ChiGoose

I love that you see bragging about how utterly pathetic your life is as a good thing. Go outside and touch some grass. Sad!

I appreciate you continuing in the spirit of Pride Month even after it’s over by thinking of me constantly. 🥰🥰🥰🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈 You are a true LGBTQ ally! Slay queen!

Depends on what you’re looking for. I’m a big fan of Lawfare. They have really good coverage of national security legal issues. Same with Just Security. I tend to follow reporters on specific beats (like Nina Totenberg for SCOTUS), and that ends up with recommendations of their peers at other orgs and you can collect a good number of people on the ground covering legal issues. As someone who listens to a lot of podcasts, I also enjoy The Lawfare Podcast, Rational Security, Stay Tuned with Preet, Serious Trouble, National Security Law Podcast, among others. I think those are good starting points When they have interesting guests, I might check up on them and see what they are doing.

I appreciate you proving my point. Thank you.

Partisanship has so broken your brain that you can no longer see reality and you reject it when it confronts you. Instead of assuming I’m in the tank for Biden, you could have just asked what I thought of him. I’ve told you that I didn’t support him in the 2020 primaries. Of the major candidates, he was probably only above Bernie in my rankings. I didn’t want him to run for reelection and I’m disappointed that he is. If he committed crimes, he should pay for them. But me simply trying to explain facts to you comes off as partisan because when you live in a world of falsehoods, actual factual reality is an attack against you. Hillary, Pence, and Biden* haven’t been charged with crimes because the feds did not believe they could prove intent. Trump has decided to be a textbook case on how to demonstrate intent to a jury. That’s the difference. If he had never tried to deceive his own lawyer, he wouldn’t be in this mess. You’re also comparing a “regular schmoe” to elected and/or Senate confirmed officials. When classified docs go missing, the priority is recovering them. Prosecuting everyone who ended up with them would create an incentive for people who truly had them accidentally to hide them or even destroy them. So while they may face discipline from their employers, they generally only get charged if the Feds can prove that they either intended to take them or, upon learning they had them, did not immediately notify the government and cooperate with returning them. And I think it’s pretty fitting to the complete lack of understanding that you have so far demonstrated on these matters that you cite the lack of indictment of the president by an investigation predicated on the fact that it cannot indict the president as evidence of literally anything. The Mueller Report was a road map to impeachment but as he explicitly stated in the report, he was never going to charge the president no matter the crimes he found (and by the way, in addition to all of the other crimes he charged, he also found that Trump himself committed multiple crimes). Maybe try staying in your lane if you’re going to insist on listening to people who are either lying to you or too ignorant to know what the hell they are talking about. *The Special Counsel investigation into Biden is still ongoing so this may change if new facts develop.

I know you have no idea what you’re talking about no matter how many times it’s explained to you. Possession alone is insufficient to prove intent in a court of law. Just trying to explain basic facts it’s impossible to you. I don’t care about Joe Biden. He wasn’t my top choice in the 2020 Dem primaries and he was closer to the bottom than the top. If he did crimes, he should be punished. But the insane fever dream rantings of people who have no idea what they are talking about fueled by them listening to people who also have no idea what they are talking about is insufficient to bring criminal charges. Why? Because possession alone is insufficient to prove intent in a court of law.

Wrong. Period.

Not at all if you actually understand how the law works. Trump brought this on himself. Even after he took the documents, showed them around his club, refused to turn them over for months, he likely would have faced no charges if he had just actually handed them over instead of lying and saying he did.

Anyone other than Trump would already have been in cuffs and on their way to jail

Me neither. I'm not even sure my tv package even has MSNBC. I think this very much misconstrues the actual facts of the case, how law enforcement works, what search warrants do, and basically the entire case itself. So I'm feeling pretty good about lack of knowledge as the actual reason.

Not much of a surprise here, even from the ultra conservative fifth circuit:

I'm guessing lack of good information. Reporting on legal cases is generally pretty poor but it also seems that a lot of people here are being taken in by people who have no idea what they are talking about like Julie Pepe Silvia. Happened to the former president too. Ignored his lawyers, listened to Tom Fitton instead and then got indicted.

I don't understand how anyone with just the basic grasp of the facts could think that the Mar A Lago charges are a dud.

Harming our military in order to pursue a goal so unpopular that it cost the GOP a chance at the senate and prevented the expected red wave is really an interesting strategy. Is Tuberville secretly a Democrat trying to help the party?

SCOTUS said that the President doesn't have the authority to cancel student loan debt under the HEROES Act. The details of this policy have not been released yet, but I very much doubt that it is also grounded in that law.

Wow. She is really bad at this.

Yelling fire in a crowded auditorium isn’t a crime. He also cooperated with authorities when he learned he was wanted. And here I thought the conservatives were mad at how willing the government was to throw the book at Jan 6 people. Now we’re mad that they’re not tough enough?

That is a whole lot of text to avoid Occam’s Razor: Epps was a Trump supporter who went to the Capitol, talked *****, and then backed down when people actually acted. I don’t give a damn about what happens to the guy, but the idea that he was a government plant is simply people trying to come up with reasons to excuse bad behavior from people their perceive to be on their team.

His claim is that the conspiracy theory that he was a Fed has led to gullible people to believe that he was working against Trump (despite being a Trump supporter). This lead to threats against him to the point that he had to sell his home and live in a mobile home.

Oh I didn’t realize there was a thread on Julie Pepe Silvia. Do we know what her area of practice is?

If he’s suing Fox on defamation for claiming he was working for the FBI and that this claim caused him harm, he just needs to prove that he wasn’t working for the FBI and that Fox’s claims was the but for cause of him suffering harm. Seems pretty straightforward given the evidence. Fox’s lawyers will likely advise them to settle. Also keep in mind that the average American doesn’t know about this Epps stuff but those that do generally think the conspiracy is nuts. Fox won’t want a jury trial.

Here’s why Ray Epps is my favorite conspiracy theory: Not only is there absolutely no substantive evidence that he was working with the government before the events of Jan 6, but the only way it changes anything if he was is if you believe that Trump supporters are such gullible morons and so prone to crime that a single guy telling them to do crimes would whip them into a violent frenzy. You would have to believe that Trump supporters are knuckle-dragging sociopaths. Personally, I don’t think that’s true of most Trump supporters but the conservatives here seem to disagree.

So is the big gotcha here: 1. Epps is suing Fox for the claims they made and not the claims they didn’t make; or 2. Epps is suing based on the easiest probable claims? In either case, Julie Pepe Silvia here should probably ask her law school for a refund because they clearly failed her.

I wonder if Ms Romney is going to end up implicated in the fake electors scheme

I think Fox probably settles this. Epps would be pretty sympathetic to a jury and they’d want to avoid that.