ChiGoose

“My team is far too stupid to actually accomplish a coup” is a curious defense that people love to bring up for some reason.

Tanya Chutkan, the judge overseeing Trump's federal election interference case, appears to be victim of 'swatting' “Chutkan is the federal judge overseeing the federal election interference case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against Trump. She appeared to be the victim of "swatting," which happens when someone makes a false report of a crime in progress to draw police to a certain location. A spokesperson for the U.S. District Court did not respond to a request for comment Monday. This comes after a recent uptick in threats against judges nationwide, including those serving on Colorado's Supreme Court after they ruled that Trump is ineligible to appear on the state's primary ballot this year, a decision the Supreme Court has decided to take up. The FBI said it was investigating the threats and working to address them.”

Absolutely incorrect.

Agreed. Not getting the COIVD shots is stupid.

Operation Warp Speed was an objectively excellent program but it upset Trumpers because they’d rather die than get a shot.

What if they were voting for someone under 35? What if they were voting for someone who wasn’t a natural born citizen?

Maybe he needs to be convicted of being wrong in order to respond

I wonder if it requires a conviction of being under 35 to keep someone off the ballot. Does someone need to be convicted of having not lived in the US long enough? Or convicted of being born elsewhere?

Please point to where it requires a conviction.

Every accusation is a confession

I think you misread his tweet. At no point does he say to hire someone who is less qualified because of their race. This is the mistake that a lot of people make: that the purpose is to hire less qualified people to meet some moral goal. The reality is that we have traditionally excluded people from roles due to their demographics (not their qualifications). The goal here is to expand the talent pool to include people who would normally have been left out so that we can find qualified people who are traditionally overlooked. Per the tweet you responded to: ”You may not agree, but I take it as a given that there are people of various races, ethnicities, orientation, etc that are regularly excluded from hiring consideration. By extending our hiring search to include them, we can find people that are more qualified. “

Nah, it's been pretty straightforward the entire time. Simple possession is insufficient to prove intent, but contextual facts can prove intent and secure a guilty verdict. To keep the politics out of it, imagine some high up military officer like a four star general is retiring to private life. This individual has access to a lot of classified information, some of which may be in their office at any given time. When they are getting ready to leave, it isn't the officer themself who is packing up every item in their office, it's other staffers. We would hope that these people would have good controls over what things are personal and can go home with the officer and what belongs to the government and is not allowed to leave, but that process is clearly broken and in need of serious reform. So maybe some things go to the officer's home that shouldn't have. If and when the officer discovers this, they are obligated to immediately notify the government. Maybe it is right after they move in as they unpack everything, maybe it is some time down the line because they just stacked some stuff in a room or corner and didn't get around to going through it right away. In any case, their initial possession is insufficient to prove a crime (because doing so requires intent) but they need to turn it over the moment they are aware. Even if you assume bad intentions, there is still a way out for the officer. Maybe they mixed government documents into their personal effects so they would be packed and sent to their home so the officer could use them for their personal gain. Even in that scenario, the officer can avoid prosecution by claiming they didn't know this happened and notified the government the moment they learned of the "mistake." If the government is unable to provide evidence that points towards intent (i.e. the officer admitted to others that they knew they had it, or they were meeting with individuals and providing them the government docs / information), then they won’t be able to press charges. Literally, the only way that the officer could be prosecuted would be if the government could prove that they knew that they possessed government property and refused to turn it over. While simple possession is insufficient to prove this in a court of law, efforts to conceal or deceive can provide evidence of intent. And if the officer is dumb enough to tell the government "yes, I have this stuff but I am not turning it over," they are basically admitting to a crime.

Reading comprehension is really tough, huh?

It’s pretty telling that explaining real and actual facts is taken as parody by people who prefer to reject reality in favor of their feelings.

This is wrong. Taking or misplacing classified material is a grave issue and is treated as such by the law when such action is provably intentional. Unauthorized access to sensitive defense materials can jeopardize sources and methods, and can even get people killed.

It is pretty evident that Trump’s legal strategy is not about winning his cases. It’s just to delay them as much as possible hoping he can get elected president before facing any judgment.

One of these days, the gullible morons who eat up this idiot’s nonsense will let us know where she graduated from law school. Or, alternatively, how much time she spent on the legal beat as a journalist and her qualifications for it.

I guess we should always take the exact words of alleged criminals as gospel and ignore any evidence or context to the contrary, correct?

Lol. Guess you haven’t read the classics.

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

And the award for dumbest take goes to… Dear lord, do you think before typing or is it just brainless reaction?

I don't watch the news. TV news is just infotainment. Empty calories. I'm sure I could have missed it but I remain skeptical that Coca Cola and Disney said "yep, we are intentional discriminating on the basis of race"

(citation needed)

LOL

I'm sure what your friend went through wasn't fun and some approaches to DEI are ham-handed and cringeworthy, but to paint any effort to make people with different backgrounds feel comfortable in their work environments as segregation and racism is obviously inaccurate.