ChiGoose

I'm not saying to have blind faith in how the legal system works. I'm saying that we should probably know how it's supposed to work before making wild accusations. There is no criminal indictment or action against Donald Trump. Once there is, he can file motions to view the documents or exclude evidence as privileged or overly prejudicial. If the Feds decide not to charge him, they will have to return his stuff at that time. If they delay for a long time (roughly a year), Trump can file a Bivens motion to get his stuff back. He also has no possessory right to documents from the White House once he is no longer president. This is part of why the DoJ opposed the Special Master: a traditional filter team would be sufficient in this case. Additionally, a special master sets a precedent that others will (and already have) seek to have for basically any case. All of this concern about talk and perception are irrelevant to legal proceedings. If you want to talk about media criticism, I think we'd probably agree on a lot about how poorly these things are handled. Generally the DoJ tries to keep ongoing investigations under wraps as much as possible, but ended up going public about this one because Trump wouldn't shut up about it. If the DoJ charges Trump, he'll get additional rights and duties that will give him access to the information the DoJ collected and plans to use against him. He will be able to see what they have. He will be able to challenge to say that things shouldn't be admissible in the trial. The things that he is trying to do now (that he has little chance of succeeding on) are things he will be able to do once he's actually charged. If the DoJ doesn't charge Trump, they have to return his stuff to him. But as I said, in either case, the White House documents are not his and will not be returned to him. This is all standard practice and serves to both protect the person being searched (we wouldn't know about this if Trump didn't talk about it), as well as the investigation (if the target knows everything the investigation has before they charge, they can work to get rid of other evidence or tamper with potential witnesses). tl;dr: This is all normal stuff except that Trump has terrible attorneys who don't seem to understand what law is.

Tell us that you have no ideal how the legal system works without saying "I have no idea how the legal system works."

You say this as if this wasn’t in that very same post: “State legislators carefully considered revisiting this rule in 2020 but ultimately decided against it.” Not addressing this leaves a loophole where people who clearly pose a threat aren’t detained if they aren’t charged with a felony. It may be good-intentioned to try to avoid bias but if you have someone who has committed assaults, requires a restraining order, and has a history of violence, the judge should be able to have them held even if none of the specific charges amount to a felony.

Crime is up a bit but the coverage of crime in the news is grossly disproportionate to reality, leading people to believe that crime is much worse than it really is: For people who experience crime, that's not a comforting thought and we need to implement reality based solutions. However, the fearmongering is also very beneficial to some actors, which helps drive the narrative that crime is skyrocketing when it's really not. That app your friend uses is likely Citizen. It's interesting and can be helpful, but it relies on user-reported information. I've seen multiple times when there was a shooting reported and then it turned out it was fireworks (some neighborhoods here love fireworks for some reason) or some other loud noise and not actually a shooting.

It’s an obviously dumb talking point. What would the point be? What advantage would Democrats hope to achieve by increasing crime (something that dramatically helps the GOP)? Makes no sense but people believe what they want to believe. If you want to see what they are up to, here’s a post that shows some of the fake newspapers. We got one and it took me a minute to figure out what was going on.

It wouldn’t surprise me. The amount of misinformation about bail reform specifically, and crime in general, is staggering. Illinois’ bail reform is going into effect soon and we are being inundated with ads that straight up lie about what the law entails. They are calling it the “purge law” to scare people. They are even printing fake newspapers that look real but are full of misleading “articles” designed to scare people into voting Republican.

I found some info on the NY rules around bail and there is a glaring loophole they clearly need to fix: They should close that loophole and bring it in line with more sensible bail reform laws.

Eliminating cashless bail =/= eliminating bail It just means that whether or not you’re in pretrial detention is dependent on your danger to the community or flight risk and not how much money you have.

LOL. So you believe that the facts that clearly meet the standard of a crime are not actually a crime because it would hurt your feelings and make your chosen side look bad? Throw in some “The FBI hates conservatives” for good measure! It’s a theory so stupid that only the most ignorant people on the internet could believe it, but I can’t say I’m surprised to hear it coming from you. As for my family, we were supposed to travel to Rochester to have Thanksgiving with my family but my wife is unable to travel so my entire family is actually traveling out here to Chicago instead. We are very excited to host everyone in our new home. Thanks for asking! I’m gonna be honest, you may be the single most ignorant person I’ve ever interacted with. Just embarrassingly stupid. I hope you can take some pleasure in knowing that. If you can even understand these words.

The hospital discharge papers state otherwise.

I’ll never forget standing next to my wife while she was administered methotrexate to abort the ectopic pregnancy. Nor will I forget sitting anxiously in the waiting room while she was given a D&C for a miscarriage, reading about a proposed bill in Ohio that would require ectopic pregnancies to be reimplanted, a thing that has never been done. If the people who claim to be so pro-life actually valued life, states run by Republicans wouldn’t score so poorly on health, longevity, and wellness metrics. If the goal was to reduce or eliminate elective abortions, these same people would be proponents of comprehensive sex education and easily obtainable contraceptives. But it’s not about preventing abortions. It never was. Those elected officials pushing these policies know that their wives and daughters will always be able to get an abortion if they want one.

I love how you accuse me of dodging questions I already answered because I am doing normal people things like enjoying dinner with my spouse while you avoid answering simple yes/no questions and obfuscate with your usual BS. You’re so pathetic. Does your family still talk to you or are you that weird uncle nobody wants around because he makes everything uncomfortable by spouting whatever lunatic thing he’s read on Facebook? The failures of law enforcement to prevent Jan 6 are long and well documented. Something like this had never happened before and it strained the credulity of law enforcement to believe that it would actually happen. They failed us. So even though I know it is pointless to ask because you’ll just dodge with your usual BS: do the actions of the Oath Keepers charged with seditious conspiracy meet the elements of that crime?

Do the actions of the charged Oath Keepers meet the criteria for seditious conspiracy?

Yes, obviously.

Americans being found guilty of seditious conspiracy can be found at: United States v. Lebron, 222 F.2d 531 (2d Cir. 1955). As to why we haven’t seen an insurrection charge, I’ve already answered that. Unlike you, apparently, I have a life and cannot respond immediately to every idiotic question asked on this hellsite full of morons. I was cooking dinner and then enjoying it with my wife (I know it hurts to remind you that I’m taken and therefore will never be with you, but alas…) and then we watched some tv. I am very much enjoying Sandman. It’s not exactly to the book but it’s very good. It took just a minute or so of research to provide the evidence of something you claim didn’t exist, but I eagerly anticipate your next attempt to move the goalposts.

When Roe was the law of the land, a woman whose pregnancy was determined to be not viable would generally be given the option of either waiting for it to resolve or having an abortion. Given the risks of waiting (sepsis, etc.), the best course of action is generally an abortion. In the Dobbs world with the recent abortion laws, if the pregnancy is non-viable but doesn’t fit within a statutory exception (the fetus still has a heartbeat), the doctors cannot offer an abortion. If the woman isn’t sick enough that her life is in danger, she cannot get one. Most likely, she’ll be sent home to pass the fetus on her own or wait until she’s sick enough to get treatment. What we see now in states with strict abortion laws is that even in the easy cases where the pregnancy is non-viable and doctors would normally perform an abortion, they are instead having to talk to lawyers or present the case before a committee. During this time, the woman’s health often deteriorates.

U.S. v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999)

It should surprise nobody that this is false.

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-science-health-medication-lupus-e4042947e4cc0c45e38837d394199033 “ Munoz said he faced an awful predicament with a recent patient who had started to miscarry and developed a dangerous womb infection. The fetus still had signs of a heartbeat, so an immediate abortion — the usual standard of care — would have been illegal under Texas law. “We physically watched her get sicker and sicker and sicker” until the fetal heartbeat stopped the next day, “and then we could intervene,” he said. The patient developed complications, required surgery, lost multiple liters of blood and had to be put on a breathing machine “all because we were essentially 24 hours behind.’’ In a study published this month in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, doctors at two Texas hospitals cited the cases of 28 women less than 23 weeks pregnant who were treated for dangerous pregnancies. The doctors noted that all of the women had recommended abortions delayed by nine days because fetal heart activity was detected. Of those, nearly 60% developed severe complications — nearly double the number of complications experienced by patients in other states who had immediate therapeutic abortions. Of eight live births among the Texas cases, seven died within hours. The eighth, born at 24 weeks, had severe complications including brain bleeding, a heart defect, lung disease and intestinal and liver problems.”

Because Seditious Conspiracy is a slam dunk case and DoJ attorneys are generally small-c conservatives. They don’t want to risk losing. Do you think the charged Oath Keepers are guilty of seditious conspiracy?

That, in my view, adds up to seditious conspiracy. Attempting to prevent the certification of the election as part of a plan for the loser of an election to be declared the winner. The Feds just need to show that the facts match just one of those items. Item 6 is a slam dunk. Are you saying the FBI should not infiltrate domestic terror organizations? One capitol police office has been charged for assisting the Jan 6 rioters. But you're not guilty of conspiracy if you weren't part of the plan. Are you asserting that these Oath Keepers are NOT guilty of Seditious Conspiracy?

Or making a woman go septic with a nonviable pregnancy before she can get treatment. That's a nice bonus too!

I moved to Chicago and married a Bears fan, so I'll politely cheer for them when they're on if it doesn't impact the Bills. Though, the Bears are such a mess, she doesn't want to watch them anymore and prefers watching the Bills. We just picked up tickets for the Christmas Eve game and I'm not sure if she's going to be wearing Bills gear or Bears gear... In the past, we've tried to go to Delilah's a couple times a season. It's one of the two Bills bars in the city and has more of a tailgate feel than the other one, Lincoln Station. We haven't been yet this season, partly because the Bills have been on tv here a decent amount this season. But with a stretch of games in the early slate coming up, we'll probably pop in a couple times in the coming weeks. Also, watching the Bears makes me feel very good about the Bills...

They made a good choice avoiding Applebees or they may have been charged with 2 for 20 instead of just one insurrection. Plus, those unlimited breadsticks are great for carbo loading ahead of a day of beating up cops.

The thing that gets me about this sort of thing is that it stems from the fact that they cannot accept that anything that makes their side look bad is true. So even if there is a very simple explanation supported by the facts, they come up with the craziest BS to deflect and say it's actually liberals and nothing wrong ever came from the right.