bird food bathtub posted:

Eh, I'd say their voters elected them to own the libs and attack their preferred target minorities. The billionaires and megacorporations that fund them though, yeah, useless paralysis is exactly what they want.

Levitate posted:

They didn’t do anything because white people can’t be terrorists (unless they’re antifa)

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

People evade their own security detail all the time.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Jews don't believe that Jesus was a prophet. This is a pretty incredible error to make at the start of your exegetical post to be frank, like it's blowing my mind that someone could believe they know about Judaism and Christianity but get this wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus

the other hand posted:

If Trump’s belief in the legality of his actions was genuine, I think the relevant standard here may be one of reckless disregard for the truth. A genuinely held delusion wouldn’t protect him if no reasonable person in his position could believe it.

If the government can’t show that his belief wasn’t genuinely held, I think the case will ultimately turn on the issue that a few attorneys around Trump said “this is all ok.” - whether that’s enough that some reasonable person might believe it even in the face of most other people (including other attorneys) saying otherwise.

OgNar posted:

Raldikuk posted:

The entire article is wild just tons of crying about these businesses that are breaking the law and how dare someone hold them to account. I especially liked the hotel manager who says no one even uses the improvements they put in place! Which is an interestinf juxtaposition to their crying that the dude didn't notify them via other means than an ADA lawsuit. You know so they could totally not ignore him and thwir obligations under the law which is why the law even allows people to sue in the first place. And of course the democratic rep quoted crying about how unfair the ADA is. loving shameful poo poo all around.

quote:

U.S. Representative Kathy Castor (D-Hillsborough County) believes businesses don’t always get a fair shake with current ADA laws. In 2013, she co-sponsored a bill that would give businesses 90 days to fix violations.



“This cries out for reform,” she said. “I do think that it is fair to give businesses a reasonable time to comply with the law and if they don’t then there should be consequences.”

Professor Beetus posted:

Well then it certainly seems like this is a non-issue or something that could be fixed by having a proper regulatory body, and I think the previous poster's assessment of what the Dem rep said was essentially accurate, unless you are incapable of inference.

azflyboy posted:

I assume Trump has already sent a new RV to Thomas.

Eregos posted:

I was trying to think what George Santos do that was worse than Trump's equivalent behavior? My only answer so far is Trump didn't categorically make up his background. A surprising % of Republicans condemn Santos but not Trump, so I think this is a good discussion topic because it can encourage people to think. I'm wondering if anyone has an intellectually honest answer, though I haven't searched for discussion on it much.

Kchama posted:

Fleischman’s going for the “she was intentionally extending the investigation as long as possible to pay her husband more” which is why I think he’s kind of not being particularly neutral here.

Asproigerosis posted:

For starters, they should not have waited a month to start the impeachment of a president that attempted a self coup, followed up by declining to present any evidence or witnesses during this impeachment because they wanted to go home for their valentine week off.

Asproigerosis posted:

They should have arrested all of the congress that were active participants in sedition instead of.... doing nothing.

Yiggy posted:

This defense attorney has been described as good in thread by other attorneys for chasing the hard angles for her client but watching this questioning right now she seems shakey, and like she’s engaged in a fishing expedition needing constant redirection from the judge and sounding unsure about what she’s even asking.

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

according to 15 seconds of googling, trump tower is only 664' and the average height of the new york skyline is 981', so trump didn't change poo poo

Caros posted:

Oh gently caress off. Don't twist my words.

Trump is a narcissist who doesn't give a drat about his kids other than that he wants to gently caress one and that their 'success' reflects back on him. My point wasn't 'blood for the blood god' it was that one of the points of civil penalties is to deter poo poo behavior.

If Trump goes to the grave without ever facing anything but a tut-tut finger wag for decades of fraud and criminal behavior, the justice system has failed, even if his kids lose some of their inherentance after the fact.

Fork of Unknown Origins posted:

This is why people are mad. This is not a consideration 99% of the time. Whether someone, even pre trial, is going to lose their job because they can’t make bail doesn’t matter. And that will have a much larger impact on their life than Trump losing some buildings. Why does it matter for the ultra rich only?

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I mean, it does, but also it often doesn't. I've seen bail denied in cases where people were seeking bail so they could get cancer treatment.

The Bible posted:

That's more or less my point.

I hate to doompost, but I don't see how any of you still have any faith in the legal system at all. This poo poo builds up weekly and the numbers get bigger, but nothing ever really happens.

The Bible posted:

Alright, I didn't consider that. My mistake, I stand corrected. Clearly that isn't right. But neither is this:

I guess I just feel like justice shouldn't be paywalled behind expensive lawyers, and I'm a little surprised at how controversial this view seems here. Not everyone has the money to afford good lawyers, so do they just not deserve fair treatment like the rich get from the courts? Yeah, you can get a court-appointed lawyer who is badly overloaded and not guaranteed to be very invested in doing their best for you, but we both know that's not nearly the same as an expensive lawyer who can spend all his time on just your case.

I guess the idea that the right to a fair trial being basically DLC just doesn't sit well with me.

Murgos posted:

Maybe this is dumb but if SCOTUS were to rule that the president enjoys even modest immunity to criminal prosecution due to implied article II powers then that seems to be also potentially enjoining the power of congress to impeach a president.

It seems to me to be too fine a line for there to be acts which assume some level of implied constitutionally protected status but that you can be impeached for.

Raenir Salazar posted:

A part of me is actually legitimately concerned if he's trying to do this on purpose to further rally his base and trying to pull a Hitler.