THE SUNDAY INTERVIEW: GENERAL OF THE SKIES NUULO ISDRIX, DIRECTOR LAAL HETHRI


diane_tomlinson_2

The unedited version of my interview with General of the Skies Nuulo Isdrix, Director Laal Hethri follows below

Diane Valencen: Good morning Director, I and my readers thank you for joining me so early this morning.

General of the Skies Nuulo Isdrix: It is my pleasure Diane, to sit down with you this morning.

Valencen: Let’s get started with the Israeli incursion on the ground in Gaza. How is this conflict going to be resolved in the view of the Laal Hethri over the coming weeks?

Isdrix: This has become somewhat a wildfire issue within my directorate. Some feel that it will burn itself out; others feel it will escalate having turned on another atrocity and become a wider regional war that could, potentially, become a global conflict of massively destructive proportions. There is no crystal orb which we can look into that will give us a definitive answer. Our best analysis is that the Israelis are willing to halt their ground operations if and only if Hamas ceases its rocket attacks. There is no opinion in my directorate that Hamas has any intention of halting their rocket attacks on Israel until they are either out of rockets or all other launch capability has been destroyed. I must be clear here that this conflict is a concern for our nation here in the Afterlife because we could see an escalation based on that second scenario I mentioned above bringing Iranian mercenaries into the conflict. Such an escalation could increase the loss of life to a critical tipping point for Hell.

Valencen: So do you personally support a brokered cease fire?

Isdrix: Personally, yes. The likelihood of such a cease fire is slim because I do not feel Hamas would honor it. They have no reason in their minds to stop the attacks and thus Israel has to hunt down the leaders of this action until peace comes by attrition which is very costly in Palestinian lives. And before you ask the next question I have to say that this is the fault of no one people this is such a mutual hatred which has festered for so much time that the only ways to resolve it is either mutual destruction or a mutual demilitarization meaning a peace accord that works. There are those on both sides who will never allow that peace to come–ever.

Valencen: There are the graphic images of the downing of Malaysia Airline flight 17 this past week and the fallout politically about who launched the SA-11 missiles from just inside the eastern Ukrainian border. How much of a threat to Terran peace is this event considering the handling of the crime scene by Russian backed rebels there?

Isdrix: What is happening in eastern Ukraine now is simply an unacceptable chaos. The rule of law does not exist there and I place the blame for this on the head of the Russian leader Vladimir Putin. This man is a threat to world peace because of his ambitions to reunite the breakaway republics of the former Soviet Union. He is not the man the Russian people need to be leading them at this time.

Valencen: Is the Laal Hethri working to some solution of the Putin problem?

Isdrix: [Laughs] I have no comment about that at this time.

Valencen: No comment? Is that a no then?

Isdrix: No comment from my directorate.

Valencen: On American domestic terror, are there any new developments that you can share on this front to my readers?

Isdrix: Unlike the agencies on Terra which swim toward the shiniest light. Does that translate from Hellac where it can be understood?

Valencen: Yes you mean like a school of fish?

Isdrix: Yes, exactly. These fish are focused on two things right now. We do not have that limitation in the Laal Hethri nor do we have the competition between agencies that many Western agencies have on Terra. The Laal Hethri and the Directat Javeth Nathux are a united front against all enemies to the stability of Hell. We do not have any pet states which we favor for economic, religious or racial reasons. My directorate is vigilant looking at all threats equally and soberly or else we would have to answer to the Empress for a failure rooted in bigotry or favoritism and I do not wish to be the demon who has to give that briefing. I will make an example of the threat to a sporting event in the United States five years ago that was thwarted because its size had grown so large that it nearly became public. This was an al Qaeda threat that was eliminated because of listening to the intelligence six years post the 11 September attacks. There have been incidents of chatter over the last six or so months that militia and secessionist groups are forming alliances that could become a threat to the United States and because of distractions which are less imminent or have an economic or political element which shadows the coming US elections it is being ignored. There is no reason for this which would allow America to be plunged into a shooting war between its own citizens. The Laal Hethri, as I have said earlier is vigilant.

Valencen: Thank you for your time this morning.

Isdrix: We must do this again, soon, in more pleasant times.

Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!

Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., CS, O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F.
Editorial Page Editor
The Dis Brimstone Daily Pitchfork
26 Ashtaq 3 AS

12 Responses to “THE SUNDAY INTERVIEW: GENERAL OF THE SKIES NUULO ISDRIX, DIRECTOR LAAL HETHRI”

  1. I can sum up her experience in brief:
    1) I was attractive and young and wanted everyone to be free so I was a Leftists because we were pro women and pro sex and the world was my oyster

    2) I got into the real world and saw some people had different ideas and some of them were extreme

    3) I was no longer young and attractive so this made me angry and i questioned my views on the world

    4) I got sick and I needed something to lean on. I picked religion

    5) Now religion is my new ideology and all that stuff I did when I was young and attractive doesn’t matter. Liberals suck because I am no longer young and attractive.

    I think that sums this up quite nicely.

  2. I found of particular interest her anger at Hillary Clinton for defending a rape suspect in 1975 with the full force of her skills. It was HRC’s job to defend her client anything else on her part would have led to legal action against her. The man in question still went to prison to the best of my knowledge where he belongs.
    You are conditioned to side with anything that supports your political and religious beliefs. That doesn’t make them correct or make your beliefs the beliefs that all people must live by.

  3. You like the US Constitution Neocon. Do you recall this?

    AMENDMENT VI

    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.

  4. Reading with understanding Neocon she was a court appointed lawyer. Appointed by Mahlon Gibson’s prosecutor’s office as the defense for Mr Taylor on 13 May 1975. The court records are in the post. All of them.

    Only the state bar, or the judge presiding can take action against a lawyer for improper actions in a trial. This did not happen in this case despite many saying Ms Clinton’s defense was “aggressive.” Her defense was not “criminal.”

  5. Clinton neither lied nor misrepresented. had this been the case she would have been disbarred. What the victim is pointing to is the report of the psychiatrist that interviewed her in the summer of 1975 and gave Clinton the ammunition to provide reasonable doubt in the mind of a jury. These were not Clinton’s words but the determinations of a professional psychiatric examiner.

  6. And the ask for that “favor” still carries the weight of the Prosecutor’s Office.

  7. There’s no gotcha here. It’s a sad, sad story about the American criminal justice system and quite a tragedy for the victim and her family. However, as a person who stands on the Constitution Neocon1 you cannot just choose the portions that suit your political or religious worldview. You have to eat the whole meal, appetizer, soup course, entree and dessert or have nothing at all.

  8. The fact that the court appointed Clinton to represent the defendant is not in doubt. The judge — not the prosecutor — directed Clinton to take on the case, as Glenn Thrush established in a 2008 Newsday report:

    On May 21, 1975, Tom Taylor rose in court to demand that Washington County Judge Maupin Cummings allow him to fire his male court-appointed lawyer in favor of a female attorney. Taylor, who earned a meager wage at a paper bag factory and lived with relatives, had already spent 10 days in the county jail and was grasping for a way to avoid a 30 years-to-life term in the state penitentiary for rape.

    Taylor, 41, figured a jury would be less hostile to a rape defendant represented by a woman, according to one of his friends. Cummings agreed to the request, scanned the list of available female attorneys (there were only a half dozen in the county at the time) and assigned Rodham, who had virtually no experience in criminal litigation.

    “Hillary told me she didn’t want to take that case, she made that very clear,” recalls prosecutor Gibson, who phoned her with the judge’s order.

    “I didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request,” the eventual first lady writes in “Living History.”

    Clinton had no choice but to accept the court’s order, despite voicing reservations, a fact the case’s prosecutor reiterated to CNN:

    Mahlon Gibson told CNN on Wednesday the then 27-year-old Hillary Rodham (now Clinton) was “appointed” by the judge in the case, even though she voiced reservations.

    […]

    Gibson said that it is “ridiculous” for people to question how Clinton became Taylor’s representation.

    “She got appointed to represent this guy,” he told CNN when asked about the controversy.

    Read and understand:

    According to Gibson, Maupin Cummings, the judge in the case, kept a list of attorneys who would represent poor clients. Clinton was on that list and helped run a legal aid clinic at the time.

    Taylor was assigned a public defender in the case but Gibson said he quickly “started screaming for a woman attorney” to represent him.

    Gibson said Clinton called him shortly after the judge assigned her to the case and said, “I don’t want to represent this guy. I just can’t stand this. I don’t want to get involved. Can you get me off?”

    “I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don’t jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn’t remove her and she stayed on the case.”

  9. Now, confronted with nothing to present as fact in your argument you run to some other conjecture. I’m done with this for one day.

  10. sarahbloch Says:

    It’s cretin and she’s not lying.

  11. sarahbloch Says:

    And that seems to be the talking point all conservatives are spewing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: