The panel included Judge William H. Pryor, the former attorney general of Alabama, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush. The other two judges on the panel, Andrew L. Brasher and Britt C. Grant, are Trump nominees. They also were on the three-judge panel that ruled against Trump earlier this fall on limited aspects of the special master appointment, restoring access for criminal investigators to the 103 documents with classified markings.

"In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test; drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents," the Thursday opinion read. "We choose the first option. So the case must be dismissed."

Before I continue, I just read something for the very first time that changes things immensely: Fierro DID still have the handgun when the additional police arrived on the scene. More information:

Miranda,

I'm not wrong, you are. You cherry-picked information without acknowledging the facts. 1. The police who initially showed up and found Fierro on top of the assailant immediately took the suspect into custody, since Fierro "handed off" Aldrich to the police.

THEN, "Fierro went to find his friends, both of whom had been shot and were being treated with tourniquets by first responders. "I put her hand in his hand so they could be together," he said.

Fierro was attending to the wounded, he was NOT IN CUSTODY nor being detained by the first police responders who had the shooter in custody along with the weapons. Fierro DID NOT have a weapon when the other police arrived, so again, you've invented something that didn't happen. There were no gunshots to run to because all the shooting had ended BEFORE the first police arrived. Again, you have no idea of what you're talking about!

Then, "As other officers arrived, Fierro said, they treated him with suspicion. They interrupted him as he gave first aid to a friend, he said, and "dragged me out of there like I was the shooter." He said he was held in a police car for an hour before authorities released him to reunite with his wife and daughter.

During that hour plus, "He said he was held in a police car for more than an hour, and screamed and pleaded to be let go so that he could see what had happened to his family.

I tire of you following me around and besmirching what I state with clarity and without ambiguity. From the very first post I've also added this: Again, unless there's something very vital missing, Rich's treatment was beyond the pale. I gave the police allowances yet so far, this has been their response to what Fierro claimed happened to him: "Police did not return calls seeking to confirm Fierro's account.

You quote speculation, I quote the participant himself. It is you who need to take a step back, and reread this entire thread. There is still no justification for late arriving police to see Fierro attending to the wounded and THEN decide to tackle and detain him. They could have asked him to step away and question him in whatever manner they chose, but why the need for handcuffs and isolated detainment? There was no need for that level of force against Fierro, period. I have never stated that the police didn't need to ask questions and ascertain what he just happened. My only point is that the time, way and manner they chose to detain Fierro was an abuse, full stop. It was unnecessary and only points to the lack of professionalism and training these police displayed by tearing a grieving father away from caring for his injured family and friends, treating him as a criminal after he'd just placed his own life on the line to save not only his family but also all those inside the club by taking his heroic actions.

And your impressions from his interviews are worth exactly zero. People have watches and clocks are ubiquitous. There is no indication that he wasn't aware of exactly how much time he was detained. You've simply made up your own scenario from your fertile imagination. As I stated before, I'm quoting the story as reported. You're inventing extenuating circumstances for which there is ZERO evidence that they ever happened.

I had read about Trump's business dealings years before he ran for president and came to the conclusion he was a -------.

Then how did an entire political party find itself tied to such an individual who made mockery and cruelty the cornerstone of his march to the Republican nomination even before he turned his concentrated fire upon Hillary Clinton, bolstered by Russia publicizing stolen private emails which were scandalized beyond all reasonable proportions to the benefit of his campaign?

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Trump and his business practices and machinations. But how could someone like him become President when his sins were right there for everyone to clearly see? Is it true Republicans operate on hate of Democrats and liberals more than they do from love of this nation (E pluribus Unum), our laws and the Constitution as it's actually written?

It was obvious from the second the Dobbs decision was leaked - in addition to the WSJ being a recipient of said leak - that it was done by a justice on the right trying to insure that other conservative majority justices would not succumb to pressure from CJ Roberts like had happened during other cases where the preliminary vote changed before the final decision.

It only becomes more insidious that Alito then tried to imply that one of the liberal justices or their clerks were behind the leak and were responsible for threats to the justices due to the volatility of emotions surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade. He has become the poster child for "the ends justify the means" contingent of modern conservative jurisprudence embodied by The Federalist Society as his gross historically cherry-picked and patently false majority opinion made manifestly clear.

Whoops, should have been "Losses" not loses. My bad.

Bender's tax loss testimony echoed what The New York Times reported in 2020, when it obtained a trove of Trump's tax returns. Many of the records reflected massive losses and little or no taxes paid, the newspaper reported at the time.

The Times reported Trump paid no income tax in 11 of the 18 years whose records it reviewed, and that he paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2017, the year he became president. Citing other Trump tax records, The Times previously reported that in 1995 he claimed $915.7 million in losses, which he could have used to avoid future taxes under the law at the time.

The Supreme Court operates with no statutory ethics rules and recognizes no authority higher than itself. It is up to each individual justice to decide for themselves whom they can meet with and whom they can talk to while they are deliberating their cases. If these justices want to talk with activists who have a vested interest in cases that are in front of the court, or simply share the outcomes of cases so the activists can jump-start their media campaign in defense of the justices' rulings, there is no law or rule to stop them.

Roberts could use his power to promulgate a code of conduct for his fellow justices, and strip them of the authority to write opinions if they don't comply. He could use his largely unfettered access to the media to advocate for statutory rules and punishments.

Instead, he does nothing other than promote the objective falsehood that the judiciary is good at policing itself.

More reporting:

We'll have to respectfully disagree JPW. Fierro should have been identified by everyone there immediately. He was injured himself, so why wouldn't he receive medical assistance even if he was temporarily detained? I understand the fog of war, but this man was on top of the murderer rendering him unconscious. Shooters shoot, they don't beat people.

Again, taking more than an hour to uncuff and release him is simple unconscionable. I understand tending to the injured and wounded, but when a man is crying to find out about the safety of his own family who're victims themselves, I simply refuse to see this as standard procedure.

The man was in shock himself and should have received immediate care even if he was cuffed while receiving it. If it turns out that he did receive care, then of course it makes the situation a little different. If I were one of the other witnesses I would have demanded that he be released immediately. He saved the lives of dozens. I simply refuse to believe that others weren't making this demand yet the police ignored them for over an hour.

They would have had to arrest me because I would not have stood for him being detained in the manner they chose to.

#12

When the cops arrived Fierro was sitting on top of the 6'6" 300 lb man pounding on him with a handgun. They couldn't miss the body armor clad cretin since Fierro was directly on top of him and another patron was holding the rifle. READ the damn details and stop with the stupid speculation which has no basis in the reporting already released.

And again, there were others helping Fierro too, he wasn't the only one subduing the assailant. Unless there's more to the story than is being currently reported, there was ZERO need to cuff and detain the injured Fierro for more than an hour. N-o-n-e.

Here is the Facebook post from their brewery the Fierro's own:

I'm generally pretty critical of police but only taking an hour to clear him seems pretty fast to me.

Absolutely not, unless there's more to the details than written about in the story. Fierro wasn't the only one, he was among a group. There is no reporting that the others involved in subduing the shooter were cuffed and held, just him. I don't care what happened, those there in close proximity would all vouch for watching him stop the shooter. My ire isn't that he was detained, but that he was handcuffed and placed into a locked police car, especially after having just finished hand-to-hand combat with a murderer. He shouldn't have been denied finding out about his family either. Even if he was detained, at least one officer could have located his family and brought them to him so he'd know they were safe.

This was a lone shooter and Fierro was beating him to a bloody pulp with the shooter's handgun. If he'd been complicit in the attack he wouldn't have been using the gun to bludgeon the 6'6" assailant, he would have simply shot him. I'm sorry, I can think of no reason this man was held for as long as he was under the circumstances. He should have received medical attention, not get cuffed and detained. Everyone alive in that club potentially owes Fierro their lives. He never should have been treated like a criminal. Never.

And here's how the police treat a hero who placed his own life in danger to protect others:

As the fight continued, he said, he yelled for other club patrons to help him. A man grabbed the rifle and moved it away to safety. A drag dancer stomped on the gunman with her high heels. The whole time, Mr. Fierro said, he kept pummeling the shooter's head while the two men screamed obscenities at each other.

When police arrived a few minutes later, the gunman was no longer struggling, Mr. Fierro said, and he feared that he had killed him. The suspect in the shooting was taken into custody and remained hospitalized on Monday afternoon.

Mr. Fierro said he was covered in blood when the police arrived, and officers tackled him and put him in handcuffs. He said he was held in a police car for more than an hour, and screamed and pleaded to be let go so that he could see what had happened to his family.

Mr. Fierro, who owns a local brewery, said that on combat deployments in the Army, he had been shot at and had seen roadside bombs shred trucks in his platoon. His record shows that he was awarded the Bronze Star twice. The experiences of combat still haunt him, he said, and the psychological and physical toll of the deployments were why he left the Army.

He said he never thought he would have to deal with that kind of violence at home.

"I was done with war," he said.

Get this man the Presidential Medal of Freedom, stat!

Richard Fierro is a true American hero.

So, the loan terms people are complaining about regarding loan balances actually increasing.....who issued or controls those loans?

It's both, but only federal loans are being forgiven by this action. The issues that make student loans different than every other loan is multifaceted. First, everyone that qualifies will receive one, and the interest accrual begins instantly even though payments aren't required under after the person either finishes with a degree or drops out of school. 34% of those eligible for relief do not have any degree whatsoever but still have student loan debt from their attempt to obtain one.

Secondly, loan recipients repayments come with allowed pauses along with repayment plans based on income - which in many cases means that the interest continues to grow regardless, often leaving borrowers with much higher balances than what they actually borrowed, and for many of those who've paid as agreed for years or decades, they still owe more than their original loan amounts even if they've already made payments equal to or greater than the principal.

Lastly, due to the insistence of Republicans - the same group most vehemently against this relief - student loan debt was made non-dischargable in bankruptcy proceedings, meaning that 5% of outstanding student loans are owed by senior citizens, many who have their Social Security checks garnished for repayment. Can you imagine Republicans overhauling bankruptcy to exempt entrepreneurial borrowing? Well, isn't that precisely what people seeking college degrees are doing for themselves by trying to improve their own marketability? It's reprehensible that these loans were even targeted in the first place and only again proves that the GOP will do everything possible to make life harder for those already with the odds against them.

and the average undergrad payment is $243/month.

And nearly half of borrowers are seeing their balances RISE due to the very structure of student loan repayments being based on the borrower's ability to pay - unlike other loans - meaning interest continues to increase the debt total faster than the principle can be paid down.

#67

That proves you haven't read it. It has comprehensive statistics, charts, analysis, and explanations of existing issues and systemic problems within the student loan industry along with the whys and wherefores the entire program is based upon, addressing the specific problems each resultant action was designed to address and deal with.

That anyone would say what you just did only shows your unquestioned bias and lack of seriousness in addressing the issue. Kindly point me to any other white paper that delves into this issue with the depth and probity of the White House fact sheet.

Back up your assertions with actual content from the paper showing that it's "fluff and platitudes". I think you're not commenting on the copious details and statistical breakdowns within the Sheet, you're referring to your own feather-lite commentary and fantastical narratives invented within your own psyche.

Hard to take you seriously when you tell me the only reason they included the $75-$125k demographic was so they wouldn't be accused of duscr8minatingnagai st white people. Seriously? That's pathetic.

You can't educate someone who refuses to learn. Do you realize why the Pell Grant component is so important?

You could have saved that entire diatribe because not only is relief a part of the program, so is needed reforms in the entire repayment structure. It's not the be all to end all, but it's a start down the road to a more sane and fair system. But as with everything, the first step has to be taken somewhere, and this is it.

That's fine Miranda, you've proven yourself immune to actual fact-based debate. Many of your "what ifs" are answered in the plan that you say you've read so much about without actually reading the plan itself because doing so would eliminate virtually all the ancillary argumentative points you continue to fall back on.

Have a great day.

So why didn't they just make the cap$75k?

Because if they had lowered it to that point the case could have been made that it was solely based on helping minority students, hence it would be illegal. (See the case mentioned in post 44)

If you go to the whitehouse.gov link the entire goal of the relief program to mainly target lower income and less affluent students is made in painstaking detail. It's starts with the actual title: