APassenger @ APassenger @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

838

Joined

2 yr. ago

According to the affidavit, Halls said he did not check all cylinder chambers, but he recalled seeing three rounds in the cylinder at the time. (After the shooting, Halls said in the affidavit, Gutierrez-Reed retrieved the weapon and opened it, and Halls said that he saw four rounds which were plainly blanks, and one which could have been the remaining shell of a discharged live round.)[44] In the warrant, it is further stated that Halls announced the term "cold gun", meaning that it did not contain live rounds.[42] Halls's lawyer, Lisa Torraco, later sought to assert that he did not take the gun off the cart and hand it to Baldwin as reported, but when pressed by a reporter to be clear, she refused to repeat that assertion.[45]

It's Wikipedia, but it matches what I've read elsewhere. He was told he had a cold gun. There is a division of responsibility and what's described doesn't match your assertion.

No. But with the withheld evidence now known... The armorer herself may not have been convicted and she's certainly getting retried.

Those mistakes didn't happen in a vacuum. But proving where that vacuum came from doesn't have the same certainty that it did.

If you know your brakes are failing, and they fail... It's not mysterious.

I'm not tho. One of the implications of the bullets being a little bit of everywhere was that it implied another source.

If you're driving and your brakes mysteriously fail, consequently someone dies. Is it manslaughter?

Edit: clarity.

This is what I've been thinking too. Cognitive decline isn't necessarily fatal. Nancy Reagan used astrologers because she was lost and trying to keep up appearances.

Dunno what Jill/Joe will do. But if he was inclined to step down, I don't see home doing it for a few years.

😆😆😆🥲😢😢😭😭😭😖😞🤬

Hav me you read the Bible?

Within some circles, it's a little bit of one. Just not one that works legally or with you or me.

We should be able to respond with varying degrees of enthisiasm: Thank you! Alright then. Hmph Meh Eff off.

You know... For sentiment analysis.

People hurt themselves that way. Play it safe, walk slowly to the fridge and back.

If Trump wins, come back to this mid-2026?

Trump signed an executive order and made much of the executive branch fire-able. Go far enough and that influence can turn into control over other parts of the government.

There's a path to effective termination.

It's the DNC, they'll aim for a new coronated candidate.

At some point, that could be part of the delay.

He's too virtuous. He hasn't processed that anything he does is legal.

So he leads be example. Or something.

Maybe someone should explain it to him before 4 PM?

And a President can fire them. Or more. Because they said he could.

I think the commitment part is going to be a problem this election cycle.

Well, you know that...

"I saved millions of dollars (I don't need) on accident so their damages don't matter. Those would only matter if I did it on purpose. I don't remember doing it on purpose."

We'll have to find out. Legally, he gets equal treatment.

It's his first felony conviction but there are 34 of them.

The illegal payoff and his money ganes began outside his presidency. They are state convictions.

SCOTUS did not invalidate those.

I dunno where you're going with your aggrieved post-truth rhetoric, but the truth did and does matter.