I really need my wargarbl smiley reaction back.
I really need my wargarbl smiley reaction back.
He's such a soyboy.
He wouldn't know what suffrage isIs he saying he wants to give cows the right to vote?
Did someone suggest that he “ease bovine suffering” and he just misheard “sufferage?”
I now have (more) questions.
—Patrick
There's no comparison to a real court. There were too many conflicts of interest. Trump's lawyers could not have represented him, since they were co-conspirators. This would have been beyond a mistrial, but it was never a criminal trial to begin with. Jeopardy shouldn't attach because there was never any possibility of a judgement resulting in a punishment other than removal from office.A person can never be tried twice for the same facts, but since this technically isn't a trial, would it be possible for Trump or any of his helpers ever to face treason charges after he's out of office? I mean, he'll die in office for sure now, but theoretically?
Isn't that only true if no new evidence exists, so you can't just try someone with the same evidence over and over to ruin their lives? And since they're not allowing any witnesses...A person can never be tried twice for the same facts,
No, if you try someone for murder and they get found not guilty, it doesn't matter if you later find video footage of them doing it, they can't be tried for it.Isn't that only true if no new evidence exists, so you can't just try someone with the same evidence over and over to ruin their lives?
No, generally speaking, once there's been a trial, it's over for those specific charges. The specifics of how jeopardy attaches are complicated, and since IANAL I can't even attempt to explain the exceptions, like mistrials and other events, but jeopardy almost certainly didn't attach in this case because it was not a criminal trial.Isn't that only true if no new evidence exists, so you can't just try someone with the same evidence over and over to ruin their lives? And since they're not allowing any witnesses...
I just want to point out, double jeopardy, which is the idea of trying someone again for the same crime they were found not guilty for, is only forbidden in criminal court. It is not true in civil court, and is certainly not true in impeachment, which is a political tool and not a court of law at all.Isn't that only true if no new evidence exists, so you can't just try someone with the same evidence over and over to ruin their lives? And since they're not allowing any witnesses...
Ngl, I thought about making that reference and thought it'd be too obscure even for this forum. I was clearly wrong.Looks like it's time to break this out.
Personally, I was going to go with Cyriak.Ngl, I thought about making that reference and thought it'd be too obscure even for this forum. I was clearly wrong.
"Now fix the f***in' hyperdrive!"I don't think there is any reference so obscure that some Halforumite won't get it.
No, if you try someone for murder and they get found not guilty, it doesn't matter if you later find video footage of them doing it, they can't be tried for it.
Well, you might be right that there's a need to declare the old trial invalid, but new evidence is definitely a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burks_v._United_StatesNo, generally speaking, once there's been a trial, it's over for those specific charges. The specifics of how jeopardy attaches are complicated, and since IANAL I can't even attempt to explain the exceptions, like mistrials and other events,
Which part surprises you?What's this I'm hearing about Trump having a horribly offensive Super Bowl ad?
That there's a political ad during the Super Bowl.Which part surprises you?
In the tumblr/*chan/reddit/Fox Noise generation, EVERY ad is a political ad.That there's a political ad during the Super Bowl.
So, when can we expect the marker "corrected" map that shows Kansas City is not, in fact, located in Missouri?
—PatrickOn Saturday, a reporter asked Garcia to clarify his remarks.
“So actually in the Constitution of the United States (if) they are found guilty of being a socialist member you either go to prison or are shot,” Garcia said.
Garcia could not to point to where in the Constitution it says socialists could be shot or jailed.
Asked to clarify if he thought it was fair to shoot or jail a socialist, including those who live in Montana, Garcia said yes.
“They’re enemies of the free state,” Garcia said. “What do we do with our enemies in war? In Vietnam, (Afghanistan), all those. What did we do?”
Yeah, @blotsfan is partying about it over in that other thread.Rush Limbaugh has advanced lung cancer. I guess I’ll just leave it at that.
In b4 @Frank
Censoring the political messages in historical images. Yet another step further into fascism.
--PatrickLast month the National Archives found itself in the middle of a firestorm after it put a doctored photograph of the Women’s March on Washington on display. [...] last month [The National Archives] announced that ICE could go ahead and start destroying records from Mr. Trump’s first year, including detainees’ complaints about civil rights violations and shoddy medical care. It’s not just ICE. The Department of the Interior and the National Archives have decided to delete files on endangered species, offshore drilling inspections and the safety of drinking water.
[...]
All this is happening without so much as a congressional hearing