Benjamin Wittes: There are four of them. read more
This week, President Trump called on his party to nationalize American elections, an unconstitutional move ... read more
... what is the point of this ruling. [sic]
It's not a "ruling." It's a Consent Decree. More commonly known as a settlement agreement. As is common with settlements there is no admission of the factual or legal basis for the claims or positions of the parties. It applies to no one else. It can only be enforced by the named parties. It establishes no precedent.
17. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement is entered into solely for the purpose of settling and compromising any remaining claims in this action without further litigation, and, except as stated explicitly in the text of the Agreement, it shall not be construed as evidence or as an admission regarding any issues of law or fact, or regarding the truth or validity of any allegation or claim raised in this action or in any other action.nclalegal.org
As such, the settlement is not an example of federal censorship. It's another Buffoon TACO in the face of deadlines requiring it to disclose the evidentiary basis for it's claims of Biden censonship.
If it arrives election day whats the issue?
If the mail ballot is cast, posted and postmarked on election day, all in accord with state law, what's the problem?
Never mind, it's rhetorical. I'll stick with reports of problems from jurisdictions with the most experience in all mail balloting; OR (26 yr), WA (14) and CO (12). www.ncsl.org
This is one of three cases bubbling in the Fifth Circuit. Earlier this month the en banc Circuit ducked (overruled the panel decision) the merits question (is it constitutional) by ruling the LA law is not "ripe" for a merits decision (no LA district has actually implemented the law so we're in the dark about how this law works). reason.com
In the mean time the rest of the world knows exactly how it works. Plastering schools with religious dogma influences children. That's why religious private schools do what they do. The First Amendment tells public schools not to do that. Yet some are in the dark.
We'll see.
What does it matter? He was a grown a** f****** man. A retired g** d*** three star f****** general. He was not some hapless sod beset by those above him.
Irrespective of any interview, he was charged. He retained counsel. Counsel negotiated a plea. That plea was in writing. He sat down and read that plea. Then he signed that plea. Then the plea was filed with the court. Then a plea hearing was set for a later date. On that date he stood in open court admitted voluntarily signing the plea, admitted the facts set forth in the plea and admitted that he was guilty. Then a sentencing hearing was set for a later date. On that date he stood in open court and admitted voluntarily signing the plea, admitted the facts set forth in the plea and admitted he was guilty. He had every opportunity to say no, but he didn't. He said I'm guilty.
Then the grown a** f****** retired three star general wanted to backtrack giving your excuses. Didn't work. Then the Buffoon gave the criminal a pardon. Then he sues. Then the Buffoon gives him a 1.26M dollar settlement from our money. And here we are.
What else is there to know about the particular grift?
What more niggling excuses will you make for this grown a** guilty as f*** retired three star general?