Good for her. Jordan doesn't have a leg to stand on thanks to the extremely basic principle of federalism that gives our 50 states huge leeway over how and when to prosecute crimes in their state. The idea that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee would reach down from his national duties to actively try to investigate and derail the ongoing work of a county prosecutor is just repellent to the very framework, laws, and concept of the Union of separately-empowered states that is our country.
khepri
joined 2 years ago
No kidding, I don't know why she feels the need to insert herself in this year's politics with this super divisive "cult deprogramming" language/narrative. Not that a lot of folks don't need to step down from the rhetoric of violence and demagoguery that's a big part of MAGA, they absolutely, do... but seriously, Hillary, you are such an unnecessary bull in the china shop on this right now. Like her or hate her, I think it's a pretty objective statement that bringing the temperature down and bringing people together just isn't something her presence and choice of language in this debate is going to accomplish.
I'd have to disagree with you on one point, which is that competing sets of facts or evidence do exist in many situations. In a murder trial, for example, the defense team may have evidence that points to innocence, and the prosecution presents evidence that points to guilt. Now weighing one body of evidence against the other, the judge or jury must decide where the line of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence" lies. This is a matter a comparing one set of facts to another set of facts as objectively as possible against known standards and precedents, which, to me, is different than arguing pure opinions ("red is the best color" "no, I like green better") and also different than inarguable bare facts ("12 people are in this room right now"). Idk, just my 2 cents on it, but to me there can be shades of reasonable debate on differing sets of evidence that aren't covered by an opinion-fact dichotomy.
Shatner for one, who at the time was arguably still the most-recognizable name in sci-fi TV and movies.
Legally speaking, you pretty much consent to being recorded when you step outside your own private space as far as I know.
I think maybe the terms used are different, but if the bar is a business owned by a private person or company, and is allowed to say who can be in there or not, set dress code, hours, rules about outside food etc, that's what would be considered a place of business in the US, and those aren't publicly-owned or considered a public space as far as the rights of those people in that space. I get that "pub" literally means "public" but they aren't owned by some government entity, you don't have a "right" to free access to them, and the rules about what can and can't take place there are set by the private owners.
I wonder about that, because how many things are already recording our activity in some way when we're out in public? And what would "knowing that you're being recorded" consist of? Like if there's a security camera on the corner of a building filming the sidewalk, and I don't see it, is my privacy violated? If someone posts a sign that says "cameras in use" is that enough? It's just an interesting question because obviously there are a huge variety of recording devices everywhere these days in public and as far as I know there's really not much in the way of laws dictating how or whether the device owner needs to warn people who may wander into it's range in public.
Shrooms specifically were a weird choice for the headline for sure. But it's just another variation on "drugs make you stupid and only teetotallers have an accurate perception of the world". It's really no less offensive than if they'd gone with "only a woman would believe..." or "you'd have to be a middle-school dropout to believe...". Like why? Why target some random group and call them out as idiots incapable of seeing what's right in front of their faces, when it has absolutely 0 to do with the content of the article? You'd have to be on PCP to believe this is a good way to write a headline :D
It's how authoritarians operate in every realm. No matter how fair or objective or established the process is, they will insist on playing the victim, crying wolf, and framing as an attack on "all of us" everything that might infringe on their God-given right to do whatever they want to whoever they want. It's a big part of the reason why you can't give a mouse a cookie when it comes to Nazis.
Yes, if you are certain that complying with discovery is going to expose more crimes and get you and your seditious buddies in more hot water, a good soldier like Giuliani will take the L of a default judgement, simply because he's more afraid of what his "friends" will do to him than what the justice system will do to him.
It's not easy to lose a case by default for failing to comply with discovery. You have to really work hard for the court to basically say "your conduct is so bad that you've forfeited your right to continue making a defense". But due process is still a process, and if you straight up refuse to fulfill your end of the process, and turn down the many chances to comply with discovery that the judge will give you, then this happens. Alex Jones went down for the same thing in his defamation case. These turds all think they can just buck every system or break any norm that suits them, which is why they always go down for the dumbest simplest shit in these cases like perjury, discovery, and witness tampering.
It really sucks that the attitude of "how about we don't support anyone who's violating international law?" can't seem to survive a massive terrorist attack, whether we're talking about 9/11 or these horrible events. I absolutely condemn these unforgivable attacks against innocent civilians, and I absolutely condemn any response to those attacks that violates international law by targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure, or by blockading and starving an entire city. I can see daylight between "we stand with Israel" and "we support any and all actions of the Israeli government and armed forces without caveat" but there's not much room for that opinion in the immediate aftermath of something like this. The ultimate price needs to paid by those responsible, but the City of Gaza didn't do this, and the Palestinian people writ large didn't do this. The trillions of dollars and millions of lives wasted in the 20-year War on Terror that 9/11 kicked off needs to be a cautionary tale, not something we look to repeat. To put it another way, we would not blockade, starve, and invade Texas just because a lot of J6ers and other heavily-armed anti-government militia folks happen to live there - we hunt down those actually responsible for actual crimes with precision and ferocity and bring them to justice. We don't respond to an attack by punishing the entire geographical area and ethnic population from which that attack may have originated. been there, done that, doesn't ever work. Didn't work for the Soviets, didn't work the Japanese, didn't work for the US, won't work here.