BrianBM

Site-Wide Moderators
  • Content count

    52,025
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

About BrianBM

  • Rank
    Mully

Converted

  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
    surfcasting, military history, science fiction, photography
  • What I do for a living:
    lawyer

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Possible, but unlikely. Better that we all visit Canada and buy a sealskin jacket while there, since they can't legally be imported to the US.
  2. A theory of hunting rifles that I derive from fishing. Suppose you have a tag for deer. It's the last 15 minutes of the legal day, on the last day of season. This is when Satan will arrange for you to see nice deer, unless he can do it while you're squatting to relieve yourself. You will see a nice buck milling around with three does. By the time you put down the glasses and pick up the rifle, a light rain will have started, and the buck will be milling around with the does. That's why any adequate rifle will do me, but I really want a good sight. Not the cheapest sight on the best rifle. I want the best sight on the cheapest adequate rifle. Otherwise you'll just wound a a yearling doe, and educate the buck.
  3. 1. Having zero hunting experience, I'm certainly not going to argue. Thirty caliber-ish covers everything from the M1 carbine on up. Someone here stated that the M1 cartridge has half the kinetic energy, at 100 yards, of the .30-30, and the latter is not a cartridge people seem to take seriously for (potentially) dangerous game, like a big pig. It does nicely for deer, or so I read. (I wish Grandpa Old Spook was still around to consult.) Up from there, you get to .308 and .30-06 and whatnot. 2. No doubt. I read, on another site, a thread initiated by an Alaskan guide who considered the .375 H&H the lightest chambering he would take into the bush for finishing a bear that some idiot client had wounded. He wrote a line in his post that I hope I am quoting correctly. "The .338 magnum is just enough, but the .375 H&H is just in case." He said it provided the user with a .30-06 trajectory, but with a 300 grain bullet. Even as a lifetime non-hunter, I understood what he meant. As a purely theoretical exercise, I like the idea of the 7mm-08 for all North American game, save large bears. If I anticipated sitting over bait for a bear in Canada, that .45-70 or .45-90 sounds good; I might be happy with a 12 ga. slug too. I'll bet that the 7mm-08 would be adequate for pigs of all sizes, would you agree? You can push it to near 7mm magnum velocity (uggg) or download to .257ish power. Recoil is moderate, and that would make me happy too. Mind, if I win the lottery, a Searcy double in x00 Nitro might happen, but mainly as a conversation piece. First I'll get one of those .340 or .378 Weatherbys, in a nice wood, that Whopper Bubba was talking about.
  4. And how good a grip (knife or pistol?) do these things make?
  5. Yawn. When it happens, if it happens ...
  6. Politely disagree. For soaking bait, a conventional reel beats a spinning reel.
  7. The best-casting reel is the one carried by the best caster. No level wind reel will ever quite match a reel without a level wind. Do you need a level wind? Are you open to spinning or open-faced conventional reels?
  8. Wow. If anything proves that the Times is reporting fake news about President Trump, it's the reporting of the Times from the 1930s about Russia. Suuure.
  9. To answer the question, they hope he or she will come out and say something quotable. Mulling this over, if the complainant doesn't appear and testify, I'll shrug and write off her complaint. Suppose she shows up and testifies, and he does too. Assuming that I believe her, that Justice-To-Be Kavanaugh attempted to rape her while a teenage drunk, I don't think I'd keep him off the bench on that basis. If he has lived a decent and honorable life since then, I can live with what happened at a party when he was seventeen, and drunk, and a child of privilege. It's not trivial and her sense of injury may be deep, and lasting, and very real. But if his sin was limited to that occasion and he's behaved honorably since, I would not consider him disqualified.
  10. As to my being an attorney, you can look me up, if you like, on the 2d Department website. Yes, I am. As if you haven't asked before, when feeling peevish. How can I disagree so much with what you read on newzfornuts dot com? Easily. As to the other two, I will pass for now. Your second question was already addressed, but the post did go beyond your self-imposed ten word limit, beyond which you wail that it's just too much to read. That's not my problem. As to the first, I'm not going to bother. Did the Court approve the application? It did. Did the Court extend the warrant, twice? It did. Go back to four chan, or whatever refreshes your enthusiasm for Deep State conspiracies, and enjoy.
  11. Actually, it's not, because neither of the two highlighted conclusions comes from your premise that the Steele dossier is a fabricated fraud. The conclusion that the initial FISA warrant was improperly obtained can't be reached, unless you know all of what's offered to the court in the affidavit. Assume, for argument's sake, that nothing in the Steele dossier is true. I don't know that, and you don't know that either. "Unverified" does not mean "disproven." The FISA warrant is a warrant to pursue an investigation, it's nothing that was offered to convict anyone of anything. Hearsay would be perfectly proper, if supported by other material (for example, Papablabbermouth's drunken chatter to an Australian diplomat, or Gen. Flynn's undisclosed income from Russian state TV, or Manafort's ties to Putin's puppet Ukrainian President, or materials obtained from earlier wiretaps) then the warrant was properly issued. If Carter Page or anyone else at DOJ offered the Court an affidavit based on the Steele dossier that Page or anyone else already knew was untrue, that would be a breach of legal ethics, a disciplinary offense, and good cause for firing and a prosecution for perjury, perhaps more. Do you want to insist that that's what happened? How do you know? "Unverified" does not mean improper, so long as you don't represent it as something dispute, totally proven already. "Without the FISA warrent no witch hunt." That's a second proposition. It's a talking point, mistaken for fact because so many right-wing sites insist on it. How do you know that there would be no investigation without the FISA warrant? You'd have to know the sum of what was known at the time of Mueller's appointment; everything that's public, and everything that's still classified. I don't have classified access. I assume you don't, either. No one in this Forum has need-to-know access to the inner history of this investigation, either. The President is desperate to prevent the investigation from going forward, which causes his admirers no concern. It ought to concern them. Why doesn't it concern them? Later, all.
  12. We lawyers are indeed a talented bunch.
  13. Some hoaxes are just too damn dear to the hearts of conspiracy buffs to ever, ever, ever be discarded.
  14. And, continuing, FISA warrants have a 90-day maximum. If the NSA or FBI want to extend them, they're required to go back and justify the extension of the warrant. The FISA warrant was extended twice. Whatever the FBI got, the court was willing to let them have more time, based on what they got from the first warrant. No doubt that the results of the wiretap are highly classified, but I'm not arguing that everything obtained from the wiretap should be disclosed. I am expressing concern (and disdain) for the entire exercise.
  15. The object of the enterprise is to prove, at least to President Trump's base, that the Steele dossier is the only basis for the FISA warrants, and that the Deep State has conspired against Trump. We're getting (as per Rickman's post above) five or six pages of the Carter Page affidavit submitted in support of the application for the FISA warrant. How would you assess the relevance of the pages we don't get to see? Getting to the conclusion that it's all a hoax because those five pages discuss the Steele dossier means dismissing the unreleased pages as somehow irrelevant. How do you do that? How can any of us know?