pfife

Ok

I wish you the best. My buddy's daughter got herself into trouble bullying over Discord, she was also sending hentai porn to the person she was bullying. She was 11 at the time.

there was a teacher slap challenge a couple years ago too

one example, kids at my daughters school were trashing the bathrooms because of a challenge on tick tock

I am saying he should have left out the bloviations about sympathy from jury he had no power to convene. The rest of your post is your words

There's a DOJ memo prohibiting the indictment of the sitting president. Hur works for the DOJ. He should not be pontificating about a jury having sympathy for Biden when the rules disallow charging the president let alone convening a jury.

It was the only polish hur had for his turd. Couldn't imagine choosing to come here and publicly defend it

No, congress can't change the minimum age. There's no constitutional mechanism for congress changing the min age to be president, the constitution would need to be amended. The 14th Amendment Section 3 though does explicitly say that congress can remove the sanctions that preclude one from being in office b/c they engaged in insurrection. So if they bounce him from the ballot congress (theoretically) could remove that sanction after the ballot was printed/election happened without him on the ballot, so he winds up jammed in that scenario.

If Mr. Hur thought Biden was too sympathetic of a figure b/c of his age and memory to secure a guilty conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a jury, what actually means in legal terms is that Mr. Hur did not secure the evidence needed to establish Biden's Mens Rea beyond a reasonable doubt. *THAT* is what he puts into the report. Of course, it's all fantasy anyways. Because there's a DOJ memo that precludes the charging of the sitting president, and charging would need to occur before the task of establishing the mens rea, so the DOJ memo is the beginning and end of it. As it was with Mueller. Except for when E hates the innocent person why speculate on what a jury would feel about President Joe Biden if the DOJ isn't allowed to charge President Joe Biden with a crime that would necessitate convening a jury

Everyone except Carle knows that the DOJ isn't supposed to lodge personal attacks. They either charge or they stfu. Unless Carle doesn't like the person being attacked then the personal attacks are gods work

you seem very inspired about defending personal attacks on an innocent man. Pants fitting tight?

I said it should not be presented. Just like Mueller and at least 2 other SCs appointed under the same law did not Cool story though Eric Carle

there is no republican establishment other than trumpism

I'm not wrong and you calling me wrong is evidence that I'm not wrong

I dont need to protect my daughter from this forum but whatever works for you

so tonight is when Tay and Travis Pfizer install Biden for 4 more years after the Chefs win the rigged super bowl right

It's interesting that the same law that compelled Mueller to not lodge personal attacks against the person he was investigating and not charging, *did* compel personal attacks against the person this jabroni was investigating and not charging The fact is, if it were a level playing field, the conversation starts and ends at the same DOJ memo regarding indicting a sitting president that Mueller cited.

Esweig putting in the work defending personal attacks on an innocent person in a legal document, cheers on the noble cause

I never said anything about whether the report should be public so that part of your story sucked I was talking about what was included in the content of the report but go off with whatever makes your story crappier

I don't care if I sound like an old curmudgeon but social media is horrible and is a plague on society.

I think people also don't take into account the perniciousness and the pervasiveness of the internet and particularly social media. I have a friend who is a principal at a high school and the stories he tells me are horrifying. These kids just spin up new websites with new urls where they keep terrorizing other kids in the school, and part of his teams job is just following that around on the internet playing whack-a-mole. You can take your kid off social media (maybe?) and that's really hard in and of itself, but that doesn't make all of the social media go away and not impact their lives.

One thing that I did find pretty ridiculous in that hearing though was the "discussion" about how if they allow Colorado to keep Trump off the ballot, the projected outcome is that "the presidency will be decided by a handful of states" I wonder if the justices are genuinely unaware of "the electoral college" and "status quo" or if they were being purposefully intellectually dishonest.

I'm a very techy person and I'd say I'm pretty worried about how to wrangle/control all of the apps/content that my daughter can access. I think it's very reasonable argument that it shouldn't be parents' responsibility to parry a tsunami created by tech companies with immunity pursuing massive profit. If we still argue it should be parents' responsibility, I think it's very reasonable to determine how realistic that really is for an average parent.

I really enjoyed being able to listen to this oral argument, even though I'm fully aware the justices already all have their minds made up. The talking heads were saying they thought Trump's team would concentrate on this office/officer technicality but really Trump's defense had what felt to me like a much stronger argument. I thought the argument he was making (paraphrasing) where he said if you take him off the ballot, you're essentially blocking congress's power to "remove" the designation which is also stated in the amendment, was a very strong argument. So for instance, it's objectively determinable whether TayTay will be 35 by the time she's president. However it is not objectively determinable whether Congress would remove the restriction. It's very similar to the same question we were discussing elsewhere where the Constitution says the criteria to be president but it doesn't' say anything about criteria to run for president. I thought Trump's attorney did a good job, maybe he even convinced me. I still think he engaged in insurrection and the constitution says you can't do that and be president, but I also agree with the reasoning presented.

Biden was totally exonerated