All_Pro_Bills

First, year after year the draft broadcast cuts to commercial every time the Bills are "on the clock" and now no live preseason games! But with maybe only 5 or 6 roster spots up for grabs there's not a lot of intrigue.

Early on the established science proclaimed the COVID19 virus was of natural origin. Just ignore that bio-research lab, partially financed by NIH grants, down the street that is experimenting with genetically altering the exact same virus.

You do realize the House Oversight Committee has released next to nothing of the evidence they've stated is in their possession? Such as bank records of accounts and transactions, names and ownership information on various shell companies used to launder payments.

Well, the media's controlled withdrawal from the narrative is a series of tactical retreats. From no influence peddling and it being a Russian dis-information operation to its real but there's no influence peddling to Hunter was running a "business" but Joe Biden didn't know of his son's business dealing to Joe knew but didn't discuss anything with his son to Joe knew what Hunter was up but didn't participate to Hunter was selling the illusion of influence but Joe didn't know So next: Joe participated in the illusion of influence but didn't get any money and didn't do any favors. So that leaves us with the Biden's running a con on the chumps paying them off that thought the money they gave the Biden's would translate to political favors. On the record, I'd like to get the perspective of the people that made these payments. $5M is a steep price to pay for an illusion. I suspect they had a different understanding of the arrangement with the Biden's and can clearly articulate what they received in return. Subpoenas for these folks too.

I suspect professional axe throwing gets more viewers than most women's sports. Saw this listed on the ESPN schedule a few times. Unlike softball or football, probably not something you want to organize a pick-up game around at a picnic with friends and family after they've all had 4 or 5 beers!

My insights on grand jury are real life experience not anecdotal. And my intent is not to defend or condemn Trump. My intent is to provide some firsthand insights into the grand jury process while pouring a little cold water on the idea the prosecutor's case must be solid for the grand jury to produce an indictment. It's a rarity a grand jury will vote for "no indictment". A glitch in that argument equating the indictment with a "strong case" is the grand jury only hears the evidence and testimony the prosecutor wants them to consider. While that might be "sufficient evidence to support a conviction" it's not the totality of the case the prosecutor will likely present, and the grand jury considers nothing the defense might present because the defense doesn't participate except under the the most unusual of circumstances. A jury trial is significantly different than a grand jury session. At a jury trial the prosecutor and defense can lay out their case to the jury with opening statements. The defense can raise motions with the court on issues like probable cause for things like searches and warrants, the admissibility and suppression of evidence, and present witnesses or expert testimony that will counter or refute the expert and witness testimony brought to the trial by the prosecution.

Always got to have the last word, don't you?

Hoax!

I provide some insights from actual experience with grand juries and your response correlates to my post how exactly? Just weird buddy.

Have you ever served on a Grand Jury? I have, 3 times. Currently on my 3rd stint through October. Grand Juries at the County and Federal levels. Getting an indictment isn't all that hard. Anyone that's also served on a Grand Jury should know what I'm saying. The prosecutor presents the charges and reviews the legal codes identified in their case. A witness or two, usually a police officer or an official investigator is called and sworn in and then asked a series of questions pertaining to the events, actions, and persons involved in the alleged violation of the law. Major cases might involve more evidence and more testimony. All the testimony and evidence are supportive of the government's case and the specific charges. There is no defense, or defendant, or witnesses supportive of the defense present. The jury can deliberate on the charges or go right to making motions to vote to indict or not indict and then vote, ask questions about the investigation of witnesses, or address legal questions to the prosecutor. The question the jury needs to answer is did the prosecution present sufficient evidence that warrants an indictment based on the law and the evidence of a crime? In the 3 sessions to date of my current grand jury service we've heard about 20 case presentations and in only 1 case the Grand Jury voted not to indict. And in that case the prosecutor suggested to the jury the case should be remanded to a lower court.

I'll support any "green" initiative that might polute less but it also needs to be cheaper, more reliable, and more efficient than fossil fuels. Over the course of history those three criteria have correlated to progress in the human condition.

Actually, the invasion of Ukraine didn't cause energy prices to rise. The sanctions on Russian energy exports lead to an increase in energy prices. Add to this the disruptions to global energy arrangements and trade that contributed to the price movements and supply disruptions. Some of that is behind use, some of it isn't. One consequence is the new-found pricing power of OPEC+ with the Saudi's and the Russians working in coordination to manage supply in an effort to keep prices near the $80 bbl level. China and India have been big buyers of Russian crude and have participated in some sanction busting deals by taking possession of oil shipments and flipping them to another buyer at a profit. The administration is hesitant to employ sanctions against either and in some respects allows the arrangement which help keep global and US energy prices lower while continuing the perception that tough sanctions against Russia are effective. Another thing was the seizing of Russian central bank assets held in the banking system. Unprecedented. One consequence is this caused many countries to question the reliability and safety of holding US dollars as reserves. What's stopping Washington from doing the same thing to another country is they're displeased? Nothing. Many other countries are considering the benefits of de-dollarizing their economies. Or seeking trade arrangements in other currencies, such as the Saudi's. Or selling of treasury bond holdings, such as China. Many other countries are selling dollars, buying gold or other national currencies to cut their risk to central bank reserves. While none of this has had much material impact to date at some tipping point it will. What that point is I have no idea.

This is a topic the J6 committee avoided like the plague. Because they didn't want the answer. They allowed violence to happen in order to create the pretext for instituting a series of actions and hearings to highlight the dangers of MAGA extremists to the nation. Look how much political mileage they've gotten. Hearing, arrests, trials. None of which would have been generated by not allowing it to happen by deploying more security that day. I'd call it the American Reichstag fire.

At some point I'll be asking you the same question about Biden and a few others.

I can't wait to see how enthusiastically everyone whooping it up over the government's efforts to nail Trump feel when the tables turn and the agencies the Dems have weaponized along with the flimsy legal precedents they're attempting to establish come after the Biden's and other malicious characters they're throwing their support behind.

They've concluded America is no longer a reliable partner. And as such they're seeking out new arrangements and security guarantees with other parties. Biden's personal attacks on MBS, even though true and accurate, don't help. The Saudi's announced another 1M barrel cut for September under the umbrella of OPEC+ with Russia making previously agreed to cuts. What the oil producers are saying by cutting production and maintaining prices at around $75-$80 is they're not going to shoulder the consequences of central bank rate increases slowing oil demand by over-supplying the market.

People get charged with conspiracy even if they don’t get charged with another crime because requiring that the crime be done successfully in order to charge someone is dumb. Again, I'm not saying the crime needs to be "successful". But there must be an act representative of the planning or commission of the crime beyond conspiracy. And we have a different definition of "success". In my thinking nobody gets charged with a successful crime because one element of success is getting away with it. Being arrested is a condition of failure.

It's not a case of succeeding or not succeeding. It a case of actually committing the criminal act or chargeable offense. What criminal act or chargeable offense did Trump commit in order to conspire and obstruct? I'll save you the response. No matter what you might cite it should be a count in the indictment. The current indictment contains no charge for anything. If for example, its attempting to disrupt the electoral college certification or inciting protesters to attack the Capitol then one or both of those should be a count(s) in the indictment. Thinking and talking about a criminal act or a chargeable crime and not committing a criminal act or chargeable offense is not a violation of the law because in the context of an act the government has no legal standing to regulate your thoughts and private conversations. I'm far from a legal expert but I've sat on Grand Juries 3 times, currently on one. Heard maybe 150 cases across the three times presented by a prosecutor. I don't recall a single case where the prosecutor presents a charge of conspiracy without a count in the indictment for the actual crime. Committing 3rd degree burglary and charged with conspiracy to commit 3rd degree burglary. Nobody's charged with conspiracy to commit 3rd degree burglary without be charged with committing 3rd degree burglary.

One legal problem is you've got two counts of conspiracy and two counts of obstruction but no "real" crime. Typically, prosecutors add these charges to an indictment, and they do not constitute a standalone charge by themselves. Looks weak.

So what's Smith's legal argument. Trump knew he lost the election but pretended not to know in order to continue pressing his view the election was stolen?

I'm not sure what that would prove. I'm not saying they're morons. Just hateful and obnoxious people. When you have show hosts such as Joe Scarborough that represents the traits I've identified much better than any guest or "expert".

Its not my star witness or my story. Its the House Committee's witness and story. The truth is Joe's as dirty as a pig in the mud hole and as far as the 2024 race goes he's a dead man walking. He's finished. They better find a new Presidential candidate acceptable to the reality denying cult ASAP. Good luck with that.

They're building a case for criminal referrals. Following the process. And the reality is, and we all know it, even if they released a transcript of the witness statements not a single major news outlets, all of which pretend the story doesn't exist, wouldt even acknowledge the existence of said transcript.

Their arsenal of excuses and denials has proven to be ineffective which leaves only the last resort of playing "kill the messenger".

Being under oath isn't a prerequisite for telling the truth nor does being under oath inhibit a witness from lying under certain circumstances. Public statements can be used to help or hinder a case or situation. The main problem is there was no mobilization of troops so whether or not it was discussed is irrelevant. It leaves you with a charge of conspiracy to commit an illegal act of mobilizing national guard troop without committing the act itself. It's BS. Hypothetically if somebody said to another person, "how about you and I go down to the local bank and rob the place?" And the other party responds "no" then there is no robbery. So do you want to charge everyone that discusses something that might be illegal in some interpretation of the law, where no action is taken, with a conspiracy charge under which they can be prosecuted? No, that's why in real life legal situations you see conspiracy charges only as an additional supplemental charge of an indictment for the actual commission of a crime. Unless they've got an axe to grind against the suspect they're trying to nail on anything no matter how flimsy the case.