Oh shit there's two of them? Cue the clip of them saying 15 year olds aren't the same as six year olds.
I've wondered if it isn't time for reporters to give up on the civility idea? Shouldn't the reporter simply ask why he as pal-ing around with a pedo?
But John Stewart also made some important points... I think he's right. I don't give a FECK who gets dragged into this, including anyone on the left. If they were paedos, feck 'em! The only thing to point out is that just knowing the guy isn't enough. There has to be some actual evidence of wrongdoing. I mentioned the other day about Bill Clinton having kept his distance from the guy precisely because he KNEW he was only after kompromat on people. If he hasn't done anything wrong and was only in contact with him as a donor, that's not an issue as far as I'm concerned as long as it was BEFORE his conviction. Well, US politicians having to deal with sleazebags is an issue, obviously.... but not Epstein any more than any OTHER sleazebag prior to him getting dragged before the court. I mean, all of these people meet guys like MBS and suck up to them, and he had someone chopped up like dog food, so where are we gonna draw the line here?
Yeah, same here. Like I said, just having met the guy doesn't mean anything but if there's evidence of wrongdoing, throw the book at them.
I can't speak for all of those on the left, but that is generally the view I have come across. No accusations of politics or "out to get" somebody, unless that somebody is a pedophile. Saw something on Xwitter yesterday trying to drag Jeffries into this. Because it was his fundraising team (or somebody like that) trying to set up a donor meeting which Epstein was also attending. Wasn't even stated that Jeffries went, just an email. Yeah, that was weird, yesterday, when a reporter asked MBS about the Khashoggi murder and Trump criticized the reporter for asking the question before MBS had a chance to respond.
The ruling is based on the fact that Republicans publicly stated they would be going against Hispanic majority districts, as a result, it violated the part of the Voting Rights Act that prevented race based gerrymanders. This is also the part of the VRA that a case SCOTUS is hearing that will likely kill that part of the VRA.
Roberts’ view has been that the VRA only applies if the racists take notes on a criminal ********in conspiracy. Texas Republicans are so arrogant and/or dumb they couldn’t even skirt that. This case might be interesting for that reason. Back early in Trump 1 they already ruled that Trump saying something on Twitter couldn’t be used as evidence on the Muslim ban. So there, the Supremes let him get away with breaking the Stringer Bell rule. It’ll be interesting to see if they’ll do it again.
HRC with some thoughts about how what's in the Epstein files can come out even IF Trump and his flunkies have tried to nobble the investigation She mentions something that's always fascinated me and was something an old mate of mine who studied history at Oxford always used to bang on about... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method It's also interesting to note that, with some of the GOP, the decision of whether to support DTH or not has become considerably more nuanced.
The dissenting opinion in the Texas redistricting case dropped today, and it is wild! https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-...and-order-granting-preliminary-injunction.pdf There is a 4-page “preliminary statement” to “highlight the pernicious judicial misbehavior of U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown”, the author if the majority opinion. Then the “DISSENT” opens with “The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newson”, and goes downhill from there.
Yeah, the profs on the Strict Scrutiny pod talked about this when it was issued. They often do segments within the pod on how demented the Fifth Circuit can be.