Nougat @ Nougat @kbin.social

I am trying to focus on posting source documents, as opposed to someone els

---

Read more

Posts

22

Comments

1,917

Joined

2 yr. ago

"Front wheel fell off" could mean a bunch of different things here. If the wheel actually became wholly separated from the vehicle, at 15,000 miles, that would most likely be due to incorrectly torqued lug nuts after a tire rotation. Those torque specs are important, and undertorqued lug nuts can work themselves loose, putting undue stresses on the lug bolts, which snap, and there you go. Such a situation would not be Tesla's fault, rather the fault of whoever rotated the tires.

Or, "front wheel fell off" could mean something like a ball joint or tie rod end failure, which could cascade into a very unusual wheel position, easily described as "fell off," while still being connected to the car by the strut mount. That kind of failure would be Tesla's fault, and would align with the mentioned "collapsed suspensions."

In any case, the car would make incredibly horrible noises and vibrations well before a catastrophic failure. These kinds of mechanical suspension parts do not go from "perfectly fine" to "completely failed" in the blink of an eye, even if they do fail far before they should. I'm not putting the blame for the failure on the driver of the car, but I have no problem blaming the driver for letting a situation like that get to the point of catastrophic failure on a brand new car.

Edit: @TheChurn - care to tell me what I said to deserve your downvote?

Just tow the Palestinians outside the environment.

Some quick looking doesn't reveal the political affiliations of either Lindauer or Bryan.

“He should recuse himself,” Raskin added in response to a direct question from CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

That sounds just a tad more resolute than a "suggestion."

He should definitely have continued into the sea, and burned that, too.

Do you want a civil war? Because that's how you get a civil war.

My current rules are that I'm gonna spend £10 a month on music (what I'd be paying Spotify) and try to buy directly from artists. I'll allow myself listening to stuff on Youtube so I can gauge whether or not I wanna then go ahead and buy a song or an album if I've listened to it enough times and want it in my library.

So ... it's okay to listen to it for free on YouTube and maybe buy it directly, but not to pay a Spotify subscription and listen to it there (and also maybe buy it directly)? The whole rant about "Spotify doesn't pay musicians very much" comes off as disingenuous.

Yeah! Those children should stop being so lazy and go get jobs! Damn children, depending on other people for their well-being.

Apparently without an explanation of how Trump is not disqualified by Section Three?

One can be a convicted felon in prison and still qualify for the office of President.

Document

https://kbin.social/m/OriginalDocuments/t/727835/Government-s-Motion-In-Limine-Jack-Smith-filing-to-the-DC

However, the defendant rejects any deals by pleading not guilty, so it might result in a more severe sentence.

A bit tangential, but: In any criminal case (goes for civil, too, but with different terminology), the accused should always plead "not guilty" at arraignment. You can change your not guilty plea to guilty later on, if the prosecution offers a plea deal, or if some other set of circumstances make that plea your best choice. If and when you plead guilty, that's it, all over, move on to sentencing.

Further down this rabbit trail, if you arrange it with the prosecution, you can plead "no contest," which is a guilty plea that cannot be used against you in a later civil case. The plea itself does not make you civilly liable. In 47 states (exceptions: Indiana, New Jersey, and Michigan), you can submit an Alford plea. This plea is "I still proclaim innocence, but I agree that the State case is strong enough to convict me, and I do not have a sufficient defense." Such a plea is allowed when the plea deal offers an escape from a more severe sentence, as in life in prison vs. capital punishment, making the plea "in the best interest" of the accused.

Remind me again how things can be deleted from the internet?

On his Sunday WABC radio program, Giuliani congratulated himself for a “brilliant legal move” because he recommended that then-President Donald Trump take his rigged election claims to state legislatures instead of the courts after the 2020 presidential vote.

Incriminating yourself on your own radio show is more brilliant still.

Until they make a ruling, or decline to take the case, the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling stands. (Yes, I know they have stayed judgment until Jan 4.)

The Colorado Supreme Court determined that Trump was responsible for the Jan. 6 Capitol riots and should be disqualified from the ballot via the 14th Amendment.

Not "should be" - "is." They determined that Trump is disqualified from the ballot via the 14th Amendment.

No, we're referring to the 1973 Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum:

In 1973, amid the Watergate scandal, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memorandum concluding that it is unconstitutional to prosecute a sitting president.[22] Its arguments include that the president "is the symbolic head of the Nation. To wound him by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus in both foreign and domestic affairs."[23] It says that the statute of limitations should not be tolled while the president is in office, but suggests that Congress could extend the statute of limitations specifically for presidents.[24] After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Clinton, the OLC issued a second memorandum in 2000, distinguishing civil and criminal presidential immunity and determining that it was still improper to prosecute a president due to the adverse affect it might have on his ability to govern.[25]

They annihilate each other in an incredible burst of energy.