Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
2
Politics & Religion / Re: Law Enforcement
« Last post by Crafty_Dog on Today at 11:49:28 AM »
Regarding paying for defense lawyers, we don't get to say the accused is guilty before he gets a trial and therefore the legal fees fall on him.

With regard to QI, as I understand it, the gist of QI theory is that by the nature of police work, an officer is abnormally likely to be accused by the people he is policing.  If he has to worry about getting sued all the fg time, we will not have many people willing to do the work.
3
They were seeking a preliminary injuction, yes?
6
https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-executive-privilege-recordings-robert-hur-interview-edward-siskel-265ab86b?mod=opinion_lead_pos2
------------
Isn't this admission that his I-don't-recall testimony won't hold up to public scrutiny?

We have the transcript but can't listen for credibility in his voice?  (Yes we can.)  He waived Exe. Priv. when they released the transcript. 

Among the things he couldn't remember was when he was Vice President.  A tape of that is more damaging than written words.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/full-text-robert-hur-biden-classified-documents-interview-pdf-rcna142956

(Did Trump have privilege when the perfect Ukraine call was released?  WHen the Georgia find-the-votes call?  He was POTUS then.)

Testimony that led the prosecutor Hur to conclude Biden was too old and senile to be held accountable, was for the same crime his opponent is charged with multiple felonies and real prison time for.  And we can't hear it?
-------------------------------------
WSJ:

"The privilege claim is bogus on two grounds. First, once a President waives a privilege right, it can’t be reclaimed. Mr. Biden conceded that the interview wasn’t privileged, and there’s no legal basis to say that a recording is different from a transcript.

Even if Mr. Biden had first claimed privilege over the interview, that wouldn’t pass legal muster because the interview subject didn’t concern his presidential duties or White House deliberations. It concerned his handling of documents while in the Senate, as Vice President, or as a private citizen.

Mr. Siskel’s claim that the goal is to protect the Justice Department’s “law enforcement investigations” also doesn’t work. Such a claim of law-enforcement privilege typically attends to a continuing investigation, but Mr. Hur’s work is complete. He has filed his report and closed up shop.

Mr. Siskel complains in his letter that the transcript should be sufficient and the “absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal—to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes.” No doubt partisanship is at play, as it was for Democrats on Capitol Hill against Mr. Trump.

But Republicans want the audio to judge the tenor and credibility of Mr. Biden’s responses and Mr. Hur’s conclusion that the President’s faulty memory was cause not to bring an indictment in the case. The White House claim of privilege over the recordings isn’t intended to protect executive power. It’s intended to avoid presidential embarrassment.

That’s a political goal, not a legitimate legal justification."
7
Funny BBG that this is a feel good story.  Let's see, she's DEI exec, her education is a fraud, her job is a fraud, her purpose is a fraud, her employers are frauds, her paycheck is a fraud, and then they all act surprised when she uses her job to commit a fraud.  What did they think she would do, make tennis shoes, write code?  It's all a fraud.  A good defense attorney could have fun with this one. They wanted more of their money to go to people like her and it did.
8
Politics & Religion / Wee Hour Door Pounding
« Last post by Body-by-Guinness on May 16, 2024, 11:22:32 PM »
Hamas handmaidens have taken to waking University of Michigan Regents and then noisily “protesting” (read intimidating):

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2024/05/16/in-michigan-leftists-have-started-knocking-on-doors-in-the-middle-of-the-night-n4929108
9
Politics & Religion / Re: Law Enforcement
« Last post by Body-by-Guinness on May 16, 2024, 08:58:04 PM »
Nope, not arguing that at all AND my question remains  :-)

Alrighty then. Yes the officer gets a lawyer. And should felonious actions be proven, the cop in question can pay those costs back as part of her/his punishment. At least in my non-lawyer it-ain’t-justice-if-taxpayers-foot-the-bill-for-wanton-criminal-behavior opinion. As someone far better acquainted with how these wheels turn feel free to suggest a method whereby felonious behavior isn’t underwritten and hence tacitly supported. I’m not a lawyer and hence don’t see a percentage in stating much beyond what ought to be acknowledged as a tautology: when criminal behavior is supported you get more criminal behavior, and that’s a bad thing.
10
Politics & Religion / Heard of Danegeld? How ‘Bout a Bit of DEIgeld?
« Last post by Body-by-Guinness on May 16, 2024, 08:45:45 PM »
This feel good story could land several places: first Facebook then Nike hired a lass to polish their DEI laurels, which she does with gusto, turning their desire to stave off “protected class” grudge holders into a cottage industry where she had darn well everyone she knew setting up shell companies and providing non-existent goods and services they’d bill for, collect payment, and then split the gains.

The Danegeld metaphor is apt: you pay it and get more Danes for your trouble. Same w/ DEInizens, in this case to the tune of $5 million+.

https://thepostmillennial.com/diversity-exec-scams-facebook-nike-out-of-millions-in-elaborate-fraud-scheme
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10