|
What I’m saying in my earlier post is even the no-immunity option is better for him than a trial because his consequence is only two misdemeanors that won’t affect his life much and now he’s very likely going to end up with felony convictions because DOJ wins way more than they lose. Yes he only came to their attention because of politics but that’s out of his control and he’s probably underestimating the risk he’s now in. But this guy is no stranger to high risk behaviors.ryde posted:What happened was that the DoJ brought a plea deal that did not give Hunter immunity going forward and Hunter's team though the plea deal did give that immunity. They found out this difference in understanding in front of the judge, and the judge correctly said "Go talk it out and come back to me when you agree." And then politics happened and things fell apart. The right wing tried to spin this as "Judge shoots down DoJ sweetheart deal" despite the fact that things fell apart because the DoJ was being more strict than what Hunter's team wanted, because the right wing are dishonest. Correct, it’s described further here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/19/us/politics/inside-hunter-biden-plea-deal.html yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Sep 7, 2023 |
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
Fetterman seems to be getting a lot of ink this week, how is his recovery coming? Has his aphasia improved or does he still have to rely on CC?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:SCOTUS made a major change to gun law in 2022 (Bruen). It was a long decision, but the relevant part is that gun restrictions have to be "consistent with historical tradition of firearm regulation" and that the second amendment is as fundamental as other amendments, which means that any attempt at infringing it has to clear a very high barrier. You can't just prevent people from owning guns because of "public safety" or "the public interest" unless it is an extreme scenario. But even if they found that the question shouldn’t be relevant, the fact that he lied on the question is the felony, right? Or is there a precedent that if something like this gets found to be an illegal way to restrict something that it no longer matters? On the one hand it seems silly to punish him for lying about something that shouldn’t have even been asked, but on the other, he did still lie. I couldn’t care less what happens to him, this is all just out of curiosity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:What I’m saying in my earlier post is even the no-immunity option is better for him than a trial because his consequence is only two misdemeanors that won’t affect his life much and now he’s very likely going to end up with felony convictions because DOJ wins way more than they lose. Yes he only came to their attention because of politics but that’s out of his control and he’s probably underestimating the risk he’s now in. But this guy is no stranger to high risk behaviors. The reason why the DOJ tends to win is that they don't charge what they can't prove. Also has there actually been an indictment? Because as I have been telling MAGAts, the grand jury process is one of the checks against political prosecutions. And this is the one of the most blatantly obvious political prosecutions in American history. So I'm still interested to see if they can actually get a grand jury to indict.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:But even if they found that the question shouldn’t be relevant, the fact that he lied on the question is the felony, right? Or is there a precedent that if something like this gets found to be an illegal way to restrict something that it no longer matters? On the one hand it seems silly to punish him for lying about something that shouldn’t have even been asked, but on the other, he did still lie. The argument would be that he can't be prosecuted because the attempt to restrict someone from possessing guns solely because they were using drugs is unconstitutional by itself. Lower courts have already ruled in similar cases based on the Supreme Court ruling. The Fifth Circuit appeals court ruled last month that drug users shouldn’t be automatically banned from owning guns based on the Breun decision and overturned the conviction of a man who possessed two guns, was arrested for unrelated charges, and admitted to using marijuana regularly - including when he purchased them. This was the conclusion of their ruling: quote:“Our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage,” Which is basically what Breun spelled out. It is a slightly different case than what Hunter Biden is charged with, but the principle is basically the same. He would have had a so-so chance of succeeding prior to 2022, but post-Breun I'd say he has an extremely good chance of winning. It is extremely hard to justify the argument that someone should lose their second amendment right without ever being charged with a crime, but it can't happen with the first or fourth amendment if they are all supposed to be equal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
I don't think Bruen was a good decision overall, but under the logic of Bruen it really does not make sense that you can permit the government to restrict someone's constitutional rights - that are equivalent to their first amendment rights in importance - for past behavior without them ever being charged with a crime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:What I’m saying in my earlier post is even the no-immunity option is better for him than a trial because his consequence is only two misdemeanors that won’t affect his life much and now he’s very likely going to end up with felony convictions because DOJ wins way more than they lose. Yes he only came to their attention because of politics but that’s out of his control and he’s probably underestimating the risk he’s now in. But this guy is no stranger to high risk behaviors. He just replaced his previous defense lawyer, who was cooperating with the DOJ closely, with a very prestigious and media savvy lawyer to take a more confrontational approach. We already know from the hearings with the IRS agents that there was some taint involved in the investigation process and we know that Hunter's prior lawyer will testify against the special counsel with regards to the pre trial agreement, which Hunter Biden is maintaining is still in effect. This is not to say that he is gonna beat the rap, but I don't think the logic of "the DoJ wins most of the cases it tries" is appropriate here and we are operating under much less information than the Hunter Biden defensive team so I'd be hesitant to say he is underestimating the risk he is in now. I do think people are underestimating the extent to which this story is going to take up more oxygen, for good or for ill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
Skex posted:The reason why the DOJ tends to win is that they don't charge what they can't prove. Sounds like they think they can prove it. Do you think they can’t prove that he used drugs? As for the grand jury, you know what they say about how easy it is to get an indictment? If they nullify at that stage it’s probably only because Weiss wants them to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Sounds like they think they can prove it. Do you think they can’t prove that he used drugs? The grand jury told Durham to get bent, just because it's rare doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I don't think Bruen was a good decision overall, but under the logic of Bruen it really does not make sense that you can permit the government to restrict someone's constitutional rights - that are equivalent to their first amendment rights in importance - for past behavior without them ever being charged with a crime. Or they could just give Bruen protections to “low level” domestic abusers but not to drug users. How many principles do we think Thomas and Alito will really hold sacred in the war on drugs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
https://www.businessinsider.com/tommy-tuberville-military-holds-navy-woke-poetry-aircraft-carriers-2023-9quote:Tuberville's office said the poetry comment referred to an LGBTQ spoken-word night held aboard USS Gerald R. Ford, one of the nation's 11 aircraft carriers. At a hearing in April, Tuberville pressed Adm. Mike Gilday, then the Navy's highest-ranking officer, over the event.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Or they could just give Bruen protections to “low level” domestic abusers but not to drug users. How many principles do we think Thomas and Alito will really hold sacred in the war on drugs? Alleged domestic abusers. The case isn't really about the specific crimes. It is about whether they can restrict second amendment rights when someone is charged with a crime or subject to a PFA/restraining order. You currently can under the idea of a general principle of public safety. The conservatives in Bruen basically said, "The second amendment has been treated like a red-headed step-child. It is part of the original bill of rights, it is a constitutional amendment and a constitutional right, and it is something that the founders cared about protecting enough to write it into the constitution. Why are there situations where it would never be acceptable to deny someone their first amendment rights, but it is completely fine to deny them their second amendment rights? The constitution doesn't rank amendments or rights and say that some are more important than others, so you shouldn't be able to treat them differently." You can still lose some of your rights if you are convicted of a crime, but the argument in the domestic violence case is that you can't deny someone their constitutional rights simply because they are charged with a crime or when they haven't even been charged with a crime and just have a restraining order.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The conservatives in Bruen basically said, "The second amendment has been treated like a red-headed step-child. It is part of the original bill of rights, it is a constitutional amendment and a constitutional right, and it is something that the founders cared about protecting enough to write it into the constitution. Why are there situations where it would never be acceptable to deny someone their first amendment rights, but it is completely fine to deny them their second amendment rights? The constitution doesn't rank amendments or rights and say that some are more important than others, so you shouldn't be able to treat them differently." "...except the part about it being a well-regulated militia, feel free to keep ignoring that"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:https://www.businessinsider.com/tommy-tuberville-military-holds-navy-woke-poetry-aircraft-carriers-2023-9 The fascinating thing I've learned working with a bunch of former and some current military folks, is that they're all so much better people than the folks who fetishize them. All these weird Republicans have the same conception of soldiers and sailors and airmen, and the military itself, that I had when I was like 8 or so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
lol, his initial comment didn't even include the lgbtq bit, it was just a complaint that poetry was being recited on a naval vesselquote:We've got people doing poems on aircraft carriers over the loudspeaker. It is absolutely insane the direction we're headed in our military. it's just the most ignorant poo poo. there's so much to unpack, but the simplest bit is that military poetry is some of the most well known bits of poetry in the public consciousness. as pointed out in the article, their masculine and anti-woke idol patton wrote enough poetry to fill a book
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:lol, his initial comment didn't even include the lgbtq bit, it was just a complaint that poetry was being recited on a naval vessel what do republicans think the star-spangled banner is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:what Scripture
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JCColtin/status/1699565543085240645 Why do the people of New York elect such mayors? This is far-right poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
Ah yes, NYC, definitely a city known for the purity of WASP American culture. Never been immigrants there; no sir! Get loving lucid, you tit...
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 22:01
|
|
|
zoux posted:Why do the people of New York elect such mayors? This is far-right poo poo. Greatest City on EarthTM!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 22:02
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Or they could just give Bruen protections to “low level” domestic abusers but not to drug users. How many principles do we think Thomas and Alito will really hold sacred in the war on drugs? You should read Thomas' opinion in Gonzales v Raich, he lays out his principles pretty well there and I think he would be the most likely justice to side with Hunter Biden if this issue gets to that level.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 22:02
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/JCColtin/status/1699565543085240645 He's turning the racism dial back and forth while watching the audience to see what they want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
zoux posted:
Because New Yorkers are just as racist as anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
zoux posted:Fetterman seems to be getting a lot of ink this week, how is his recovery coming? Has his aphasia improved or does he still have to rely on CC? Fetterman, or do you mean Fetterman's double? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/JCColtin/status/1699565543085240645 I guess if you just look at this one out-of-context tweet and know literally nothing else about what he's talking about, it could seem like far-right poo poo. But that's not an issue with the people of New York so much as it's an issue with people who get all their news from provocative tweets and don't think to explore the context. The context, in this case, is that this is not an anti-immigrant rant! He's not calling for an end to immigration, nor is he calling for the deportation of migrants. He's not scaremongering about non-white hordes invading the city. Rather, he's pleading for federal aid to help cover the cost of feeding and housing a growing population of asylum seekers who have no housing, no money, no support, and no work permits. It's putting strain on social services in a time when city budgets are shrinking. Homeless shelters are full and it's not nearly enough; the city has started renting out entire hotels as emergency shelter for homeless asylum seekers. When he talks about how the issue is going to DESTROY the NYC we knew, he's talking about budget cuts decimating city services. Adams has spent months loudly and publicly begging the Biden administration to expedite providing work permits for asylum seekers, or to at least provide more federal support to help cover the costs of providing for the migrants that are legally barred from providing for themselves. Eric Adams is certainly a weird dude, with an unusual affection for rhetoric that sounds exactly like right-wing rhetoric if you aren't listening too closely, but he's not actually spouting racism here (though right-wing publications and Twitter clickbaiters have been happy to snip bits of it out of context to make it seem like it's racism). I suspect he's being intentionally provocative, either because he thinks it'll force national Dems to stop ignoring him, or because he wants to shift blame for the impending budget crisis. Personally, I don't think it's a good tactic, but I'm not really sure he has any good tactics available (at least from the perspective of his own political survival).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:what Let me just stop you there. If they were actually capable of thought they wouldn't be Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Hunter Biden might actually end up taking his gun case to the Supreme Court after all. It'll be a trip if Hunter Biden makes background checks illegal lol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2023 23:55
|
|
|
After nearly 3 years of deadlock and telecom industry lobbying killing his first choice, Biden finally has his 3-2 majority on the FCC with the confirmation of Anna Gomezquote:Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) warned about the return of net neutrality rules when he spoke against the Gomez nomination on the Senate floor today. "If confirmed, she would give the Democrats a majority at the FCC that would enable them to impose a radical left-wing agenda, including investment-killing and job-killing so-called net neutrality rules, otherwise known as Obamacare for the Internet," Cruz said. "I strongly oppose her nomination and I encourage my colleagues to do the same." Net neutrality is indeed likely to be among the first orders of business now that the deadlock has been broken. The rule, which requires ISPs to Gomez had an unremarkable confirmation process and attracted votes from 5 Republicans (Capito, Collins, Murkowski, Rounds, and Young). haveblue fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Sep 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 06:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I guess if you just look at this one out-of-context tweet and know literally nothing else about what he's talking about, it could seem like far-right poo poo. But that's not an issue with the people of New York so much as it's an issue with people who get all their news from provocative tweets and don't think to explore the context. Being intentionally provocative using common right-wing vernacular, particularly as a leader within the culture, sounds a whole lot like participating in systemic racism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 10:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I guess if you just look at this one out-of-context tweet and know literally nothing else about what he's talking about, it could seem like far-right poo poo. But that's not an issue with the people of New York so much as it's an issue with people who get all their news from provocative tweets and don't think to explore the context. Eric Adams is a weird freak with strong authoritarian tendencies. He's not the kind of person who deserves the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 12:24
|
|
|
haveblue posted:After nearly 3 years of deadlock and telecom industry lobbying killing his first choice, Biden finally has his 3-2 majority on the FCC with the confirmation of Anna Gomez “Obamacare for the Internet” lol keep loving that pig
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 13:12
|
|
|
Republicans are attempting to rebrand on abortion for the 2024 election after concerns that "Pro-life" is now too associated with policies punishing women and overturning Roe v. Wade. They are also concerned that internal polling is showing them that people are now associating the term "pro-life" to mean against abortion in all scenarios (even in cases of rape and incest) and that is hurting candidates in swing races. They haven't settled on a new phrase yet, but currently Senator Todd Young (R-IN) is pushing for "support pro-baby policies" and others are stressing talking about support for "pro-family" policies instead of getting bogged down in specifics about how many weeks abortion bans should kick in or how to punish people who violate them. The new advice the NRSC is giving candidates is: 1) "Encouraging Republicans to clearly state their opposition to a national abortion ban and support for reasonable limits on late-term abortions when babies can feel pain with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother." 2) "Encouraging candidates to contrast that position with Democrats’ support for taxpayer-funded abortion without limits." 3) Be specific and clear about these policies, but deflect questions about nation-wide abortion bans or specific punishments to the states. The Supreme Court brought the decision back to the states and the states should make their decisions. As a Senator, you will oppose a national abortion ban because of state's rights, but support pro-baby and pro-family policies. 4) "Emphasize that the pro-life movement serves both mother and child. We recognize the need to love and support them both. Today, the pro-abortion side opts to cut women from their communication entirely, choosing instead to speak to ‘pregnant people.’ Now more than ever, the pro-life movement needs to continue emphasizing its commitment to both women and children,” 5) "Don't just call yourself pro-life and let Democrats fill in the details in the mind of the public. Instead, say ‘I’m pro-life, but … .’ Or ‘I care deeply about the mother and the children, and we should always have compassion. But I believe that after 15 weeks where the child can feel pain, they should be protected.’" Nikki Haley is also advising that Republican candidates to "agree that we are not going to put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty if she gets an abortion." https://twitter.com/TomNamako/status/1699947433579426094 quote:Republicans are trying to find a new term for ‘pro-life’ to stave off more electoral losses Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Sep 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 14:34
|
|
|
"We support pro-baby policies" "So, like, mandatory birth leave and maternal health care policies?" "No gently caress you state's rights arghle blargle" Yeah that's gonna work out well for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:"We support pro-baby policies" I also laugh at the idea that they think they can wrangle this issue after spending 50 years wanting this and encouraging psychos to run for office that are willing to do whatever is necessary to ban abortion completely
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:"We support pro-baby policies" "What about prenatal healthcare?" *incoherent screaming*
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 14:52
|
|
|
Also, they are chained to their base. gently caress them forever and let them reap the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
Whenever I talk to a pro-lifer I bring up Republicans anti-free school lunches https://newrepublic.com/post/173668/republicans-declare-banning-universal-free-school-meals-2024-priority If the person is also on board with starving children(which they usually always are  ) I just walk away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure this is only going to be used by candidates in swing states or close races, but it is kind of interesting that the NRSC is officially advising candidates to make it explicitly clear that they oppose a national abortion ban being passed by congress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
Meatball posted:"What about prenatal healthcare?" A coworker yelled at me for taking time off work when my kids were in the NICU and my wife was recovering from an emergency C-section so our girls could live I was being lazy and should have just worked instead of being with my family, in fact it makes me a coward and lib and traitor to prefer my most important people to Work Great country we have here
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
Pro-life is up there with death tax as one of the most successful political brandings of modern politics, so it's incredible to me that it's tainted to this degree so quickly. Dog catching the car poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 15:02
|
|