2
JohnCocktoastin 2 points ago +2 / -0

I love how this fag says “we” as if he speaks collectively for all the non faggots…

3
JohnCocktoastin 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sweet rifle! But did you burry your mags in Stacey Abrams fat rolls for the last few years?

2
JohnCocktoastin 2 points ago +2 / -0

This pretty much seals it for me that its a joke. A "two more weeks" stalling bullshit joke. I'll try to not let my jadedness completely cloud my post here. But just read between the lines and note the absolute absurdity here:

  1. State crime lab doesn't need fkn third party IT consultants. If they do, they certainly don't enlist the damn senate to find them. At this point, why is this crap not in the AG's evidence locker?? No reasonable or rational explanation exists for this. Nor does the senate have a reason that they must continue now. Do they need these routers in order to determine the appropriate legislation to pass? Gimme a damn break...

  2. The "negligent" vs "intentional" narrative is now being set to not charge anyone. "Careless errors" is going to be it. Nevermind that some of the statutes are strict liability. Nevermind that motive is not a synonym for intent. They will try to conflate the reason someone did something purposefully with the mens rea of knowingly, which does not require anything beyond acting intentionally.

Fann is a lost cause. And anyone that still has faith in her needs to check themselves. Zilch is coming from the AZ Senate. Mark that down. All cannons must be turned to the AG's office and we need to fire all our powder.

2
JohnCocktoastin 2 points ago +2 / -0

It literally has always been policy for as long as I have memories. Apparently, you are entirely unaware of the options illegals have for getting green cards and why they can even have options.

  1. marry an American citizen - not fool proof, lots of caveats

  2. go back to home country and apply legally - never happens, must wait 3 years if here more than 6 months, 10 years if present more than a year because entered illegally. Or in their terms "without presenting yourself"

  3. have us citizen kids, claim hardship waiver - not often granted

  4. get arrested for minor crime - most common method, regularly results in legal green card status + work permit

  5. apply for TPS - doesn't work if country of origin does not have active TPS order status, but many do. Changes frequently. Then can work alternate avenues for green card

So, there is virtually no way for the government to even know you are here illegally unless you get picked up for something else. They can't just stop you and demand you prove your immigration status. With the volume of cases in the immigration courts, it has literally always been policy to not remove aliens based on their presence alone. And, they simply don't find people that way anyhow. You should look up the number of civil rights claims that result from unlawful immigration inquiries by various public entities like hospitals and local police departments etc. and it is staggering. Especially the dollar amounts awarded.

3
JohnCocktoastin 3 points ago +3 / -0

healthily skeptical here...but lets see what this turns up. Odds on "Comey, James" or "McCabe, Andrew" turning up on this list?

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +1 / -0

While I agree with his outrage, he is mistaken. This IS the American way. We just haven't fully paid attention until he opened our eyes.

2
JohnCocktoastin 2 points ago +2 / -0

While this article raises some valid concerns, it does not cut to the crux of the issue: Cucked courts. This is not a problem of Congressional subpoena power. This is a problem of cucked courts packed with political appointments by the same Congress abusing their subpoena powers having it affirmed by their own good 'ole boys club.

This article also makes erroneous assertions about the rarity of the feds ducking the notification requirement to subpoena third party information. What is rare is a court denying the government's claim of the existence of an exigency justifying a delay or waiver in the notification.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/425/435.html

This cucked case basically says that you don't have a right to privacy in any information you voluntarily turn over to third parties. AND...the standard is not as high in the review, should you get an opportunity to contest it, as a search warrant (probable cause) so you're probably not winning on the issue anyways.

Whining about the chance to contest a subpoena that is going to get slam dunk affirmed at the hearing is a waste of breath. The real issue is why the fuck would it get slam dunked? And why is US v. Miller controlling law? Why do we the people accept cucked judges that rule this way?

For all his flaws, Justice Thurgood Marshall was fucking awesome on civil liberties issues. We do not give him credit for this. I will post his short and sweet dissent here:

"MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.

In California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974), the Court upheld the constitutionality of the recordkeeping requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act. 12 U.S.C. 1829b (d). I dissented, finding the required maintenance of bank customers' records to be a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and unlawful in the absence of a warrant and probable cause. While the Court in California Bankers Assn. did not then purport to decide whether a customer could later challenge the bank's delivery of his records to the Government pursuant to subpoena, I warned:

"[I]t is ironic that although the majority deems the bank customers' Fourth Amendment claims premature, it also intimates that once the bank has made copies of a customer's checks, the customer no longer has standing to invoke his Fourth Amendment rights when a demand is made on the bank by the Government for the records. . . . By accepting the Government's bifurcated approach to the recordkeeping requirement and the acquisition of the records, the majority engages in a hollow charade whereby Fourth Amendment claims are to be labeled premature until such time as they can be deemed too late." 416 U.S., at 97.

Today, not surprisingly, the Court finds respondent's claims to be made too late. Since the Court in California [425 U.S. 435, 456] Bankers Assn. held that a bank, in complying with the requirement that it keep copies of the checks written by its customers, "neither searches nor seizes records in which the depositor has a Fourth Amendment right," id., at 54, there is nothing new in today's holding that respondent has no protected Fourth Amendment interest in such records. A fortiori, he does not have standing to contest the Government's subpoena to the bank. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969).

I wash my hands of today's extended redundancy by the Court. Because the recordkeeping requirements of the Act order the seizure of customers' bank records without a warrant and probable cause, I believe the Act is unconstitutional and that respondent has standing to raise that claim. Since the Act is unconstitutional, the Government cannot rely on records kept pursuant to it in prosecuting bank customers. The Government relied on such records in this case and, because of that, I would affirm the Court of Appeals' reversal of respondent's conviction. I respectfully dissent. [425 U.S. 435, 457] "

2
JohnCocktoastin 2 points ago +3 / -1

This has been immigration policy since I've got memories. This is nothing new. Plus, virtually nobody gets on the radar unless they do something else besides being here illegally. No idea why people act like this is some major offending speech. Ya, we ought to seal the border and start working out how the hell we clean this mess up.

Mayorkas -"Today, we will have the same policies as yesterday, which were the same as the day before, which were the same as the day before that."

Patriots.win - "OMFG! You guys hear this new news! Treason!"

2
JohnCocktoastin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Don't get your hopes up like some have. They are open to requests. But subject to privilege. Which we know Brandon will assert. Even though he left Trump hanging in the wind.

6
JohnCocktoastin 6 points ago +6 / -0

Would love to see the full opinion on this. While employment mandates period are complete bullshit, I am more inclined to believe that govt can mandate for govt employees than I am to believe that joe schmoe incorporated can mandate for its employees. So this should be interesting...bet it puckered up some ceo anuses today.

5
JohnCocktoastin 5 points ago +5 / -0

Well, Jizzlinger said he talked to Ray, and Ray said he wasn't a glowie, so that settles that issue as well. Case closed.

4
JohnCocktoastin 4 points ago +4 / -0

All plausible explanations. But couldn't explain 38%. Might cut it in half. But 18-19% is still astronomical.

5
JohnCocktoastin 5 points ago +5 / -0

It's a sample. You'd expect to extrapolate the sample, presuming it is reliable, to the entirety of the population.

Need to abandon a court doing anything with this. They aren't. Unless it is in the context of an indictment brought by the AG.

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hey, nothing is more American than taking a dick in the ass. Haven’t you been paying attention to Washington DC?

12
JohnCocktoastin 12 points ago +12 / -0

I'm the first guy who wants to throw Hannity under the bus. I don't trust him. And I'll never forgive his Iraq War and Patriot Act shilling. A guy like that either knew the patriot act was garbage, or had access to competent lawyers to tell him that it did not do what they said it did. I can't get over that. Fuckwits like him helped pull the wool over my eyes for years. I'll never watch or listen to his shows again.

However, when I see jan 6 committee incomplete citations, I trust them even less. So without more info, I'd give hannity the benefit of the doubt over jan 6 committee 10/10 times.

2
JohnCocktoastin 2 points ago +2 / -0

I love when "ripeness" doctrine strikes the left. If this law is so dangerous to abortions, how the hell come we have not seen a case utilizing the law yet?

2
JohnCocktoastin 2 points ago +2 / -0

I can't quite fathom why anyone can prevent inspection of what otherwise appears to be clearly public records under open records laws in virtually all states. I don't get it. Perhaps having someone come in with technology to analyze is different. But everything should be public. I've yet to see a state public records statute that makes these off limits.

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +1 / -0

This guy does not have sufficient command of the English language to know what he just said. He is also clearly reading the statement. So somebody put him up to this for novelty. He probably got $20 to say that and get put on patriots.win getting everyone's panties wedged up their asses.

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +1 / -0

I am not and have never been a lawyer. Seriously. Just got lucky enough to have an incredible undergrad prof in a poli sci constitutional law class that taught us how to read case law decades ago. So I've been reading this stuff in my free time for many years. Most people find this stuff boring but I have always found it fascinating. Puts my wife to sleep lol.

2
JohnCocktoastin 2 points ago +2 / -0

If Robert Reich and Paul Krugman were in the same bath house, which one of them bites the pillow?

21
JohnCocktoastin 21 points ago +23 / -2

Granted, its easy to take shit out of context and create the narrative you want. This isn't a good look. But if one considered it thru this lens - this could have been Pence's conditions to not 25th him out. Which would change the context considerably. And, considering they conveniently left the rest of the "plan" out, leads me to believe that this was done to leave everyone with the impression they are narrating and not what was actually said.

view more: Next ›