VakAttack

https://www.wspa.com/news/national/florida-deputys-legal-team-says-he-didnt-have-an-obligation-to-stop-parkland-school-shooter/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co Lawyers for the fired cop in Parkland say he has no duty to protect the students? Does he? Should he have a LEGAL [not moral] duty?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/07/cyber-ninjas-arizona-election-audit Thank you for bringing to everybody's attention yet another thing that fell apart under any sort of scrutiny, the vaunted Cyber Ninjas audit (and the entire company itself, which you can read about it shutting down above along with the thorough rebuttal of all of it's claims). But here we are still holding it up as if it was some sort of substantive win for people questioning the election. But it's also illustrative of my earlier point to @ionel. The "Cyber Ninjas" made dozens of wild claims, it was rebutted with 93 pages, and we still have people pretending it (and it's claims) were valid.

I'm not putting forth anything that requires evidence, so what evidence would you have liked? Every sentence written doesn't requiree evidence, however if you're making factual claims on things you don't have personal knowledge of, it's on you to provide evidence to back it up...as the election deniers have repearedly failed to do for just over three yeara now. I swear, you try so hard to sound intelligent by repeating things you've seen others say as if it's a gotcha, but you just look foolish.

To what end? You'll already have people who only see the first "report" and never see or care about any follow up. Then, even what nothing happens (a quick glance at the Georgia legislative calendar shows that it's out of session and has no public meetings scheduled until late May). The first place I can find that posted the above is "The Leading Report" which can also be found discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fake_news_websites And then, even when it's all disproven (again) you'll just have people say something like: Or you could have someone post like 65 Tweets and say "disprove them all" and who has the time or inclination to do that when we're living lives? False information is so much easier to propogate than truth because it can just be made up whole cloth without anything backing it up; it takes 3 seconds. Doing the research to disprove things can take hours or days. So there's no "winning" these discussions, especially with people who have no interest in looking at what's actually happening. But, when it goes in front of the people who have the time, wherewithal, and resources to look at it, vet it, and put it under scrutiny, it loses every time. Which, instead of causing any introspection, just lead us back to: Which of course is offered with no evidence even of that. And on and on.

The "they" here is specifically the person tweeting, apparently named Cari Keleman, but also more generally the Rs and MAGA faithful engaging in ejection denialism who lose at every turn when their claims are subjected to even the slightest scrutiny, let alone in a courtroom.

Cool. In classic modern R fashion, they just say things without providing any evidence.

I'm glad these women will get significant remuneration for the damage that was done to them. F u c k Giuliani. As to the other part, yet another substantive legal victory against Trump world and the MAGA Election Conspiracy in real court rooms where real evidence is presented while Rs keep spinning their wheels trying to create the appearance of equal malfeasance on both sides and claim they have evidence without ever producing anything of substance.

Oh, I'm pretty sure they can have counsel at a closed-door deposition.

In what way, Willie.

Typically when I've seen people testify in front of Congress, they can have an attorney with them, but I'm not sure if I've seen the scenario where the person is currently under an active indictment/investigation AND testifying in front of Congress.

Wonderful. And now we can play the game where all the Rs who were fine w/ people defying Congressional subpoenas during the J6 hearings coming in to say Hunter should be prosecuted. And round and round we go. Hunter's situation is slightly different given the active criminal investigation, but I'm not sure what the federal rules, especially since it's a Congressional subpoena vs. a criminal subpoena, are on that. State court he could absolutely be prosecuted for contempt, but typically only after he'd been subpoenaed multiple times in State court and he ignored them; however, again, usually they're not being subpoenaed related to the same things they're being investigated for. Legally speaking, that part is interesting.

Ehh, I felt bad about the joke, pulling it.

https://apnews.com/article/tesla-autopilot-recall-driver-monitoring-system-8060508627a34e6af889feca46eb3002 Hmmmm....in a story totally unrelated to the above, I'm sure, you can't click on links on Twitter right now.

Current Amazon is just an extension of the original model. What Elon claims he wants to do with Twitter is completely changing it's purpose. There are already things that do what Elon wants Twitter to do. If he truly tries that, it will fail spectacularly. Moreso than his current attempts with Twitter.

The victim card? This should be old hat for Trump supporters, he does that in every interview. Of course he didn't answer questions or be deposed, he's being criminally investigated. Either he or his lawyer would have to have been the biggest idiots in the world to let him testify. That's why his previous bluff to testify publicly should have been called by Comer, but he's too dim to have seen the obvious bluff. And now we can let the legal system hold Hunter Biden accountable for whatever crimes he may be guilty of.

Ah, the rare no sizzle, no steak take! Neither hat nor cattle for our man here. Just endless conclusory statements that he just says are true, which is his proof of their truth.

Wow. It's crazy that a man who was pretty good at running an EV tech company and very good at running a space tech company was not automatically good at running a social media company!

Ahhh, the Man with No Substance strikes again, saying nothing while accusing others of having nothing. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20925403/emoluments-clause-trump-g7-resort-impeachment-businesses https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-ducks-opportunity-trump-emoluments-cases#:~:text=Trump violated both Emoluments Clauses,presented ongoing conflicts of interest. https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/profiting-off-the-presidency-trumps-violations-of-the-emoluments-clauses/ Also notable that there were three suits brought against Trump for these violations, none of which Trump's legal team defended on the merits. They sought a dismissal of one brought by Congress because they argued Congress didn't have standing to bring the suit. The other two they lost one at the lower level, but when it made it's way to SCOTUS, the acting chief solicitor for the Trump administration argued that SCOTUS should just sit on the case until after the election, and then rule it moot, since he was out of office...which they did, again conveniently avoiding the merits.

LOL. Your reading comprehension skills are weak. I'm not saying he SHOULD have been impeached for those reasons, I'm simply using your logic of impeaching a president for not enforcing or following the laws of the land in a way you like. It's undeniable that Trump did violate the Emoluments Clauses and the Hatch Act. His were particularly brazen, but most administrations violated the act at least once or twice when they're in office. The Emoluments Clause was the far more pernicious and pathetic violations.

The argument the Texas SC is making is a tautology of nonsense. "A person who meets the criteria to have an abortion need not seek out a court order. However, the criteria they have to meet, is set by the legislature and the courts."

You're going to have to be more specific on what your concern is.

These are, of course, not facts but your feelings on the matter. But if you want to go down that route, former president Trump should have been impeached dozens and dozens of times for ACTUALLY violating/ignoring the Hatch Act and, more importantly, the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution.

I know you want it to be.

I can't even imagine what the reasoning was. He banned him before because of his use of the dead children, something like: Now, we found out later the first part was a lie, but apparently so was the last!

He literally said "it doesn't matter to me what the law says, to me it's impeachable." Every accusation you throw out there is a confession.