Ranvier @ Ranvier @sopuli.xyz

Posts

9

Comments

928

Joined

2 yr. ago

Thanks again EU! And maybe even US department of justice this time, suppression of certain app types was listed as one aspect of their anti trust lawsuit.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-rfk-donations-timothy-mellon-fec-1872315

The biggest individual contributions to Donald Trump's and Robert F. Kennedy Jr's 2024 presidential Super PACs in January both came from the same longtime Republican mega-donor, according to filings.

On the plus side, the purpose of Republicans and Trump supporters funding RFK Jr was to get a candidate to siphon votes away from Biden. The closer he acts to Trump, the greater chances he end up siphoning away Trump voters.

Yeah, if anything the rich fucks live across the border in Northern Virginia.

The next solar eclipse in the lower 48 is in 2044. Does this then mean science predicts that America will erupt into general hedonism and debauchery that year?

I know Judge cannon is not in the article, and I did read it. I assumed the person I was replying too was bringing up judge Cannon for contrast with this judge, because unlike this judge or pretty much any other judge Trump has been before (who they and their family members have been getting constant death threats and harrasment, often from Trump himself) they've been lavishing praise on her. Kind of ironic they turned on her as well just yesterday after her order when she's still doing her best to put the fix in for Trump. Trump even had to put out a tweet to remind people that judge cannon is great.

Oh what I mean is, if new york doesn't accept this bond as valid, the company that promised the invalid bond is still on hook for the 175 million, but right now, even though it doesn't count as a bond for Trump. The bond company could sue Trump to recover that though, and Leititia James can immediately start going after Trump and the shady company both. It won't work as a bond if it's not valid, but they've still made themselves liable by submitting these filings, unless Trump gives the state the money or a valid bond is submitted.

Failure to justify. If a motion to justify is not made within ten days after the notice of exception is served, the undertaking shall then be without effect, except as provided in this subdivision. Unless otherwise provided by order of court, a surety on an undertaking excepted to and not justified shall remain liable until a new undertaking is given and allowed, but the original undertaking shall be otherwise without effect.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-25/2507/

Unless I'm misreading this.

Go lie about your assets on a mortgage or other loan application and falsify some paperwork. See what happens to you. Why should Trump get to do that?

All this lawsuit is doing is making him pay back all the money he gained by lying. The profits he made from his lies and falsifications were calculated by an independent auditor and used to calculate the amount he has to pay back. New York state law says you cannot benefit financially from fraud, the profits must get pulled back.

The funny thing is, even if this shady company is found not to be able to post the bond, per new york state law they're still legally on the hook for the money, unless an actual elgibile bond is found. So Letitia James may get to go after both this shady company and Trump, with the shady company forced to then go after Trump directly to get back the portion they promised to the state.

Also, if those people could read they'd realize the only reason she said no right now, is she wants to allow that argument to be used as a defense during the trial, where she can then acquit him herself and give Jack Smith no chance to appeal. She only said that the argument couldn't be used to dismiss the charges before the trial starts. If she did say yes to Trump's request right now, Smith could appeal and a higher court would slap her down in a second for this blatantly incorrect interpretation of the law, and cut off Cannon's plan to acquit Trump of all charges during the trial. She is bending over backwards to not rule on anything before the trial, so nothing can be appealed beforehand, and then get to the trial stage when her dumb shit will be effectively unappealable. Everything in her recent order is still to Trump's benefit.

A lot of places, to varying degrees:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws

Usually in the US more by making it illegal to sign government contracts with any boycotters of Israel, or by preventing public funds from investing into any entities perceived as boycotting Israel. These things could be devastating to any businesses or non profits that work with the government, or any publicly traded companies (due to decreased investment). Technically boycotting Israel in general can't be made illegal in the US, as that would be a free speech violation.

You're right, incorrect word. Since it would be after the trial starts it would be an acquittal, not a dismissal. She'll go with her bizarre interpretation of the law and acquit trump on the basis that no reasonable jury would convict Trump (under her interpretation).

Oh she'll do that the second the trial starts and double jeopardy would kick in so the prosecutors have no recourse, that's what she's telegraphing here. Smith has to just punt and try to get her kicked off the case at this point. She's made her intentions clear.

Her response is nonsensical unless what you say is the case. She first says, hypothetically if we were to go with either of these both flagrantly incorrect interpretations of this law to say automatically that everything Trump did is legal to make jury instructions for the jury, how would you write them?

Smith replies, hold up, are you saying you're going with that totally ridiculous law interpretation? These are both very wrong and would mean no matter what the charges get dismissed for Trump, why would we make jury instructions based on them? If this is your interpretation, say so definitively in a ruling, so we can appeal right now before the trial.

She responds, I will not rule on this issue pre-trial (implying hey I might dismiss it the second the trial starts when this is unappealable because it would trigger double jeopardy, lol), and it was just hypothetical who knows, how dare you suggest we finalize jury instructions early this instant! (even though Smith never asked to finalize jury instructions, she was the one who asked them to write hypothetical jury instructions early hinting at her insane interpretations in the first place!) She even called the case a "first impression" which is ridiculous, the law has been around since the 1920's and has a ton of precedent.

Hopefully Smith has enough to file to just remove her from the case at this point. Yes this delays the trial, and yes the appeals court might say no, but at least it might stop her from deliberately setting her calendar for the trial this Summer to try and delay his other criminal cases too, especially the January 6th case (assuming Supreme court doesn't give Trump immunity or something equally dumb). She should be impeached and removed from the bench, for being unqualified in the first place, making flagrant dumb mistakes in multiple cases showing her lack of any ability to do this, and actual clear malice in using her position for political ends to boot.

It's not a new disease at all, headline is slightly misleading. It's a well known type of herpes virus that circulates in rhesus monkeys wherever they're found. It's similar to the human herpes virus that causes cold sores, but is far more dangerous in a human than a monkey, because it's much more likely to travel to the brain (human herpes viruses can do this too, just not as commonly). It's been known of since at least 1932. It can be spread by close contact with rhesus monkeys. Lab workers have died from this when working with them in animal experiments, and personal protective equipment is worn when interacting with rhesus monkeys now. It doesn't really spread human to human, partly because if you get it you have an 80% chance of death. For monkeys, it's much more benign and usually just causes cold sore type things.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_virus

This is just the first time it's been seen in a human in Hong Kong specifically, not the first time in a human in general, not even close. So if anything kind of the opposite of what you're thinking. Anyways, just don't touch rhesus monkeys and you'll be fine. And if one ever bites or scratches you somehow get that thoroughly cleaned immediately and talk to a doctor. Herpes antivirals like acyclovir might be partially effective for it.

I agree, and even if there are some valid points buried in there, because of medical privacy laws you often get these one sided stories that are filled with medical inaccuracies or lack context. Just going to pick on one bit of something medical dropped as an example:

"We were never told definitively that Tom would never walk again – we found that the doctors preferred not to be precise."

Preferred not to be precise? This is worded as some sort of attack on the doctors, and comes right after they insinuated the parents had to "teach the doctors how to read medical notes" or something ridiculous. How about the doctors preferred to be accurate instead of making stuff up. There's usually no certain answer here, at best you can give some rough odds for this. There's this perception, especially from medical shows and things, that doctors can tell you things like will I ever walk again or exactly how long will I live with 100% accuracy no matter the situation.

Like look here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3952432/

All you will see is percentages and probabilities. Doctors are not fortune tellers who can predict the future. A doctor being realistic about how certain their estimates are (or aren't) is a mark of a good doctor. A young person with a spinal cord injury should absolutely be given rehab and given a shot, even if there's a good chance they might not walk again, because you don't know for certain, and rarely do. And it would be a mistake to pretend to be more certain then you can be, just because a patient or parents feels like it should be possible to be 100% certain. I wish that were the case, but it's just not that easy.

That the eye can only perceive 24 fps is a myth. Plus vision perception is very complicated with many different processes, and your eyes and brain don't strictly perceive things in frames per second. 24 fps is a relatively arbitrary number picked by the early movie industry, to make sure it would stay a good amount above 16 fps (below this you lose the persistence of motion illusion) without wasting too much more film, and is just a nice easily divisible number. The difference between higher frame rates is quite obvious. Just go grab any older pc game to make sure you can get a high frame rate, then cap it to not go higher to 24 after that, and the difference is night and day. Tons of people complaining about how much they hated the look of Hobbit movie with its 48 fps film can attest to this as well. You certainly do start to get some diminishing returns the higher fps you get though. Movies can be shot to deliberately avoid quick camera movements and other things that wouldn't do well at 24 fps, but video games don't always have that luxury. For an rpg or something sure 30 fps is probably fine. But fighting, action, racing, anything with a lot of movement or especially quick movements of the camera starts to feel pretty bad at 30 compared to 60.

From the applications section of the Wikipedia article on quantum entanglement:

Entanglement has many applications in quantum information theory. With the aid of entanglement, otherwise impossible tasks may be achieved.

Among the best-known applications of entanglement are superdense coding and quantum teleportation.[85]

Most researchers believe that entanglement is necessary to realize quantum computing (although this is disputed by some).[86]

Entanglement is used in some protocols of quantum cryptography,[87][88] but to prove the security of quantum key distribution (QKD) under standard assumptions does not require entanglement.[89] However, the device independent security of QKD is shown exploiting entanglement between the communication partners.[90]

A lot of Sci Fi and other popular media likes to misconstrue quantum entanglement as allowing for faster than light communication so that they can have faster than light communication in their story, often for narrative purposes to make their galaxy spanning epic possible on a human time scale. But as far as we know, faster than light communication is impossible. It doesn't mean quantum entanglement is useless or not an important scientific finding though.

I hear you, and I'm very frustrated with the justice system too. But you're constantly conflating the "justice system" and "the justice department" which are totally different things. Prosecutors don't decide who gets bail or not, judges do. Prosecutors do not seize things, judges make rulings allowing prosecutors to do so. Neither prosecutors nor judges write these laws, congress does. Are you advocating for some totally lawless system where prosecutors can go around acting as their own judges doing whatever they want? If prosecutors acted like how you're advocating here, every little thing they did would get reversed and Trump would get off totally free due to all the prosecutorial malfeasance.

Most of your anger would be better directed at lawmakers, judges, and the people who appointed terrible judges, than the prosecutors, at least when it comes to Trump's current ongoing cases (not Barr burying the Mueller report as much as he could to provide political cover for Trump obviously)

I didn't claim the additional material released didn't still have any redactions, read my comment before replying. And that was just one of many additional disclosures made, some were even forced by lawsuits. There's many reasons why something may be redacted. I seriously doubt anything still redacted is being done to help Trump, I think that would be a pretty nonsensical conspiracy out of a department pursuing multiple criminal cases against Trump. What on earth would be the reasoning or motive? If they thought there was another case in there they could win, well they have the unredacted report, employees of the justice department wrote it after all, they could add in a third criminal case to the other two they're pursuing. Some of the redactions relate to testimony presented to grand juries, which are secret (since there's no defense present in a grand jury, a public proceeding could be used by prosecutors to unfairly slander people, etc) which suggests at least some of the evidence was presented to grand juries who chose not to indict over it.

The initial report released under the Trump admin controlled justice department? Yeah that had a lot of redactions for Trump's benefit, made by Barr himself. Not to mention the heavily slanted "summary" released by Barr. If you want to dig into the reasoning for the redactions still remaining, well get reading the freedom of information act lawsuits that already concluded over this, but none are "to help Trump."

https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/EPIC-v-DOJ-19-810-opinion-093020.pdf

And launching multiple criminal cases against the guy seems an odd way of helping him, I just don't follow you.

I think little of column A, little of column B, a mix of malice and incompetence.