Advertisement

Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Recently Flagged Comments

Recently flagged comments from all news stories on this site. Users must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you want to retrieve a comment of yours that was recently deleted, visit your user page and click the Moderation link.

@#39 ... I have to assume ...

Your alias seems to do that about a lot of things... and comes to wrong conclusions...

The jurors: who is on the Trump trial jury? (April 18, 2024)
www.theguardian.com

...Here's what to know about them:
Juror No 1

Juror No 1, a man, works in sales and previously worked as a waiter, and has some college education. He is married with no children, and says he gets news from a range of outlets such as the New York Times, the Daily Mail, Fox News and MSNBC.

Juror No 2

Juror No 2 is a married man who works in investment banking. He has an MBA in finance. He described himself as someone who "reads basically everything" and said that while he doesn't hold any strong beliefs or opinions, he does follow the news and sees Trump's Truth Social posts via Twitter. He told the court that he had not read any of Trump's books, but had seen quotes from The Art of the Deal.

Juror No 3

Juror No 3 is a man who appeared to be in his late 20s or early 30s, who is originally from the west coast. He works in corporate law and said that he gets his news from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and Google.

Juror No 4

Juror No 4 is a man who is originally from the west coast. He is a security engineer with some college education, and is married with children. He said he was not on social media, and once served on a criminal jury in the past though could not remember the verdict. When asked if he had any concerns about returning a guilty verdict, he said no.

Juror No 5

Juror No 5 is a young woman who said that she had friends with strong opinions on Trump, but that she was not a political person and avoided the news. She said she did appreciate Trump's candor, and that he "speaks his mind, and I'd rather that than someone who's in office who you don't know what they're thinking".

Juror No 6

Juror No 6 is a woman who works in tech. She told the court that she had no strong feelings about Trump, and pledged to be fair and impartial. She is unmarried with no children, and gets her news from the New York Times, Google, Facebook and

Juror No 7

Juror No 7 is a man in his late middle age who works as a civil litigator. He is married with children and has never served on a jury. He gets his news from a variety of outlets including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the Washington Post, and from podcasts.

Juror No 8

Juror No 8 is a retired wealth manager who is married with children. Asked if he had any strong opinions about Trump, he paused for a moment before answering yes. When the judge followed up to ask him if he could be fair and impartial, he said he could.

Juror No 9

Juror No 9 is a woman who told the court she believed she could fully follow the judge's instructions, but was not well versed in legal proceedings. She lives alone, does not follow the news closely and is originally from New Jersey.

Juror No 10

Juror No 10 is a man who works in e-commerce and said he did not really check the news, but listens to podcasts on behavioral psychology. He is originally from Ohio.

Juror No 11

Juror No 11 is a woman who said she did not follow the news, but did watch late-night comedy shows. She is originally from California, and said she had never rallied for or against Trump. One of her close friends was convicted of financial fraud, she said.

Juror No 12

Juror No 12 is a woman who works as a physical therapist. She lived in a few states before coming to New York, reads major news outlets and listens to podcasts about sports and faith. ...


Trump as hush money jury deliberates: Mother Teresa could not beat these charges'
thehill.com

... Former President Trump fumed Wednesday just after his New York City criminal case was turned over to the jury for deliberations, blasting the judge in the case and bemoaning that "Mother Teresa could not beat these charges." ...

My first question ... would Mother Teresa even think of doing the acts that fmr Pres Trump is alleged to have done?

And, as a follow-up ... fmr Pres Trump apparently trying to equate himself with Mother Teresa?


GOP allies misrepresent judge's instructions
www.nbcnews.com

... Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., once an opponent of Trump when they ran for president in 2016, tweeted that the judge told the jury that they don't have to unanimously agree on which crime was committed.

"Judge in Trump case in NYC just told jury they don't have to unanimously agree on which crime was committed as long as they all at least pick one. And that among the crimes the can pick from are ones Trump WASN'T EVEN CHARGED WITH!!! This is exactly the kind of sham trial used," he wrote.

That's a blatant misrepresentation of what Judge Merchan said. The judge told the jury that they don't have to unanimously agree on what crime Trump was trying to cover up. They just have to agree he was trying to cover up a crime. ...


Let me drop this truth bomb on the thread removing any doubt that based on what the plaintiffs claimed as grounds for standing to sue was not only inaccurate, it was a bald-faced lie which would have come out in the appeals process if the Roberts Court hadn't hijacked this case onto their shadow docket.

In their brief to the Supreme Court, the six GOP attorneys general cited MOHELA's 2022 financial statement, showing it made $88.9 million in revenue from servicing 5.2 million federal direct loans, and then went on to argue that cancellation will harm MOHELA's revenues. But MOHELA's own internal impact analysis anticipates that after cancellation is complete, it will make $8,096,002 a month, or $97,152,024 annually, servicing federal direct loans (see Appendix 3). This is more than a 9 percent increase, even without including the 2
million loans transferred to MOHELA since August 2022. In other words, even MOHELA admits that it will not be financially harmed by cancellation.

The reality is that MOHELA will actively benefit from cancellation. 9 MOHELA and other servicers will receive additional revenue to process the Biden administration's cancellation plan, which is not reflected in our figure above. MOHELA's current contract pays $11.49 per account to process a discharge, but MOHELA will likely be paid significantly more under the
Biden cancellation plan. We have pending Sunshine Law requests about contract modifications that include payments for processing discharge under this plan. Based on the January 31, 2023, account information we received from MOHELA, we estimate that MOHELA will be processing reductions or complete discharges for 5,319,138 unique borrowers. If we take the conservative approach and use the $11.49 per discharge under its current contract, MOHELA would get a windfall of over $61 million.

rooseveltinstitute.org

And please note, the argument here isn't really about the SCOTUS' interpretation of the law in question; it's that by no way or measure can the plaintiffs claim standing when there is no underlying harm. In fact, the plaintiffs example stands to gain millions of dollars more should the forgiveness law become enacted.

Unless the above financial numbers are false, there was simply no standing for the case to be tried, especially by the SCOTUS itself. They accepted the case because the facts were never established in any court through the rules of evidence. The SCOTUS bought the lie, fast-tracked the case, then issued a ruling that never should have happened based on one of the simplest tenets of jurisprudence.

Straight up Authoritarian. No Bull...
Not for the last time I've wondered if
we should just let the South go, and
form their own
back@sswards country.

Call it Dumbfeckistan and be done with it.

But if they DO go, give them their portion of
the Total U.S. Deficit. They don't get to
leave 'Scott Free'.

Here are the receipts for my comments on the effects of Dobbs

1. The rate of abortions nationwide has increased. www.guttmacher.org
2. The level of effort and cost to obtain an abortion has increased. www.aamc.org and self-evident given the anti-reproductive freedom laws being implemented.
3. The dangers associated with being pregnant have increased. www.kff.org also self evident
4. Fewer women are choosing to get pregnant. www.politico.com
5. More women are choosing getting their tubes tied. www.bu.edu

Biden did the exact same thing. He brought up his son's death who did NOT die in service. Again.

#40 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

en.wikipedia.org
Biden was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his service in Iraq.[31] Army Chief of Staff Raymond Odierno delivered the eulogy at Biden's funeral and presented a posthumous Legion of Merit for his service in the Delaware National Guard, stating "Beau Biden possessed the traits I have witnessed in only the greatest leaders."[32] He was also posthumously presented with the Delaware Conspicuous Service Cross, which is "awarded for heroism, meritorious service and outstanding achievement".[33]

According to his father, Beau was diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis in 2001 after returning from service in Kosovo.[48] He was later diagnosed with brain cancer, which his father believes was possibly a consequence of exposure to military burn pits in Iraq.[49]

Sure, ------- and Biden-same thing.

And it gets worse, Thomas' concurrence is taking aim at POPULATION gerrymandering cases. If Thomas has his way states could put all of the blue voters in one district and the rest (no matter how few people) in red districts.

The fact remains that these antebellum conservative troglodyte judges continue to invent their ruling rationales out of the ether. Gerrymandering wasn't possible when the Founders wrote the Constitution because only white landowners had the right to vote anyway. But by everything we know of our Founders, they never intended for elections to be influenced by elected politicians picking their voters instead of voters choosing their elected representatives.

And to add insult to injury, Thomas believes that gerrymandering for political purposes is fully constitutional, and with this new ruling, all any legislature need do is say that the lines they draw are based on partisan reasons, not race - when every statistic know to man shows that Black Americans vote Democratic more than 80+ percent of the time! There is no difference between moving Black voters to diminish their power to elect someone of their choosing and moving Black voters to dilute Democratic representation within given districts. The two are one in the same and it's the height of intellectual dishonesty to dismiss this obvious fact as Alito does.

He has no legal basis for this decision but for his lifelong advocacy of the same that happens to disproportionately empower the partisan actors whom he wants empowered.

Every taxpayer has standing because that's where the "debt relief" is being transferred to.

That's not how standing works in this case you braindead moron. Even in Missouri, the actual entity standing to lose money did not sue for relief! Their name and status was used by others NOT in the MHELA who wanted nothing to do with the lawsuit. missouriindependent.com

You've been told ad nauseum that zero money was spent by Biden for his loan foregiveness programs. He used the statutory authority given the Secretary of Education to alter loan repayment because of the emergency caused by the pandemic. And on that score, it would appear that only Congress has the standing to sue because they're the only entity who wrote the law in the first place and they should be the only authority entitled to define how it's applied, not the SCOTUS.

I can't believe something this simple evades your limited reasoning abilities, but then again, most everything does so I shouldn't be surprised.

"Whattaya gonna DO about it?"

that's the question isn't it?

Are Americans going to accept the regressive revolution being thrust upon them?

Will Americans get tired of being powerless?

At what point will the American people give up on the institutions of this country? THAT of course is a goal of the authoritarians-the state doesn't work, only a strong man can protect you!!

When our institutions fail, we become slaves or revolution occurs.

Alito might be surprised to learn that there is another power in the land beyond the federal government, the SC and the military.

November or January could be the breaking point, whether ------- wins OR Biden wins. Neither side is ginned up to accept the results. The alternative could be January 6 on steroids. The SC will not be exempt from being held accountable if the revolution is destructive enough. They will have enabled the regressive revolutionaries more than enough by their actions towards -------. Their sins won't be forgotten and MAYBE they will have a last minute come to jesus moment on their responsibility. Unlikely though, there types rarely accept blame.

As I see it, our country's BEST chance is a Biden blow out victory. That is not even a sure thing as Magats do not live in the real world. they will NEVER accept a loss. But if enough Americans come together to REJECT MAGA, we JUST MIGHT SURVIVE>

------- wins? God help us.

Biden wins narrowly? Well let's hope the Republican foot soldiers balk from the results of January 6.

My biggest fear is that the republicans will fix the election. They're already trying to with lawsuits like the one in Mississippi that may try to strip mail in ballots across the country

crooked.com

Listen to today's podcast, while these 3 women are admittedly left leaning, they are also brilliant and accomplished law professors.

Alito's action has at least one of them calling for his impeachment (despite their obvious distaste for the man, they have never advocated for impeaching him).

just goes to show how bad things are becoming.

1) is that income, and if so, do they declare on their income tax?

2) is that "stuff" given because those billionaires having pending cases before SCOTUS?

1) I'm not sure how the IRS views expensive trips given by friends as "gifts," but we know for certain both Alito and Thomas failed to report various trips as required by the rules for federal judges, and depending upon the situations such expensive trips can indeed be viewed as income requiring the proper filing with the IRS as well as whatever the judiciary requires.

2) This is where the gray area resides. Both Thomas and Alito have made no bones about their views on how laws should be constitutionally interpreted in their understanding - which runs averse to prior Court decisions and the vast majority of constitutional scholars and their interpretations. Those views are completely sympatico with the views of the oligarchs and scions of industry that they call their "friends," though in Thomas' case, he only befriended these people once he'd ascended to the SCOTUS itself. Most did not predate his appointment.

In this sense I can understand how both of the men view themselves as "impartial" when faced with court cases, but at this point - based on their own voting records and court opinions - I find it near impossible for any sober person to say that either isn't "biased" by the preformed beliefs. And they find themselves wholly unable to accept any legal merit or standing in rulings or arguments they have previously openly come out against. So it isn't that their benefactors are nakedly trying to purchase any particular rulings in their favor, they're only expressing both past and future thanks for rulings to come down the pike.

And Thomas has been particularly insidious in his later court opinions and statements, telling right wing attorneys and judges how to frame specific cases in the future which will allow him and other Federalist jurists to overturn precedence based on their already established and preformed belief in how the law should work towards their desired ends. So in both Thomas' and Alito's world views, they're quite vocal about having already reached their decisions and aren't in the least open minded on specific topics of law. They will never take other circumstances or individuals into consideration because their minds are closed to any conclusion that doesn't meet their predetermined outcome. And that is why they should have no place on the SCOTUS.

@#8 ... Clarence Thomas told a Republican congressman that US supreme court justices should get a pay raise or "one or more" would quit, prompting "a flurry of activity" among rightwingers because his "importance as a conservative was paramount", ...

Ya know, I had heard reports about Justice Thomas apparently being given outside money so he can be appropriately paid for performing his duties.

It was clear he was unhappy': Top takeaways from report on Justice Thomas' early 2000s salary complaints and how a GOP congressman tried to solve his problem (2023)
lawandcrime.com

... Clarence Thomas told a Republican congressman back in 2000 that members of the nine might walk away from their jobs at the Supreme Court if they were not given a major raise, according to ProPublica's latest story on the conservative justice.

While the congressman seems to have put a plan into action at the time, it was to no avail. Here are some major takeaways from the article, much of which appears to have been based on documents drafted at the time Thomas spoke with the legislator.

1. Thomas reportedly told a Republican congressman that if the justices' salaries were not raised, "one or more" of the justices would resign ...

[emphasis theirs]


I'll just put this here

www.theguardian.com

Clarence Thomas told a Republican congressman that US supreme court justices should get a pay raise or "one or more" would quit, prompting "a flurry of activity" among rightwingers because his "importance as a conservative was paramount", ProPublica said in its latest hard-hitting report on questionable ethics at the high court.

But ProPublica also reported that "during his second decade on the court, Thomas' financial situation appears to have markedly improved." The justice received a $1.5m advance for his memoir and gifts from rich individuals.

If it ain't illegal it damn well should be.

Advertisement

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable