mspart

What my speaker in my speaker cab looked like after I went at it with my guitar and amp which was dialed to 12. mspart

If there was anything there, IRS would have slapped him up one side and down the other. Reporters would have been all over that. Apparently, he is clean. Regarding his Presidential years of tax returns, I don't know. But I would be very surprised if the calculus changed for his lawyers and accountants, knowing that there were factions in FBI and IRS that did not like him at all and would go to great lengths to harrass and harrangue. Why would you change course in view of that? Not comprehensible really. mspart

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-only-masterclass-hillary-clinton-should-teach-is-overcoming-defeat-in-presidential-elections https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/hillary-announces-masterclass-in-losing-to-trump.html Like they say. Thems that can't do, teach. Disclaimer - This is meant as a moment of levity. The old saying is not necessarily true in all cases, but is funny nonetheless. I wish her great success in her teaching endeavors. And I hope this is now her life's mission rather than trying to be a political actor. mspart

I have no idea who he is or what he got money for. All I know is that he is in a heap bunch o trouble. mspart

This is an interesting question that comes up now and again. Florida Supreme Court violated state law numerous times. In the next to last ruling from SCOTUS, they told FLSC that very thing and it was ignored. So SCOTUS took action. FLSC were allowing votes to count that by law should not have counted. FLSC was allowing recounts only in certain counties, not all counties. It was a real logical issue that FLSC was doing. A forensics team of media reporters found that Bush won the election later and that was not published much. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/media-jan-june01-recount_04-03 In the first full study of Florida’s ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin. mspart

Followers doesn't mean people liked him. They could be following for the entertainment value when he self explodes or similar. For the record, I don't follow anyone. Not a twit. mspart

Ah, the old switcho chango!! mspart

Hakeem just needs 8 Rs to vote for him and he's the Speaker!! McCarthy gets it before that happens. But McCarthy is not playing this very well. If he wants to be Speaker, and all indications are that he does, he needs to woo 17 of them. Probably not hard, they all probably want the same thing. Promise them on his mothers grave or her life and then break the promise after the vote - a time honored move in today's politics. mspart

That's a good one! mspart

Seems like Twitter made happen what you wanted to have happen. What's the problem? If Twitter rules had not changed, he would still be getting away with crimes. mspart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_returns_of_Donald_Trump Fragments of information about Trump's taxes leaked at multiple times prior to 2020.[35] In 2016, The Washington Post reported a prior audit of Trump's tax returns for 2002 through 2008 by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) which was "closed administratively by agreement with the I.R.S. without assessment or payment, on a net basis, of any deficiency." mspart

I'd like to see substantiation of that assertion. https://theconversation.com/trumps-decade-old-audit-illustrates-why-the-irs-targets-the-working-poor-as-much-as-the-rich-147313 The New York Times’ exclusive on President Donald Trump’s taxes contains a lot of startling new findings. A few noteworthy examples: He paid only US$750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017 – and nothing at all in 10 of the previous 15 years; he took massive income tax deductions for property tax payments on a New York estate he apparently uses for personal reasons; he paid consulting fees to family members; and he took $70,000 in business deductions for haircuts. The report also zeroed in on a fact that has been well known for many years yet in my mind overshadows all of the other discoveries: Trump’s taxes are under audit and have been so since at least 2011. mspart

Oh But I think we can and I think we will. This current House majority may only last 2 years. Anything can happen, especially in DC. mspart

I agree with this. mspart

I think it is funny that anyone cares other than their family. Is this somehow an indictment of Twitter? He was let back on, and totally screwed himself. Looks like Twitter worked! mspart

The longer they wrangle on this, the less shenanigans go on. Let them fight about who should be speaker = less damage they can do. With the vast majority of votes (203 out of 218 needed) in his favor, is it reasonable to think McCarthy will eventually not be speaker? mspart

What I understand is that Trump has withstood annual IRS audits over the last few decades. What is being said here is that someone who writes an article knows the tax code better than the IRS. Or was IRS giving Trump a mulligan all these years? Jumping to conclusions on this after the many years of IRS audits is wishful thinking. I'm guessing, now just guessing here, that Trump's lawyers and accountants know what they are doing. So far he has not been hit with IRS action which is assertion of that. Now it is possible they got lax and screwed up here in the last few years since those returns have not been audited but anyone who knows anything about the IRS and how they work would not place that bet. You either have tax enforcement that doesn't know what they heck they are doing over decades or you have an author of an article that knows way more than the IRS and is spot on in his/her assessment. Those are really the two choices here. I don't think the IRS is full of bumbling idiots. And I don't think the author knows more about tax code issues than the IRS. mspart

I too wish that the US Open was the main feeder into WTTs. With a few other tourneys feeding also. But, you know what, we have had more success at worlds lately with this new format than before. So maybe there is value in it or we have once in a lifetime wrestlers all at the same time. mspart

Can we guarantee that a 100% biased Jan 6 committee is telling us the truth? Are there things they did not investigate? The Rs submitted names for the committee and Pelosi said no. She chose biased Rs to be on the committee so that everyone on the committee voted to impeach Trump. That is not what I call a fair or balanced committee or hearing by such a committee. That's what we want of course. mspart

You should finish the quote. I'll do it for you. Oh ok. So now the court, in this hearing, must presume guilt rather than innocence. That's a new standard! I was always taught that you were innocent until proven guilty. This has it completely backwards and will be a huge issue for WA state residents. You can bet that there will be racism called out for anyone that loses, especially if they are part of a recognized minority. mspart

The FBI paid Twitter to censor people that posted on Twitter. Especially with regards to the laptop. You are assuming the laptop was a plant from what you are saying. The laptop was left at a laptop repair center apparently forgotten. This was not planned by Trump or his administration. But it was effectively shut down by FBI and Twitter before the election because it was possibly some Russian election interference. Is that what we want our government officials doing? Stopping news that they don't want to hear? FBI is complicit in this and needs massive reform. mspart

https://freebeacon.com/courts/batsh-t-crazy-washington-state-supreme-court-says-any-accusation-of-racial-bias-should-lead-to-a-retrial/ ‘Batsh—t Crazy’: Washington State Supreme Court Says Any Accusation of Racial Bias Should Lead to a Retrial Aaron Sibarium • December 22, 2022 4:59 am If a party to a civil lawsuit accuses his opponent’s lawyers of any sort of racial stereotyping, judges must order a retrial. That appears to be the implication of an October ruling from the Washington State Supreme Court. When litigants claim that racial bias affected a trial verdict, state justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis wrote in a unanimous opinion, the opposing party "must prove how it did not," demonstrating that nothing said at trial played on the jury’s "unconscious biases." Absent such proof—which lawyers say will be impossible to furnish—courts must grant a new trial, the opinion indicates. Lawyers and legal scholars are aghast, arguing that the decision undermines bedrock principles of the American justice system. "This decision is batshit crazy," said David Bernstein, a professor of constitutional law at George Mason University. The ruling came after a black woman, Janelle Henderson, demanded $3.5 million in damages from a white defendant, Alicia Thompson, who had rear-ended her. At the trial, which took place in 2019, Thompson’s lawyers described Henderson as "combative," suggested she had coached her witnesses, and accused her of exaggerating her injuries for financial gain. When the jury only awarded Henderson $9,200—not the millions she’d sued for—she filed a motion for a new trial, claiming that the defense’s "biased statements" had "influenced the jury’s unconscious bias." The Washington Supreme Court agreed. By calling Henderson "combative," Montoya-Lewis wrote, the defense evoked "the harmful stereotype of an ‘angry Black woman.'" And by suggesting that she had coached her witnesses, it "alluded to racist stereotypes about Black women as untrustworthy and motivated by the desire to acquire an unearned financial windfall." The case has since been sent back to a trial court, which will consider Henderson’s motion for a retrial in light of the new standard. While Montoya-Lewis called the verdict a step toward "greater justice," lawyers see it as a Kafkaesque assault on the most basic norms of due process. "I don’t know how anyone could prove this negative," said Scott Greenfield, a defense attorney in New York City, referring to the burden the verdict places on the accused to show that bias played no role in the proceedings. "It completely negates the entirety of American jurisprudence." In almost every legal dispute, from criminal lawsuits to civil rights cases, it is the accusers who bear the ultimate burden of proof. To meet it, they must demonstrate that their claims are at least more likely than not to be true, a standard known as "preponderance of the evidence." Montoya-Lewis’s opinion turns these norms on their head, allowing the loser of a trial to get a do-over without any hard evidence of bias. If an attorney "uses language that could evoke racist stereotypes," the opinion reads, "the court must conclude that substantial justice has not been done and order a new trial." Even lawyers concerned about the effects of racism say the verdict sets a chilling precedent. "Obviously it’s important that jury verdicts not be tainted by racial bias," said Samantha Harris, a First Amendment attorney in Philadelphia. "But if you throw every objective measure and conventional burden of proof out the window, you’re essentially left with the Salem racial witch trials." The reasoning at work in the decision, Greenfield and Harris said, could make it next to impossible to defend against civil suits from minority plaintiffs, let alone conduct a normal trial. By definition, trial lawyers must question the opposing party’s credibility, often by implying negative things about them; if any such implication can be recast as a racial trope, litigants will have unlimited ammunition to challenge outcomes they don’t like. "There’s now a racial trope for everything short of breathing air," Greenfield said. "That means there will be an opportunity to make this grievance in every single case." Though the court’s opinion focused on implicit bias against blacks, it could theoretically allow people of any race—including whites—to demand a retrial on racial grounds. For example, Bernstein argued, the ruling could prevent attorneys from implying that an Italian defendant is part of the mafia, or that a white defendant discriminated against minority employees. "Doesn’t that play on the stereotype of all white people being prejudiced?" Bernstein said. The Washington State Supreme Court did not respond to a request for comment. For attorneys with trial experience, the ruling’s ramifications are scary to contemplate. "I’m sure you could find stuff in my transcripts, take it out of context, and accuse me of bias," said Joshua Kendrick, a criminal and civil litigator in Greenville, S.C., who identifies as a liberal. "Would I need to try every case with that worry in the back of my head?" Beyond forcing lawyers to walk on egg shells, the new standard could encourage defendants to settle based on the race of the plaintiff. Attorneys' fees are expensive, even for frivolous lawsuits, said Mark Lamb, a civil litigator in Seattle. "If you have to bear the expense of another trial," Lamb said, "it effectively works as a financial penalty on the party that initially prevailed." The verdict could also turbocharge the budding industry of jury consultants—people who are paid by trial lawyers to help root out biased jurors. Most of that consulting currently happens during jury selection, before cross-examination gets underway. But with implicit bias now grounds for a do-over, jury consultants could soon begin sitting through the whole trial, hunting for real or imagined tropes that lawyers might use to challenge an unfavorable verdict. "One of the most odious implications of this is that people like Robin DiAngelo will be paid to sit in a trial and look for racial bias," Lamb said. The legal movement associated with those people, critical race theory, was on full display in the court’s decision. Montoya-Lewis cited several well-known critical race theorists, including Derrick Bell, Ian Haney López, and Charles Lawrence, as authorities on racial bias, as well as a law review article by Trina Jones and Kimberly Norwood: "Aggressive Encounters & White Fragility: Deconstructing the Trope of the Angry Black Woman." The footnotes also include Racial Microaggressions: Using Critical Race Theory to Respond to Everyday Racism, by Daniel Solórzano and Lindsay Pérez Huber, and Eloquent Rage: A Black Feminist Discovers Her Superpower, by Brittney Cooper. Once confined to the margins of academia, these ideas are now spreading throughout the legal profession. In 2020, a plethora of judges and court systems put out statements affirming their complicity in systemic racism. And in October, the federal court of Rhode Island touted critical race theory as a "resource" to "transform" the judiciary. As Washington litigators adjust to their new burden of proof, the state may offer a preview of how that transformation will play out. "This is taking a sledgehammer to a nail," Harris said. "Dispensing with fundamental norms of evidence can have a lot of unforeseen consequences." The WA State Supreme Court is made up of leftists who's political ideology more closely resembles Seattle City Council than a rule of law kind of place. This is what happens when you have ideologues in places of power. Granted, we get what we voted for. I just hope people wake up around here for the next few election cycles to clear these morons out. This is going to be a real problem for WA and I hope other states do not adopt this idiotic legal notion of if there was racism in your trial, you get a new trial. Period. How do you prove a negative? Quote: the opposing party "must prove how it did not" raise racism as an issue. I accuse you of taking my property. During the trial, if I lose, I can say you used racism against me and you would have to prove you didn't. That is not how our system works. But apparently that is now the rule in WA. mspart

I feel similarly. I think this is his if he wants it thru two more Olympics. He's still young enough for that to happen. mspart

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2022/1229/Jan.-6-committee-withdraws-Trump-subpoena-prepares-to-dissolve Here are some excerpts. You can read the whole thing if you care to. The House Jan. 6 committee has dropped its subpoena against former President Donald Trump as it wraps up work and prepares to dissolve next week. Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee's Democratic chairman, wrote in a letter to Mr. Trump's lawyer David Warrington on Wednesday that he is formally withdrawing the subpoena. “As you may know, the Select Committee has concluded its hearings, released its final report and will very soon reach its end,” Rep. Thompson wrote. “In light of the imminent end of our investigation, the Select Committee can no longer pursue the specific information covered by the subpoena.” ... Mr. Trump then sued the panel in November to avoid cooperating. The lawsuit contended that while former presidents have voluntarily agreed to provide testimony or documents in response to congressional subpoenas in the past, “no president or former president has ever been compelled to do so.” The committee’s request for documents was sweeping, including personal communications between Mr. Trump and members of Congress as well as extremist groups. Mr. Trump’s attorneys said it was overly broad and framed it as an infringement of his First Amendment rights. ... On social media Wednesday evening, Mr. Trump and his lawyers construed the move as a victory. “They probably did so because they knew I did nothing wrong, or they were about to lose in Court,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media site. On Twitter, Mr. Trump's lawyer Harmeet Dhillon said the panel had “waved the white flag." So here we can go with the committee's statement that they essentially ran out of time and there won't be a committee to testify to in the next month. So subpoena goes away. Or we could use a little reasoning here. D's were fairly confident they would lose the House. The fact this came true was not a surprise. So why did they allow the clock to run on this? Is it a fact that the lawsuit brought up the committee's illegitimate and biased stance and showed the subpoena was without merit? From another statement from Harmeet Dhillon - “After my firm filed suit on separation of powers grounds to block January 6 House Select Committee’s illegitimate subpoena to President Trump over his activities while president—the committee waved the white flag & withdrew subpoena,” Dhillon said in a message on social media early Thursday. “We were confident of victory,” she added, “in court, given precedent & refusal of prior presidents to testify in Congress. J6 committee wasted millions for a purely political witch-hunt, total abuse of process & power serving no legitimate legislative purpose. This seems to be something of note really. Was the committee close to losing and gave up, or did they somehow, allow the clock to run out when they knew the clock would run out? I think the former. They are using the time now to save face. In my opinion. mspart

Getting home from Leavenworth WA alive through a snow storm and the mountain pass closing just after we went through, and I mean just after. On the other side they were already closing it down. It was a gift to get home in one piece without any car damage or people damage. mspart