You may be right about the media circus, but I think you need to respect the jury process a bit more. Most people do not want to send an innocent man to prison. The jury selection process weeds out 99% of the crazies, and even if a few people who've already had their mind made up sneak onto the jury, you still need the level-headed jurors to agree to reach a unanimous verdict.
You may remember the trial of Casey Anthony, where the public was completely convinced she killed her daughter, but the jury returned a not guilty verdict. It is in fact possible for that to happen.
If there are valid complaints about the trial, then Chauvin will win on appeal.
And if you haven't actually watched every minute of the trial like the jurors did, then I think it's pretty asshole of you to decide you know better than them.
Did you not read your own clickbait article? Montana isn't doing anything except refusing to help federal agencies enforce the law. Which is exactly what "sanctuary cities" do with federal immigration law. Refuse to help.
Montana isn't "nullifying" anything, and I guarantee they won't do anything that jeopardizes that sweet, sweet federal subsidy money.
That doesn't say secret watermarks. Visible watermarks that are hard to reproduce (like you see on cash or a bank check) allow everyone to verify authenticity. That is what they're talking about. Friendy_B was obviously talking about the retarded rumors upvoted on The_Donald for weeks about "secret watermarks that are totally being tracked by Trump's people, all will be revealed soon..."
Also this is the same CISA led by the guy who was fired by Trump after the election because CISA's "the election was totally secure" claims were ruining Trump's "the election was stolen" Twitter narrative.
Pick which side you're on, dude. Is CISA bad or good?
I hate to interrupt your incredibly genius-IQ level thinking, but if you look closely at the video, you can see at least three people handling these ballots with their bare hands before it's examined under the UV light.
"Hollywood is evil, am I right guys?"
"Here let me use this awesome quote invented by Hollywood to spice up my shitty meme"
Yeah, clearly this forum is on track to saving America.
The origins of the American Revolution were a bit broader than just a tea tax. If the colonies were given representation in Parliament, they probably wouldn't have minded the taxation as much, and there wouldn't have been any revolution.
And you do have representation now in whatever government is trying to tax burgers. You get what you vote for. Nobody is going to war.
"Nullification" is just the word right-wing clickbait use.
It's exactly the same legal process that I'm sure you hated when cities/states used it to create "sanctuary cities/states".
Uhhh... no... people and businesses who have to pay taxes mail separate checks to the IRS and the state-level revenue agency.
Montana actually receives higher-than-average federal subsidies.
Reagan was actually inaugurated into a second term, though.
Trump gave up, declared the Capitol insurrectionists would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, thanked Mike Pence for his time as VP, and then flew away back to his billionaire estate because he was too embarrassed to attend Biden's inauguration, and now he just lounges while whining and bitching about Biden's presidential actions.
That's totally how the rightful leader of a country should act, right?
Well, "two competent doctors disagreeing" is exactly what we had, so it is up to the jury to decide which testimony to give more weight to. That's why we have juries. I guarantee if the state medical examiner said "it was asphyxiation" and the defense had to get a third-party expert witness to claim it was drug overdose, this thread wouldn't exist, this forum would be calling the medical examiner an idiot and lauding the third-party witness. Because everyone just believes what they want to believe.
And I still think many things can interact and be complications that aggravate other conditions, ultimately resulting in death. If a 65-year-old patriot with clogged arteries gets their airway knelt on by a cop for nine minutes, stresses out, has a heart attack and dies, is the defense allowed to say "Well, a healthy person wouldn't have died" as if that's all the immunity you need?
No. Reasonable minds can disagree.
Dunno, this forum is slowly turning to shit where instead of actual journalism people just post JPEGs of clickbait headlines because it gets more upvotes.
You do realize doctors can disagree on exact cause of death, right? One doctor being employed by the state at the time doesn't necessarily render their opinion more important than any other doctor with comparable experience.
Half of the "suspicious Clinton deaths" conspiracy are just "The official cause of death was suicide. But... maybe not?"
So which is it? Forensic medical examiners are 100% right? Or 100% wrong? Or maybe... there are grey areas where both sides of the argument can present their case, and a jury decides.
How about you stop telling other people to do research when you're obviously talking out of your ass and didn't do a single second of your own research?
You are completely wrong.
Nothing says employers can't do this.
I don't think the Jews in concentration camps were allowed to say "No" and walk away to find a new place to live.
Did you actually think that response wouldn't sound 100% stupid?
You keep saying the same thing over and over but don't present a single source.
There is no regulation or law that says employers aren't allowed to require experimentally authorized vaccines as a condition of employment.
This is a nation of freedom, so you bear the burden of proving that something is illegal.
This story sounds fake, but on the off chance it is real, that is a terrible idea. When it inevitably kills someone that wasn't threatening your life, you will be going to prison for illegal construction of booby traps. Maybe even felony manslaughter/murder.
You are wrong. A committee may or may not ask its invitees to swear an oath to testify to the truth.
Sometimes a congressional committee is more interested in a business's leaders opinions on laws and regulations than actual truth-finding; making them swear an oath just leads to a bunch of legal drama where the person testifying picks their words a lot more carefully, a lot of whispering with lawyers, "I don't recalls" and pleading the fifth.
And for a lot of grand-standing GOP congressmen, they don't really care whether the person they're asking questions to is telling the truth, because the "questions" are really just political statements that they hope will get clipped by Fox News and boost their re-election chances.