MAGA doesn’t care about the truth.
They just want everyone to say what they want to hear.
If you don’t, they’ll try to bully and intimidate you.
They’re leftists.
John Judis and Ruy Teixeira are back with a new book that argues the Democrats are imperiled by a “shadow party” that is forcing them into “radical” positions on cultural issues.
Yeah; sure; that's the problem. (What is wrong with these people?) (The responses make me feel better. One asks: "Radical like affordable Healthcare? Or radical like threatening to put immigrants into concentration camps?"; and another asks: "Is this parody?")
I should note here the Texas Legislature, after 3 special sessions and well into the fourth, still cannot fund public schools, but is about to pass a bill giving Texas law enforcement the authority to arrest "illegal aliens" and return them to Mexico. Mexico is pointing out many of the people crossing the Rio Grande are not Mexican citizens, and Mexico won't take 'em back. It's also an unconstitutional usurpation of federal sovereignty over immigration issues, as well as creating a "papers, please" scenario (they're never gonna ask me where I'm from, but there are lots of U.S. citizens a lot browner than me)
About 250 animals involved in a transfer between humane societies in August are still unaccounted for, and humane society officials say the animals were probably fed to reptiles.
I really don't know what to do with that.
And this is via Twitter, but Chutkan denied Trump's motion to strike language from the indictment. Her reasoning is brief but insightful:
Defendant’s sixteen-page Reply In Support of the Motion, despite making numerous inflammatory and unsupported accusations of its own, see, e.g., ECF No. 156 at 7 (“PresidentBiden directed the Department of Justice to prosecute his leading opponent for the presidency through a calculated leak to the New York Times.”), devotes only a single paragraph to the prejudice requirement. His sole argument is that even if the jury does not receive a copy of the indictment, “[v]oluminous evidence exists here that the jury pool has been, and continues to be, exposed to the Indictment and its inflammatory and prejudicial allegations, through media coverage relating to the case.” Id. at 16. But Defendant fails to cite even one example of that evidence. In any event, the voir dire process will allow the court to examine and address the effects that pretrial publicity, including any generated by Defendant, has had on the impartiality of potential jurors. When trial begins, the court will also take steps to screen from the jury any irrelevant and prejudicial material that either party seeks to introduce. Moreover, before the jurors deliberate, the court will instruct them on the actual charges and the evidence they may consider in their deliberations. See United States v. Empire Bulkers Ltd., 583 F. Supp. 3d 746, 760 (E.D. La. 2022) (providing that jury instructions would “make clear to [jurors] what defendants are actually charged with” and “the verdict form will not ask the jury to consider issues for which defendants have not been charged”). This too will prevent “potential prejudice from the alleged surplusage.”
That's pretty much how you slap aside a stupid legal argument. It's also how a judge tells a party their arguments are meritless.
No comments:
Post a Comment