Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

That's not a fact. It's an opinion that you keep repeating, with basing the facts which led you to it. What facts are those? I would like to know, in part because I can't figure out what you mean by "political."

Trump is unpopular in NY. Bragg wanted office in NY. He said what the crowd wanted to hear.

Also, once in office, like any other ambitious DA, Bragg decided to run with a case which Vance had slow-played to the point where it was past all credibly applied statutes of limitation.

Great. So we agree that there is a form of prosecutorial abuse which you don't think was involved in Bragg's prosecution of Trump. I'm still trying to figure what you did think was abusive about it.

Nobody else would be prosecuted for it.

No, that's not the same at all. Trump was found guilty on the exact charges for which he was indicted. Not, "he was guilty of something." Rather, he was guilty of the exact thing he was charged with, and he had no defense.

The law in the case was a joke. It was a poorly written statute that allowed Bragg to turn a misdemeanor into a felony and thereby extend the SOL using a Rube Goldberg theory involving a predicate federal violation (the feds never prosecuted or even fined Trump for, BTW) which was not even articulated until after the trial had already started!

Given that the charges had to do with funneling hush-money payments around a federal election, why is it any surprise that the predicate act would involve federal campaign law?

Because the feds passed on it, indicating the credible prosecutors who wisely declined to engage in abusive and unethical practices didn't see any reason to bring it. And they, unlike a tinpot state DA, know better what ought to be done, rather than what one might "get away with" by perversion of the intent of a law in a ludicrously biased forum.

You seem to think it was unethical for Bragg to advance a legal theory you disagree with, as if there weren't courts involved making legal rulings.

Every litigator has won lots of money bringing claims for which people were not entitled to recovery if equity and actual fairness were the measures by which cases were judged. But "the law allows it so..." we're "ethically" protected.

"Ethics" as applied to lawyers is an absurdist derangement of the term.

The FEC routinely fails to enforce law, for reasons that are no secret.

Did it screw up here? No. And you've got nothing to suggest otherwise.

Again, one difference here is that I have been told by NY prosecutors that Bragg's legal theory was not creative or unprecedented, and your views are shaped by, well, other stuff.

Eli Honig nailed it. Find some way to respond to his critique and maybe you'll have a point.

Facts, please. What did Bragg say?

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...y-alvin-bragg/

It's cleverly worded to allow for the argument that he's being fair while clearly stating, "I'm going after Trump":

"I also sued the Trump administration more than 100 times... So I know that work."

"I’m the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump. I was the chief deputy in the attorney general’s office. We sued the Trump administration over 100 times, for the Muslim travel ban, for family separation at the border, for shenanigans with the census. So, I know how to litigate with him. I also led the team that did the Trump Foundation case. So, I’m ready to go wherever the facts take me, and to inherit that case. And I think it’d be hard to argue with the fact that that’d be the most important, most high-profile case, and I’ve seen him up front and seen the lawlessness that he could do."

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Spotify played Violet by Hole yesterday. Haven't heard it in forever. Courtney Love is nuts but that song kicks ass.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Spotify played Violet by Hole yesterday. Haven't heard it in forever. Courtney Love is nuts but that song kicks ass.

Slave and I saw System of a Down, the DefTones, and Mars Volta on Saturday.

[SEC_Chick]

Hey all. Just stopping by to confess that I will be voting for a Democrat for the first time in my life. If I could tell 2014 self I’d be voting for Kamala Harris for President in 2024, past me would be perplexed to think of what must have gone wrong in America to make such a thing possible.

Admittedly I am voting for her with significantly less enthusiasm than I would have if she’d picked Shapiro, but unenthusiastic votes count as much as enthusiastic ones. Also voting D against Ted Cruz, because having advanced stolen election conspiracies is a dealbreaker so I am voting D for pretty much all federal and statewide offices, but will still vote for some non-MAGA GOP judges I know to be serious people.

(As an aside, I’m pretty sure I’ll never be a Republican again, and I would have voted for a Harris/Shapiro ticket with a song in my heart. I’d even vote for Shapiro in the future over some normie Republican who was once a serious person, but debased themselves for Trump, like Haley or Scott. OTOH, the Ds could also probably push me back to writing in Mitt Romney or Liz Cheney.)

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Slave and I saw System of a Down, the DefTones, and Mars Volta on Saturday.

Nice! Where?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Nice! Where?

Golden Gate Park in SF.

In June, we went to this in Southern California -
https://novalues.com/

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Hey all. Just stopping by to confess that I will be voting for a Democrat for the first time in my life. If I could tell 2014 self I’d be voting for Kamala Harris for President in 2024, past me would be perplexed to think of what must have gone wrong in America to make such a thing possible.

Admittedly I am voting for her with significantly less enthusiasm than I would have if she’d picked Shapiro, but unenthusiastic votes count as much as enthusiastic ones. Also voting D against Ted Cruz, because having advanced stolen election conspiracies is a dealbreaker so I am voting D for pretty much all federal and statewide offices, but will still vote for some non-MAGA GOP judges I know to be serious people.

(As an aside, I’m pretty sure I’ll never be a Republican again, and I would have voted for a Harris/Shapiro ticket with a song in my heart. I’d even vote for Shapiro in the future over some normie Republican who was once a serious person, but debased themselves for Trump, like Haley or Scott. OTOH, the Ds could also probably push me back to writing in Mitt Romney or Liz Cheney.)

Hey! Like this - https://www.yahoo.com/news/made-grav...190840961.html

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Golden Gate Park in SF.

In June, we went to this in Southern California -
https://novalues.com/

Oh man, I loved The Selecter. Seeing Buzzcocks next month.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Trump is unpopular in NY. Bragg wanted office in NY. He said what the crowd wanted to hear.

Also, once in office, like any other ambitious DA, Bragg decided to run with a case which Vance had slow-played to the point where it was past all credibly applied statutes of limitation.



Nobody else would be prosecuted for it.



The law in the case was a joke. It was a poorly written statute that allowed Bragg to turn a misdemeanor into a felony and thereby extend the SOL using a Rube Goldberg theory involving a predicate federal violation (the feds never prosecuted or even fined Trump for, BTW) which was not even articulated until after the trial had already started!



Because the feds passed on it, indicating the credible prosecutors who wisely declined to engage in abusive and unethical practices didn't see any reason to bring it. And they, unlike a tinpot state DA, know better what ought to be done, rather than what one might "get away with" by perversion of the intent of a law in a ludicrously biased forum.



Every litigator has won lots of money bringing claims for which people were not entitled to recovery if equity and actual fairness were the measures by which cases were judged. But "the law allows it so..." we're "ethically" protected.

"Ethics" as applied to lawyers is an absurdist derangement of the term.



Did it screw up here? No. And you've got nothing to suggest otherwise.



Eli Honig nailed it. Find some way to respond to his critique and maybe you'll have a point.



https://www.politifact.com/article/2...y-alvin-bragg/

It's cleverly worded to allow for the argument that he's being fair while clearly stating, "I'm going after Trump":

"I also sued the Trump administration more than 100 times... So I know that work."

"I’m the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump. I was the chief deputy in the attorney general’s office. We sued the Trump administration over 100 times, for the Muslim travel ban, for family separation at the border, for shenanigans with the census. So, I know how to litigate with him. I also led the team that did the Trump Foundation case. So, I’m ready to go wherever the facts take me, and to inherit that case. And I think it’d be hard to argue with the fact that that’d be the most important, most high-profile case, and I’ve seen him up front and seen the lawlessness that he could do."

Watching you make all of these different arguments is a little like reading a losing appellate brief throw spaghetti against the wall in the hope that something will stick.

There are obvious reasons why Trump didn't face federal prosecution for the conduct that got him convicted in NY (although note that a Trump-led DOJ put Michael Cohen in prison for his participation in the same scheme, and Cohen was working for Trump, which completely undercuts everything you are saying).

On the merits, or lack thereof, of the state-law theory, I'm going to have to ask you explain to me what you think Honig's best points are, because I can't read that article behind the paywall.

As to what Bragg said, he actually said something pretty appropriate -- that he was qualified and would go wherever the facts take him. You are reading between the lines, which is to say that you are pretending he said something he didn't.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Oh man, I loved The Selecter. Seeing Buzzcocks next month.

Buzzcocks without Pete Shelley is, well, something.

X is playing their final Portland show on Sunday; sold out before my lazy ass got around to buying tickets.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

Buzzcocks without Pete Shelley is, well, something.

X is playing their final Portland show on Sunday; sold out before my lazy ass got around to buying tickets.

What? What happened to Shelley? I figure these bands are all just old. I just wanted to take my daughter to hear some good songs. And since Andy Gill died of “pneumonia” January 2020 I can’t think of many other bands I care to see (although the “new” Gang of Four music was shit).


Edit- he died.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

What? What happened to Shelley? I figure these bands are all just old. I just wanted to take my daughter to hear some good songs. And since Andy Gill died of “pneumonia” January 2020 I can’t think of many other bands I care to see (although the “new” Gang of Four music was shit).


Edit- he died.

Dammit man, the Doobie Brothers broke up! Shit! When did that happen?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Dammit man, the Doobie Brothers broke up! Shit! When did that happen?

Since we lost Flower I have no source for music news��

PS I was listening to Buzzcocks when you lot were still sucking at your mama’s titty.

[LessinSF]

Why I live where I do - https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/com...029c/#lightbox

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Since we lost Flower I have no source for music news��

PS I was listening to Buzzcocks when you lot were still sucking at your mama’s titty.

Just giving you shit and wanted to quote Romancing the Stone.

Flower is missed.