Financial vehicles for retirement should be relatively low risk, with that risk becoming even lower as you reach retirement age. Investing in a single stock, no matter what it is, is a high risk. Sure, you can look into the past and say "if you'd just invested in Stock X," but that's with the benefit of hindsight.
The only way you should be managing your 401K is into an index fund with low fees. That's it. Everything else is gambling.
Defense motioned to the Court for a stay pending appeal. Judge Chutkan granted such a stay, because she had to; there is no other choice. However, she was very clear that that stay only puts on hold the various deadline dates for pretrial motions and discovery and such. As of right now, all of the protections in place remain (including the gag order in that case), as well as the March 4, 2024, trial date, although that trial date may be adjusted depending on how long the appeal goes.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is moving much faster on this appeal than they did with their almost year-long process which found that Trump can be civilly sued for Jan6 events. SCOTUS has already agreed to expedite the process of considering whether they will take the case (because of Jack Smith's motion to SCOTUS to do so), and they're asking for a hasty response from Trump's defense team.
But based on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals moving quickly on this appeal, I suspect SCOTUS will ultimately decline to hear the case, and let stand the appeals court ruling.
I was serious about this Defense immunity/double jeopardy argument being frivolous. There is absolutely no way any court finds in Trump's favor on either of those points - and Defense knows it. The whole point is to delay, as is made obvious by their motion to delay the appeal proceedings, apparently because Jack Smith is the Grinch? If Defense was serious about these arguments, and thought they had any chance of winning this appeal, they would want that appeals process to go forward as quickly as possible, because winning that appeal means their client becomes not only "unindicted," but "unibict*able."* One might even argue that Defense counsel moving to delay the appeals process is acting in opposition to the interests of the defendant, amounting to legal malpractice.
But I digress.
This could backfire because the Supreme Court is corrupt.
While not impossible, highly unlikely. The repercussions of ruling that a president can never be criminally charged for actions taken while holding office puts the persons who are Supreme Court Justices at direct personal risk, because such a ruling would explicitly enable a sitting president to commit crimes, not the least of which would certainly be to imprison or murder their political enemies - remember, with impunity - and SCOTUS would be on the short list there.
No, SCOTUS justices having a lifelong term means that they have a much longer view of American politics than people who have to run for election every two or four or six years. They will act to protect themselves personally, even if they are not acting to protect a functioning democracy.
I just watched some congressional turd [it was Grassley] actually say that there's an indication of wrong doing, but "I don't have any evidence." Okay, fine - that's not what an impeachment inquiry is for.
More abuse of the judicial system. If invading the Capitol building while both houses are in session to count electoral votes after having been directed to do so by the sitting president in order to overturn the election in that sitting president's favor isn't "obstructing an official proceeding," then let's just burn it all down.
With regard to both the stupid "double jeopardy" argument and the "presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for crimes committed while in office," here is US Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
The fact that they're actually making this argument is frivolous, and those lawyers should receive consequences for doing so.
... sending them to people in a clear attempt to murder them ...
Article is fairly unclear on that point, but to me it reads as though these two were selling the explosive devices, and then mailing them to the customers.
Mendiver is now scheduled to be sentenced on April 1, 2024 and, if convicted, he faces a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison and a $250,00 fine for each count.
“The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables,” according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
From my reading, it looks like he's pleaded guilty to three charges, but I don't think each of those charges is "a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison and a $250,00 fine". But the "actual sentence" appears to be somewhat unrelated to that anyway?
It's not a Pulitzer Prize winning article, for sure.
I am aware of Hawaii in 1960 (as I am certain Ms. Collins also is). In short, the vote tally had Nixon beating Kennedy in Hawaii by 140 votes. One, Hawaii's three electoral votes would not have changed the outcome of the election; Kennedy won handily without them. Two, the recount flipped the state in Kennedy's favor. Three, Hawaii in 1960 is "the only legal precedent for dueling Electoral College slates since the Electoral Count Act passed in 1887." There have never been any other dueling slates of electors in any other states, nor in any other election years.
I followed the link to ShitSocial so you didn't have to:
I wanted to testify on Monday, despite the fact that I already testified successfully, answering all questions having to do with the Fake, No Victims, No Jury lawsuit, thrown at me by the Corrupt Racist A.G., Letitia James, and presided over by a Trump hating judge who suffers from a massive case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and is a puppet for the CROOKED A.G. Anyway, the Judge, Arthur Engoron, put a GAG ORDER on me, even when I testify, totally taking away my constitutional right to defend myself. We are appealing, but how would you like to be a witness and not be allowed free snd honest speech. THE TRIAL IS RIGGED. I DID NOTHING WRONG!!!
If you were an ultrasound technician or an OB/GYN, and the embryo shows cardiac activity, you should definitely not record that the embryo doesn't have cardiac activity so that the woman can choose to terminate. That would be illegal.
Not even that - it's the "risk" to witnesses. We should be able to watch people die without a care in the world, dammit!