his behavior that is understandable and you have a choice at the ballot box. I’m not concerned with his sexual life or your psychiatric diagnosis. What significant lies did Trump make that are significant to the country since his administration started? Since a standard is required we can utilize Obama lies as a standard.

                    I await the lies.

                    1. Allan, the concern is whether or not the president is lying about conducting treasonous activity with regard to Russia and now the Ukraine. Is he putting self before country? Does he owe some debt to Russia? Signs would point to yes. Mueller’s report was inconclusive but did not exonerate the president. He has gone to bat for Putin time and again. Seems reluctant to criticize him at all, and has been lobbying hard to get Russia back in the G7. That should be concerning to all Americans. I cannot remember there ever being any realistic question as to Obama being loyal to one of America’s biggest rivals over America.

                    2. Allan: Not sure why I don’t see a reply button below your latest post but I don’t need to look up the exact statute and evidence of “criminal” wrongdoing. You originally said utilize the Obama standard of lies as the standard, now you’ve lowered the bar to that of a common criminal. The man is surrounded by lawyers, fixers and people he sends out to do his dirt for him as he keeps his hands clean.

                      What laws did Al Capone break directly? They got him for tax fraud. Trump won’t directly commit bribery, extortion and obstruction in situations like Ukraine (at least not in the cliff notes memo they released…I don’t think you want to see what’s in the verbatim transcript they’ve hidden on his server). He’ll have his goons do it for him. Cohen, Manafort, Papadopolous, Stone, Flynn, Gates, etc all found guilty of breaking the law or in the case of proud Nixon lover stone indicted and soon to be facing time, alongside the dozen or so russian operatives the mueller investigation also exposed. Yet you’re still sure Trumps hands are clean?

                      He’s got ongoing lawsuits involving his dealings with DB and others involving fraudulent financials and tax information (as he remains the only president in the modern era to release no tax returns), lawsuits around sexual assault, lawsuits around employee manipulation, lawsuits on campaign violations, Dodd Frank, constitutional violations etc.. What has been proven yet as trump stonewalls, hides behind the presidency, claims privilege etc? That remains to be seen, but this is a matter of time. I don’t believe you’ll want to revisit this post once he loses the protection of the presidency.

                      It’s just amazing to me that you’ll sit here and say you don’t care about any of the presidents bad acts or statements that show him to be a morally repugnant individual beneath the office of the presidency, who is evidenced to have bribed, lied and intimidated throughout the campaign and even more recently, because you claim it doesn’t “have anything to do with his Presidency,” yet that was the exact case Ken Starr and the right made against Bill Clinton, who was impeached for far less than what Trumps been accused of. You also don’t seem to care about the evidence of obstruction and willingness to commit treason with Russia if no treason has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt as of yet. Would you apply that same standard to Obama, Clinton or any democrat? I’m basically arguing with a hypocritical brick wall that won’t believe mob boss Trump is guilty of anything until he’s ultimately impeached or sentenced following the election so I may as well wait considering new evidence against him gets released just about every day

                    3. CK, I am using Obama as a standard. You have no criminal act in mind or you would repeat it with what law you thought was broken. People can make all sorts of accusations so I used the preceding administration as a standard for comparison.

                      You bring up a lot of stuff, but I want to limit everything to his time as President. Let’s hear the goods.

                      Examples of Obama indiscretions:

                      To Medvedev ‘after the election I can be more flexible’.

                      To the American people: ‘If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” To which Gruber later admitted, in his own way, was a lie.

                      I didn’t call for Obama’s impeachment so let us use those two as the standards. What do you have that you believe are worse indiscretions that should lead to impeachment.

                      Take note that I used 2 Obama indiscretions that aren’t opinion. They are fact and can be reproduced on video.

                      I treat all Presidential indiscretions in the same fashion and believe all Presidents have committed some including Trump. Can you say the same. I call for proof not a list of accusations whether made up or not. Mespo demonstrated to you why so many of your statements were folly.

                    4. Alan:
                      The obvious statutes are 18 USC 73 1510, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1517, 1519, 1521 etc.. Obstruction of justice: witness tampering, intimidation, retaliation, tampering with financial records, false claims/slander against a federal judge. The list goes on and on. I didn’t site them because that’s not the argument to be had. You want to raise the standard to criminal acts. This should be about impeachable unconstitutional acts. Failure to uphold the constitution. Putting personal interest ahead of country. Treason etc.
                      The standard you set originally was Obama’s lies (of which you’ve cited the two most oft repeated, whereas trump has a fact checked record of something close to 1500 lies in 3 years?). At least Mespo was consistent in his arguments. You start by saying everything I said is wrong with no explanation. Then move to demand I explain everything to you and cite the exact statute or I have no argument.

                      Let’s examine the Obama lies you provided. Obama told Medvedev he’d have more flexibility to negotiate a missile defense grid not being aimed at Russia in writing following the election. He didn’t say, “yo medvy, I have some missiles that I’ll move a bit further into Europe…meanwhile if you could dig up some dirt on Romney’s families Mormon escapades abroad I would very much appreciate it. My boy Holder will be giving you a call to you know…help you in your efforts.”
                      Obama said, if you like your healthcare you can keep it, not “You won’t pay a cent more for Obamacare, it’s all going to be paid for by Canada.” While I don’t think the lie about Mexico paying for the wall is an impeachable offense, it’s a far cry from Obama not being able to deliver on his promise that everyone could keep their healthcare provider, particularly when red states governors refused to implement the ACA as intended, while in blue country almost anyone with a healthcare plan that wasn’t gouging them managed to keep desirable plans, but I digress. The more damning comparison is the Russia hot mic incident compared with Trumps hidden transcript incident with Ukraine. Obama merely hints that politically he will have the flexibility to negotiate more broadly after election season, a reasonable statement considering republicans managed to drag Benghazi into a multi year investigation after refusing to fund security there despite Dems repeated demands. Had Obama made any trade with Russia on the missile defense program prior to the election, the republicans would have skewed it regardless of what America got in return. Trump definitely insinuated Ukraine should investigate a debunked conspiracy on his likely adversary’s supposed acts to support son’s dealings. Trump wanted them to act with guidance from Trumps personal lawyer, as opposed to the FBI or other federal agency. Whereas Obama asked for nothing but time to talk further, Trump offered weapons and asked for a personal favor. See the difference? See why no one would call for an impeachment inquiry in the former but the latter just based on the “transcript” he released should have. Coupled with the whistleblower report if first hand knowledge of further treasonous acts and obstruction had to trigger an impeachment inquiry.

                      If Obama had half a dozen co-conspirators found guilty of obstruction on his behalf, lied on a daily basis and threatened whistleblowers with death threats and demands to confront them prior to trial I hope you would call for his impeachment. It sounds like you’re suggest otherwise, perhaps I’m wrong.

                    5. Pick out your best statute.
                      Tell us exactly what Trump did that met the statutes requirements
                      Tell us the evidence you have.

                      Mespo already debunked a lot that you said so I wait for you to make your best claim.

                      Re Obama it appears many of his actions were a lot worse than Trump’s. I don’t want to compare the two only set a standard. Right now we see that the bureaucracy was likely weaponized. That is dangerous to the nation. His statement to Medvedev was open ended but sounded like a quid pro quo being created.

                      Trump may not be polite and he might act in ways we don’t like but he certainly didn’t commit any high crime. The 4 Democratic Senators actually did what Trump didn’t do.

                    6. CK07:

                      “The obvious statutes are 18 USC 73 1510, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1517, 1519, 1521 etc.. Obstruction of justice: witness tampering, intimidation, retaliation, tampering with financial records, false claims/slander against a federal judge. The list goes on and on.”
                      *********************

                      Well in a very particular order, the obstruction of justice statutes require a pending hearing, proceeding or trial which there were none, Mueller having finished up. (1510) Same goes for the obstruction of investigation statute. Witness tampering (1512) requires killing or seriously injuring the prospective witness or threatening to do so. I defy you find that in the transcript. Same goes for “intimidation” or “retaliation” which the requires a victim which Zelensky denies he ever was since he felt neither intimidation nor retaliation. Tampering with financial records applies to one who “destroys, removes or conceals any writing or record, with purpose to deceive or injure anyone or to conceal any wrongdoing.” Where is the evidence of any of this? None is the right answer. Retaliation against a federal judge (1521) requires filing a lien against the judge’s real estate in a malicious fashion. That’s slander of title not defamation slander. Trump’s been to the courthouse, I see. Okay where and when? BTW Defamatory Slander requires a false fact and not an opinion.

                      If you are a lawyer, how about realizing you’re talking to lawyers here who can easily check your bullshark. You’ve lost any credibility with me and likely with anyone who cares to read your delirious drivel now.

                      As for “on and on” I can only suppose you mean this which is, of course, the only time you’ve made sense today:

                    7. Mespo, it is always good to have a lawyer that is aware of the statutes and what they mean. You have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that CK has no credibility. He reads from a list without any comprehension something that is common on this blog.

          1. CK07:

            Okay here we go:

            Is it the payment to stormy daniels?
            Not campaign money involved as you claimed. His money and that’s perfectly legal to pay to shut people up. Insurance companies do it all the time. There’s a difference in the sourcing of funds and any lawyer should know that.

            The bragging over assaulting women?
            No proof he assaulted any woman so that’s not bragging; it’s lying. Ever case has been dismissed or withdrawn except one and that’s dicey at best. It’s the male locker room talk lying variety. Grow up! BTW women lie as much or more than men. See Stormy (admitted liar); Ford( poor liar in waiting) and Anita Hill (can’t figure out that one but Thomas is on SCOTUS so she must have lied).

            The manipulation of the NOAA by Mulvaney?
            No manipulation charges made or proven. NOAA and Commerce say it never happened. Where’s your proof for a categorical statement?

            His continued threats against the whistleblower?
            He doesn’t know who the whistle-blower is so no threats possible. What threats were made? I heard epithets — not very good ones — but epithets none-the-less and about the same as those hurled by Dims at Trump. Call it whataboutism, but where’s your beef?

            Or how the right aren’t complete hypocrites for dragging out Benghazi, impeaching Clinton for far less, or even McConnel saying he wouldn’t allow a vote to be cast in Feb 16 Merrick Garland since it was an election year but saying republicans would Absolutely fill the court in 2020?
            True enough by merely the deflection of “they do it, too”!

            If you want, you can bring on the rest. They’re just as lame.

            1. 1. “A lawyer should know that”. Yet Giuliani (Trump’s personal lawyer) has given as many accounts for the source of those funds as the joker did the source of his scars. First he claimed it was funneled through a law firm and definitely not campaign money. Then he claims Cohen paid it out of pocket to try and help the family. Both can’t be true so Giuliani is obviously lying in one case if not both. If both then what’s he hiding? The illegal source of the money would be the inference.

              2. His “bragging” of grabbing women is evidence of assault, and there have been a number of accusers. Only a few filed in court and as usual trump tries to intimidate them either way. Which was dismissed? Zervos or Alva Johnson? The former is suing him for defamation as well. “Grow up!” You voted for a 70 year old man child who is in Twitter wars with high schoolers to be president of the free world. You have a selective rubric for who should grow up.

              3. 3 sources including a senior administration official quoted by the times but remaining anonymous for fear of retaliation have cited mulvaney, under orders of trump pressuring the noaa to release a statement they later contradicted on sharpie gate. You can choose to believe a repeatedly proven liar and conman if you want to. And yes no one has brought charges over sharpiegate yet to my knowledge. It probably doesn’t rise to the level of the several other cases against the president and his officials, that have resulted in what? A dozen under investigation or locked up?

              4. Suggesting “we used to” kill spies back in the day, and inferring the whistleblower is a spy isn’t intimidation?

              5. Did it too? When have the democrats said trumps nominee wouldn’t be allowed a vote in 2020. The issue is McConnel saying no vote in 2016 and saying the exact opposite in 2020 that they’d fill the bench. He wouldn’t even allow it to come to a vote in 2016 that’s the issue.

              Anyway please ask yourself would you give a Democrat all the passes you’re giving trump. Why do you have to make so many excuses for him?
              Just today the inspector general confirmed the whistleblower has first hand knowledge of the accusations they’re making against Trump and his administration in direct contradiction to their claims. That’s what you need to be worried about. How many of trumps other claims will be proven lies by the time the investigations finish?

              1. Well at least you acknowledge that yours are opinions and not categorical statements of fact as you once contended (“Which fact did I get wrong?”). That’s growth.

                I don’t give passes; society does and they remain in effect until rebutted with compelling evidence which you currently don’t have to my satisfaction.

                1. Saying there is evidence is not an opinion. it’s a fact. Saying there’s proof is something different. You’re dealing with a con-man who is surrounded by criminals, many of whom are already facing jail time or in jail (also a fact). If it was proven Trump did these things to your satisfaction he’d already be impeached or in jail. There is a litany of evidence however. You claim its not compelling. That’s an opinion. Investigations are ongoing Mespo. Let’s see how it turns out.

  8. “While shooting a zebra is about as challenging with a long-range rifle as shooting a neighborhood dog.”
    *******************
    Shooting moving game with a long range rifle from long range is about as challenging as it gets in hunting. You really should at least go on a hunt before you criticize. You don’t have to shoot. Just see how difficult it really is to judge terrain, elevation, distance, wind, and unpredictable movement in space.

    1. Any animal is fair game as long as the degree of difficulty in taking its life is high enough. Fish in barrels notwithstanding.

        1. Bite the shooter if he misses potentially or if it isn’t fatal. In an urban environment you’re probably shooting up close. A zebra shot at range will only run away if you miss.

          1. “In an urban environment you’re probably shooting up close.”
            **********************
            Were Lee Harvey Oswald, Chrles Whitman and the Beltway shooters, “shooting up close”? Speaking of LHO, I bet he couldn’t make that shot on a zebra at 100 yards.

            1. You’re going to shoot the “neighborhood” dog with a sniper rifle? Oswald’s shot was down a major parade route intersection, half of the beltway shooters shots were in wide open spaces, outside of parking lots, gas stations etc not in the middle of crowded streets, and LHO probably wasn’t the only one to shoot JFK based on the angle so you’re probably right.

Leave a Reply