This is literally fake news.
The article is dated February 3rd yet the SN9 took off on Tuesday February 2nd.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/02/02/spacex-starship-prototype-lost-in-test-flight-landing-mishap/
The FAA didn't try to ground SpaceX - they needed a new permit due to the changes in the test operations (high altitude flights). Their SN8 ship in December also flew to this height under the wrong permit, hence the FAA making them get a new one for this test.
This article is literally outdated (though I don't know how because the test happened Tuesday) and is fake ass fucking news. Don't trust the Washington Times, they are trash.
Gateway Pundit is shit. Look at the actual court filing in the article: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1811836/gov.uscourts.txsd.1811836.16.0_1.pdf
The reason the TRO was granted was that there a likelihood that the plaintiffs will win on the merits, and that harm would be caused by not blocking the change.
HOWEVER, dig further in. The claim that they think they will prevail on is the notification of the policy change:
Texas’s claim that Defendants arbitrarily and capriciously departed from its previous policy without sufficient explanation.
As such, if they win the case it's only because they didn't get proper notification on the policy change. Which means, in a very short period of time, Texas can just be consulted and "explained" on the policy change and that's that.
This is a temporary injunction that won't change the overall policy. Even Texas isn't arguing against the policy, just the way that it was made.
I mean I don't know what is illegal. If Trump was able to use the DoD funds without the courts striking it down, you can make the same exact legal argument for doing it for climate change (which, to be fair, many in DoD leadership positions says is a global security threat).
This is dangerous. The Trump admin did something new by declaring the emergency to use DoD funds to pay for the wall.
And guess what? Now Biden is going to do the same thing for climate change.
If you sue to protest him reneging on those wall funds, it makes the legal argument stronger for him to use it for climate related initiatives as it would "validate" the emergency in the courts.
It's an injunction, not a final determination. It seems like the injunction centers on procedural grounds, not the merits.
Apparently HHS and Texas had a legal agreement that they would consult Texas before making any policy changes. They didn't, and now there is a 14 day freeze. It seems like after the 2 weeks is up, the policy can go forward as they've been "consulted."
Paxton just looking for praise - not really a meaningful win.
In many ways it was his best nickname. Rolls off the tongue, easy to remember and 100% accurate as hell. Ted Cruz is a liar who thinks everyone has a five minute memory. He's a hypocrite of the highest order, and takes his constitutional law degree and uses it to trick people into thinking he's always right. News flash - he isn't.
Although the nickname is almost tied with Little Rocket Man.
If there is one thing Republicans, Democrats, conservatives and liberals can agree on, it's
LYIN' TED
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it as feasible. There are more firearms than people in this country. It would not be a successful operation to seize all of the guns in this country.
And I'm sorry, but people have been dooming over this for decades. Every time Democrats take over it's "they're going to take our guns" yet every year there are more gun owners and more firearms in the US than the year before. I remember in the 90s people thought the Assault Weapons Ban - that the government was going to then initiate a handgun ban and seize all of them from law-abiding owners.
You do realize that this would never happen, right? In what world would it be possible for the feds, and even local leaders enforcement, be able to seize all of these weapons?
How many cops are there per capita in the US? 238 for every 100,000 people. Even if you tripled it to include federal law enforcement, there is no where near the manpower to execute a plan like this even over a period of years.
He’s already been impeached though. The trial for conviction is on the “crimes” alleged in the article.
Additionally, there is already precedent for conducting a trial when someone is not in office. It was done in the past when someone impeached resigned - they conducted the trial anyway to make a determination on the charges.
And in reality, it makes sense. Let’s say a president is impeached over selling state secrets to an adversary. Since there is presidential immunity and the pardon power, should the implicated just be allowed to resign to shield themselves from conviction? Absolutely not.
Yes. Former president is the phrase used to reference a president no longer in office.
Their title is still “president”, but former is always used to describe them. “Ex” is NOT the right term - it implies the person no longer has that title. The only case where “ex” president should be used is in the case of an impeachment and removal from office. At that point, the title “President” is revoked and “ex-President” can be used as they are no longer a President.
This is the same ban that Trump had in place and then removed in his last week. Same exact one.
Not really.
Even conservative legal scholars argue that the Chief Justice must preside when the trial is for "the President" - this is designed this way so there is no conflict of interest if the Vice President were to preside over the Senate (i.e: if Pence had been sitting as president of the Senate when the trial was going on, it wouldn't be fair).
So the legal argument is that since Donald Trump is no longer "the President", the Chief Justice does not have to preside. Like other impeachment trials, a member of the Senate can be appointed to oversee those trials. But at this point there is no constitutional basis where Roberts MUST run the trial. If SCOTUS felt that it was imperative to do so, they would have him do it.
Wait, so are we listening to anonymous sources now or not?
No one is consistent anymore. I don't trust Posobiec, and I don't trust anonymous sources. As such, bullshit until proven otherwise.
We made the same statements against anonymous sources when Trump was in office. Some consistency would be nice.
Yet no lawsuits have been filed against Lin...until they are filed I'll believe his accusations.
I'm not of the mindset to believe people making claims without evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And he has yet to provide it.
Simple answer? Grift.
Powell raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations for the "legal fund."
Guilliani reportedly wanted to charge Trump $20k/day for representation. Plus all of the earned media on OAN, Newsmax, etc .
Wood is still out there making crazy claims (like about Justice Roberts) that he has provided absolutely ZERO proof for. I'm not going to take his word on anything when he's calling Roberts an Epstein-friendly, child trafficking pedophile. You can't just make shit up and expect reasonable people to believe it without evidence.
Ultimately, I think it was grift, the lime-light, and the adoration of Trump. Even Powell got laughed out of the White House in the final weeks, with even Trump reportedly calling her fucking crazy.
Of course they have. Everyone here thinking this is some sort of slam-dunk to take down Dominion are the same people who would buy oceanfront property in Colorado.
Dominion is a multi-million dollar company. They're not going to dive headfirst into a defamation suit if they think it's going to hurt their bottom line.
The truth of the matter is that Dominion has a good case. Guilliani (and Powell, who was sued separately) made very serious claims. They did not have the evidence showing ballots actually being changed (and no folks, some guy doing a statistical analysis on Twitter is not the same as actual evidence of their claims). Even in discovery, this is dangerous.
What if Guilliani took his "evidence" and ask other experts to corroborate it, and they came back and said it's bullshit? That's something that absolutely could come out in discovery, and would then put a red mark right on him for pushing a dubious if not outright false claim.
I am not usually a betting man but I will say this - IF this gets close to trial, Guilliani and Powell will settle. The reason is very simple - IF they had the evidence showing this fraud (as they claimed...), where is it? Why wasn't it shown in court? The one case where they used the Dominion system as a point in the lawsuit, the court asked them to show them the evidence of votes being changed and they couldn't show it.
Oh, come on. Quit it with the Civil War revisionism.
The Civil War was about slavery, 100%. It was a war fought to preserve the institution under the guise of “state’s rights.” That’s it.
“But the South would be economically devastated if slavery were to end, so they were fighting for their livelihoods!” No shit - ending a free labor pool of nearly 4 million slaves was absolutely going to kill the economy. But guess what, the cost of that - keeping people enslaved - was not worth it.
It’s not edgy, partisan or smart to state that the war wasn’t about slavery. Slavery underlined every single argument the Confederacy made for their secession.
To be fair Ron Paul would have said the same thing.
It’s not for the federal government to intervene in state run elections. It’s state’s rights 101 - 10th amendment.
The part about them taking the code is not true - and if Parler didn’t have a backup of their source code and database then they deserved what happened because that’s data security 101.
What happened was that Parler leveraged the proprietary hooks and APIs of AWS which made changing to a new host more than just a move, it required a re-write of some code.
I’m not saying what happened was right or wrong - rather, the declaration that Amazon held their code hostage is false.
That's not what the EO said though. It gives them up to seven days to pause construction (which makes sense - you can't just do a full work-stop if the site isn't safe to leave it in that condition).
pause work on each construction project on the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law, as soon as possible but in no case later than seven days from the date of this proclamation, to permit
Because he was still POTUS when he arrived in Florida?
Biden became president at noon on January 20th. That's it. That's when the constitution defines the power shift as happening.
Except it's clear you have 0% info on cyber-security and OPSEC.
If it's a honeypot - it means all the "admins" (pick your agency(s)) have your IP address. Which means its literally one fed/state inquiry away with your ISP to get your billing info. Keep in mind ISPs have to keep a lot of this IP address info on hand already for dealing with torrent/copyright infringement issues.
So no - the FBI point isn't to hack it. It's just standard protocols. So if they choose to find end-users identities, the government can.
The honeypot is that more than a few people here choose to promote violence and crazy theories, which loop in more crazy people, making it a prime target.
I didn't say otherwise, my point was just that you can't say the site got him elected when he's not in office.
Back to my original point: all the signs are there. And to your point, 100/100 MAGA every day seems like the sweetest of pots.
What the fuck is this guy even talking about?
Honestly if this is the best defense they’ve got, it might convince MORE Republicans to vote to convict. This guy is going to be the laughingstock of the legal world.