I'm not sure how you're getting that. This is like Iran after the US pulled out of the nuclear deal: "Well obviously we're not going to keep up our end if you're not going to keep up yours"
I understand the PRC's position just fine because they've been explicit about it for decades: They believe that Taiwan, an island they've never controlled, is theirs by imperial right based on the Qing dynasty's rule over it for 200 years prior to 1900.
We don't need to "empathize" with a desire for imperial conquest, we just need to stand in the way of it.
Multiple dissent memos about this war are being circulated in the State Department in efforts to gather signatures. These communications may or may not be classified, but their contents are rarely leaked. The department’s Dissent Channel is a long-established vehicle that allows staffers to freely express their discontent on a policy matter without fear of reprisal.
The memo obtained by POLITICO was authored by two midlevel staffers who have worked in the Middle East, said a department employee who has seen the document and was granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic.
Had to get to the tenth paragraph before we find out that it's not uncommon that dissent memos are circulated and it's just two mid-level staffers behind it. Just Politico Politicoing.
That appeal would be quickly denied. The Judge is absolutely right: They "are here to hear him answer questions", not "to listen to what he has to say." The Judge has a responsibility to keep testimony responsive to the questions asked and relevant to the case, not to let witnesses give monologues about whatever nonsense is running through their heads at the moment.
“I beseech you to control him if you can,” [Judge] Engoron said. “If you can’t, I will. I will excuse him and draw every negative inference that I can.”
Ultra-mega-fucked.
Trump attorney Alina Habba at one point stood up and argued that the judge was there to listen to what Trump had to say. “I am not here to listen to what he has to say!” Engoron reportedly shouted, telling Trump’s counsel to sit back down. “We are here to hear him answer questions,” he added.
LMAO at a bottom tier lawyer trying to tell a judge how to do their job.
The defense didn't concede that they had committed fraud, the judge made a summary judgement that they did based on the evidence presented by the AG.
The trial isn't just about determining the penalty on the fraud finding, there are also six further claims from the AG that the judge didn't offer a summary judgement on; these claims are being adjudicated at the trail. Criminal penalties, such as jail time, are not a possible consequence of this civil trial; only civil penalties may result.
If Don Jr. and Eric opened themselves up to criminal liability while they were on the stand that would have to be determined at a separate criminal trial.
Which is why it's a lot like Theranos; they raised (and burned through) a ton of money trying to build something that would be really useful but was still decades from technological feasibility.
At least one good thing has come out of this war: Most of the Kremlin propaganda Youtube channels that were wall-to-wall anti-Ukraine content through last month have pivoted to anti-Israel content instead.
ANNs like this will always just present our own biases and stereotypes back to us unless the data is scrubbed and curated in a way that no one is going to spend the resources to. Things like this are a good demonstration of why they need to be kept far, far away from decision making processes.
I'm not sure how you're getting that. This is like Iran after the US pulled out of the nuclear deal: "Well obviously we're not going to keep up our end if you're not going to keep up yours"