To clarify, when talking about Democrats I'm particularly speaking of the legislators not individual voters.
As the breakdown shows the electorate, either Dems, Repubs or Indy mostly fall into the middle but you'd be hard pressed to find a handful of actual Dem legislators, especially on the Federal level, that would take the stand that there needs to be some restrictions on abortion. In the current climate where the vocal minority dictates policy that would be political suicide for them.
Your contesting something that's not even being alleged.
No where do I state that they are exerting executive privilege to not release the report, I'm merely stating that as an executive branch document they are under no obligation to just freely release it to Congress. I've already stated that there are ways for members of Congress to see all the data, a subpoena being the most powerful tool in their bag, but that doesn't change the fact that voluntarily releasing the report to Congress or the public at this point is entirely up to AG Barr and not a legal requirement as the GGP stated.
Not to get into the whole abortion debate but that 70% stat is complete and utter garbage, at least how most people use it. Most Americans do in fact believe that abortion should be widely available but there is a dramatic shift when the question "at which stage of pregnancy should it be legal" is asked.
Only about 30% want no limits on abortion (and that number is sometimes a little lower depending on exact wording) compared to about 20% who want it outright banned. The remaining 50% fall somewhere in the middle ranging from only permitted in extreme cases like if there is a threat to the life of the mother or rape to banned after a certain date. This falls right in line with the fact that the number of people reporting to be pro-life and pro-choice are exactly equal at 48% (and yes, you can be pro-life but want to allow for abortions in certain circumstances). These number have been repeated in pretty much every poll done on the issue over the last few years so you can pick your favorite polling service to check them.
So in the case of abortion only 1 party is following the hardliners in determining their policy and it's not the Republicans. Democrats have made it their policy to ban any restrictions, up until birth, aligning themselves with the 30%. While some Republicans have aligned themselves with the hardline 20% who want an outright ban most just want some restrictions which is more inline with the 50% who don't go to either extreme. On the Federal level the Dems are still holding strong on the 'no limits on abortion' policy while the Republicans are generally pushing to make it a States rights issue.
You can debate where exactly the line should be drawn, but unlike your claim, actually 70% of Americans are willing to draw that line somewhere as opposed to Democrats who want no line at all.
Secondly, the Senate doesn't care about gerrymandered districts as they are state-wide elections.
Which part of the law requires the unredacted report to be sent to congress?
Outside of the summation Barr already sent I don't believe the special council guidelines actually require any part of the report actually be released to congress. Congress is free to ask to see it but I don't believe there is any legal requirement for the Executive branch to share their report and don't forget Mueller's office is wholly contained within the Executive branch of the federal government. Congress already had their investigations which all came up to the same conclusion; no collusion.
In fact several laws already dictate that the unredacted report CANNOT be released to Congress. Grand Jury testimony and elements pertaining to classified materials have to be redacted though certain congress people on specific committees can potentially get authorization to see the classified bits.
Information relating to other ongoing investigations or information relating to unindicted third parties is being redacted on a selected basis by both Mueller and Barr, which is pretty standard procedure. This may also be potentially revealed to select congress people at a later date.
That all being said, Barr has already stated that after he and Mueller are done redacting the above sensitive materials the report will be released to Congress; probably within the next week.
I'm on Fizz and I get 10gb with unlimited everything nationwide for $44. They also have gifting (I can gift any amount of data to any other Fizz user) and carryover so I currently have 17.7GB available for this month. Since the carryover data is used first after 2 or 3 months you'll essentially have double your actual plan data available.
Had a similar plan with Telus, who I was with since the Clearnet days, @ $60 (without carryover or gifting) and called up to see if they had any kind of retention deal and they wouldn't offer anything so to Fizz I went. The next week I got a letter from Telus telling me my $60 plan was going to $70 so I guess I switched at the right time.
The big 3 in Canada definitely have terribly overpriced data plans but there are deals to be had if you happen to live in the right area and/or keep your eye out.
No it assumes, as the survey results this story is based on indicate, that a little under 60% of people using another paid subscribers account would get their own if they were somehow cut off.
You can argue the validity of counting that as piracy or the wording or procedural process used for the study but their numbers are based on the responses they got.
For Ghostbusters 2016 I think it was really less of an issue with taking offense that it was an all female crew, though there are always people who get offended when people mess around with established franchises, than the fact that they made that part of their marketing campaign which is the same complaint many people are having with Brie Larson's take on Captain Marvel. Larson has gone a little further with her awkward comments targeting white male critics, both for this movie and previous work, which just added fuel to the fire.
The fact that GB was generally a pretty mediocre film and then everyone saying that was accused of being a misogynist just made people push back harder, as is the norm for the internet. Trolls gotta troll but it's a bit of a chicken and the egg situation.
Write a good story and hire good actors, be they male or female, and then push the film on it's merits. If you're campaign is focused primarily on the sex or race of the cast or the audience then it doesn't speak well for the product which is what most of the people commenting on RT were saying.
I believe that's the problem this 'Space Force' is actually meant to deal with. Almost every branch of the military has some form of space operations (GPS/COMM satellites, long range detection, etc..) but with the same or similar systems being spread across 2 or 3 branches you get a lot of unnecessary duplication and incompatibility. You're also stuck within the hierarchy of branches who may not prioritize space based operations.
The main purpose of this is to create a specialized force to handle current and future orbital related issues. Most of these jobs already exist, this is just a plan to bring them all together into a single structure.
Zero rating can apply to any plan that has a set data limit which is not all that unique. It has nothing to do with paying a per/gb rate as most plans it applied to have a have set monthly allowance.
It's merely a system in which certain services will not be counted against your monthly data allowance so even if you have a 5 or 10gb plan you can still listen to Spotify 24hrs a day without having to worry.
Almost half of the homeless are employed either full or part time; they just can't afford housing. This is especially true in overly regulated California where the cost of development is so high and NIMBY policies make any type of affordable housing a pipe dream.
Cutting unnecessary regulations or increasing wages (through company policy not government regulation) are both ways that would drastically reduce homelessness. You'll always have issues with the extremely mentally ill sub group of the homeless population but outside of forced hospitalization there is limited ways to deal with them in any meaningful way.
I don't think the issue was ever really about Netflix paying for their connection but rather their ISP trying to cheap out on peering.
Most peering agreements rely on a general balance of traffic. In the case of Netflix' ISP they wanted to continue using standard peering agreement while greatly increasing their traffic. This meant that instead of a 1:1 data transfer they were demanding more like 100:1 while paying no additional costs. Some ISPs accepted this and upgraded their systems to accept more incoming traffic while others refused and demanded Netflix' ISP pay up for the imbalance. This is why it's possible to change your Netflix bandwidth using a VPN on some networks. With a direct call you'll hit the local ISP/Netflix ISP limit, but if you redirect through a third party ISP who does not have that limit than voila, 4k Netflix.
Netflix themselves worked around this by offering to connect their servers directly into other ISPs backbones, usually at no cost. Once again, some ISPs took this offer while others demanded payment to 'host' Netflix servers.
There really are no good guys in this situation. Everyone is just trying to save themselves a dollar while offloading their costs onto the next guy. The only real losers are the customers who have no control over this situation.
As the classifying authority the President can pretty much legally tell whatever he wants to whoever he wants. Not necessarily smart but also not illegal.
Joking at a televised rally about "maybe they can get her 30,000 emails" has no bearing on any actions some foreign power may have taken. The actual deletion of the 30,000 emails was illegal (as they were under subpoena) but in a discussion about Russian Hacking joking that maybe they have them is just that, a joke.
Very few legal scholars believe anything Trump has done has reached the level of Obstruction. The investigation continues unabated even though legally he has the authority to fire anyone involved, including Mueller himself.
What campaign funds has he misused? If you're referring to the payoffs they were all private payments and no one has made any claims otherwise.
Abuse of office because he revoked security clearances for people who no longer hold any position in the US Government? While a tradition to let high level appointees keep their clearances it is only that, a tradition. Any low level employee will tell you as soon as they leave their jobs their clearances are revoked. Regardless, a lack of security clearance doesn't stop any former government employee from spouting off on CNN, it just means they can't trade on their access for financial gain, which they all claim they would never do anyway so what's the difference?
Mueller investigations have so far amounted to next to nothing. The convictions are all process crimes (lying to the FBI which is effectively a trumped up charge (pardon the pun)) or completely unrelated to anything having to do with the election or Trump. The closest he has is Cohen who claims he was told to payoff Daniels to help the campaign. Even if true, it was with personal funds and would amount to a small fine. That's if it could be proven to be 100% true. All Trump has to claim was it was protect his family from the embarrassment and there's really no case (ex, John Edwards).
Trump may be immoral and brash but there is almost no chance he will be charged with anything that's even be proposed up to this point and while the House may impeach if the Dems take control there is no way the Senate will even convict and penalize him.
I'm not sure which international treaties you're referring too but a large number, if not a majority, of countries don't grant birthright citizenship and technically there is no legal requirement for the US to either.
The constitution grants citizenship to "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Children of foreign nationals are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States unless at least one parent already has citizenship. This is why as an American it is still possible to break several US laws when travelling abroad because you are still subjects to US jurisdiction but someone from France doesn't have to worry about US law when visiting Singapore.
Now there may be some court rulings but as they do not have a strong Constitutional backing a properly written law could override them.
There is nothing illegal or impeachable about actually enforcing the Constitution though impeachment being a political procedure technically they could impeach because he likes his steaks too well done.
What did Cohen corroborate? That he paid off a porn star and was then repaid by Trump?
If you're trying to refer to the Trump tower meeting, although it's been reported Cohen had knowledge of Trump involvement, both his Senate and House testimony as well as his own lawyer statements claim that he has no knowledge about Trump's involvement. Apparently it was all just another CNN fever dream and since no one in todays news offices ever bothers to corroborate anything or look for original sources the circle jerk of reporting made it a internet fact.
Trump's position has always been the same (his August 5th tweet was actually just a repeat of statements made a year earlier):
- Jr. had a meeting with a Russian lawyer in which he thought some dirt on Hillary was going to be dished and it turned into nothing.
- No one told him about it because nothing came of it.
- Talking with foreigners isn't illegal (even most legal experts won't commit to the idea that simply giving information is a violation of election rules. Even Politifact doesn't commit to calling it a crime).
The clearest involvement of foreign nationals and campaign violations would be Clinton using her lawyers to contract Fusion GPS to hire Christopher Steele to then contact Russian government officials to create the infamous dossier but even that is a technicality. It is illegal to hide the ultimate beneficiary of campaign payouts and burying oppo research under 'lawyer fees' is a textbook example of a breaking the rules. You could potentially make the same case for Trump and the Stormy payout but at that point you simply have a he said he said issue with Cohen claiming it was campaign related and Trump saying it was personal.
In either case, even if every possible allegation is true it would still amount to nothing. Both Clinton and Trump would be charged with campaign finance violations and as is the norm, pay a small fine.
The confidential information that these servers hold doesn't really have anything to do with voter registration, that's public knowledge (with a fee in some States) it's the contact and donation histories of party members.
So the voter registrations show Sally Joe is a registered "D" but the Dem database shows Sally also gives the max political donation to both state and federal candidates each election cycle and possibly some Democrat PACs as well. To some people that could be useful information but it's primarily mostly valuable to other Democrats.
Aren't voter rolls public knowledge in the US. All most States require is a service fee to get access and I'm assuming all political parties routinely pay those fees to get access to the breakdowns in each state and district.
The information usually contained in the parties databases is actual contact information like email addresses and I haven't seen any wide scale reports of registered Democrats suddenly receiving targeted political blasts from Trump during the last Presidential election. Hell the only story I remember is that the Dems were withholding that information from Bernie's campaign until he filed a lawsuit against them.
There is no "against the United States" aspect to the charges, it's simply lobbying on "behalf" of a foreign power without registering. Foreign lobbying probably makes up 50% or more of what goes on in Washington and a very large portion of that is unregistered. Violations of the registration regulations are rarely prosecuted and most times the person can simply retroactively register. It's basically the 'fix-it' ticket of the political world. I remember seeing reports of a large uptick in retroactive registrations after Manafort was initially charged.
I'm pretty sure those charges are just sticking around because of the money laundering he apparently did while working for the pro-Russian Ukrainians. Of course that was all pre-Trump campaign when he was actually working with the brother of the Clinton campaign chair so has no impact on Trump legally speaking.
As for Cohen's guilty plea on poorly defined charges, legally speaking this also has little to no impact on Trump. Even large campaign finance violations are usually dealt with through small fines and on the scale of violations, if it even is adjudicated as one, this is small potatoes. Politically speaking, by hiring Clinton's top strategist and advisor as his lawyer who then advised him to plea to a violation that's almost impossible to prove (John Edwards was a more straight cut case and even that couldn't be prosecuted), Cohen gave Trump all the cover he would need.
Speaking of Sarah Jeong, if you haven't read her timeline lately it's worth a gander. To try and bury her blatantly racist past tweets her current ones are all of the "puppies are amazeballs" and "I can't wait for Fall" variety. I was on the edge of my seat wondering just how refreshing that cold glass of water truly was on a warm summer day.
And yet if you ask which TOS they violated the answer in most cases is ???.
Gavin McInnes even put up the copy of the notice he was given when he was perma-banned from Twitter and the reason they gave him was literally a blank space. You'd think for a text based platform they'd at least be able to cut and paste in his offending tweet if they were actually claiming a direct TOS violation.
True to a point but as companies that hide behind common carrier protections they do have some legal requirements. With all this outright banning and/or shadow banning Twitter, Facebook etc.. are doing they are pushing very close or even crossing the line into publisher status. This would open them up to all kinds of litigation and is something I'm sure their lawyers are freaking out over every time one of these stories comes up.
How is removing security credentials from an ex-employee in anyway the same thing as banning and censoring? No one has stopped Brennan from blathering on about how "Trump has committed treason", or whatever his current ramblings are about. If nothing else it just endeared him ever more with the anti-Trumpers.
Security clearances are requirements for a job he no longer has and from his well documented track record of lying under oath about his own violations of the constitution while holding his previous position they probably should have been revoked much sooner.
I'll never understand why so many ex-intelligence officers get to keep their clearances once retired. If they require them for a new job they can reapply and get them reinstated or if someone in their previous agency specifically requests they keep them for future dealings then they could have them extended for a bit, if not then they are just a title being used to help prop up their street cred with the media which is not a valid reason to retain them.
The puncture was caused by the battery explosion itself. Batteries don't tend to fragment much when they fail just simply blow out at a single point. Just like when my tire 'exploded' due to faulty construction, even the guy at the garage described the point of weakness where it popped as a puncture.
Both linked articles as well as every other article mentioning this case all describe it as a spontaneous explosion with no outside influences mentioned. The fire departments statement to the reporters blamed the issue directly on the battery.
You'd think if someone was running around the store with a knife or screwdriver stabbing iPhones that would have warranted at least one mention in the dozens of write ups about this incident.
I think you were only seeing what you wanted to see.
"Physician, heal thyself"
Nothing in either the English linked story or the original source point to anything else besides simple battery failure.
Fighting over the semantics of 'punctured' vs 'exploded' is meaningless. Like almost every other li-ion batter 'explosion' in this case the battery didn't actually do a Hollywood explosion and fragment into a thousand pieces. It appears to have followed the same steps of almost every other li-ion battery 'explosion' and simply burst into flames when a small puncture occurred as the internal components overheated and expanded beyond the cases ability to hold them.
How do you think the various military branches control their drones? Handle their communications? Perform long range targeting? Observe high value areas?
It's all done through the use of military satellites.
This 'Space Force' is simply a concept of putting the development and protection of the US's space based systems under a specialized branch as opposed to the current system where every branch does their own thing and only cares about their final objective and not the technological framework that's allows them to reach that goal.
Other governments, China especially, are already developing weapons of mass disruption to interfere with satellite and ground based systems. All this proposal, which is not new, is actually meant to do is create a group tasked with developing proper counter measures as well as possibly some of their own similar offensive capabilities. And by offensive I don't mean killer nukes from space but the ability to jam enemy communications or disrupt targeting systems.
You can agree or disagree with how much should be spent on programs like this and whether or not it should remain spread across countless military branches and assorted federal agencies or consolidated into one department but the only idiots here are those who can't get passed the idea that this has nothing to do with 'marines in space' and all about developing and protecting orbital defense assets.
Slashdot Mirror
To clarify, when talking about Democrats I'm particularly speaking of the legislators not individual voters.
As the breakdown shows the electorate, either Dems, Repubs or Indy mostly fall into the middle but you'd be hard pressed to find a handful of actual Dem legislators, especially on the Federal level, that would take the stand that there needs to be some restrictions on abortion. In the current climate where the vocal minority dictates policy that would be political suicide for them.
Your contesting something that's not even being alleged.
No where do I state that they are exerting executive privilege to not release the report, I'm merely stating that as an executive branch document they are under no obligation to just freely release it to Congress. I've already stated that there are ways for members of Congress to see all the data, a subpoena being the most powerful tool in their bag, but that doesn't change the fact that voluntarily releasing the report to Congress or the public at this point is entirely up to AG Barr and not a legal requirement as the GGP stated.
Not to get into the whole abortion debate but that 70% stat is complete and utter garbage, at least how most people use it. Most Americans do in fact believe that abortion should be widely available but there is a dramatic shift when the question "at which stage of pregnancy should it be legal" is asked.
Only about 30% want no limits on abortion (and that number is sometimes a little lower depending on exact wording) compared to about 20% who want it outright banned. The remaining 50% fall somewhere in the middle ranging from only permitted in extreme cases like if there is a threat to the life of the mother or rape to banned after a certain date. This falls right in line with the fact that the number of people reporting to be pro-life and pro-choice are exactly equal at 48% (and yes, you can be pro-life but want to allow for abortions in certain circumstances). These number have been repeated in pretty much every poll done on the issue over the last few years so you can pick your favorite polling service to check them.
So in the case of abortion only 1 party is following the hardliners in determining their policy and it's not the Republicans. Democrats have made it their policy to ban any restrictions, up until birth, aligning themselves with the 30%. While some Republicans have aligned themselves with the hardline 20% who want an outright ban most just want some restrictions which is more inline with the 50% who don't go to either extreme. On the Federal level the Dems are still holding strong on the 'no limits on abortion' policy while the Republicans are generally pushing to make it a States rights issue.
You can debate where exactly the line should be drawn, but unlike your claim, actually 70% of Americans are willing to draw that line somewhere as opposed to Democrats who want no line at all.
Secondly, the Senate doesn't care about gerrymandered districts as they are state-wide elections.
Which part of the law requires the unredacted report to be sent to congress?
Outside of the summation Barr already sent I don't believe the special council guidelines actually require any part of the report actually be released to congress. Congress is free to ask to see it but I don't believe there is any legal requirement for the Executive branch to share their report and don't forget Mueller's office is wholly contained within the Executive branch of the federal government. Congress already had their investigations which all came up to the same conclusion; no collusion.
In fact several laws already dictate that the unredacted report CANNOT be released to Congress. Grand Jury testimony and elements pertaining to classified materials have to be redacted though certain congress people on specific committees can potentially get authorization to see the classified bits.
Information relating to other ongoing investigations or information relating to unindicted third parties is being redacted on a selected basis by both Mueller and Barr, which is pretty standard procedure. This may also be potentially revealed to select congress people at a later date.
That all being said, Barr has already stated that after he and Mueller are done redacting the above sensitive materials the report will be released to Congress; probably within the next week.
I'm on Fizz and I get 10gb with unlimited everything nationwide for $44. They also have gifting (I can gift any amount of data to any other Fizz user) and carryover so I currently have 17.7GB available for this month. Since the carryover data is used first after 2 or 3 months you'll essentially have double your actual plan data available.
Had a similar plan with Telus, who I was with since the Clearnet days, @ $60 (without carryover or gifting) and called up to see if they had any kind of retention deal and they wouldn't offer anything so to Fizz I went. The next week I got a letter from Telus telling me my $60 plan was going to $70 so I guess I switched at the right time.
The big 3 in Canada definitely have terribly overpriced data plans but there are deals to be had if you happen to live in the right area and/or keep your eye out.
No it assumes, as the survey results this story is based on indicate, that a little under 60% of people using another paid subscribers account would get their own if they were somehow cut off.
You can argue the validity of counting that as piracy or the wording or procedural process used for the study but their numbers are based on the responses they got.
For Ghostbusters 2016 I think it was really less of an issue with taking offense that it was an all female crew, though there are always people who get offended when people mess around with established franchises, than the fact that they made that part of their marketing campaign which is the same complaint many people are having with Brie Larson's take on Captain Marvel. Larson has gone a little further with her awkward comments targeting white male critics, both for this movie and previous work, which just added fuel to the fire.
The fact that GB was generally a pretty mediocre film and then everyone saying that was accused of being a misogynist just made people push back harder, as is the norm for the internet. Trolls gotta troll but it's a bit of a chicken and the egg situation.
Write a good story and hire good actors, be they male or female, and then push the film on it's merits. If you're campaign is focused primarily on the sex or race of the cast or the audience then it doesn't speak well for the product which is what most of the people commenting on RT were saying.
I believe that's the problem this 'Space Force' is actually meant to deal with. Almost every branch of the military has some form of space operations (GPS/COMM satellites, long range detection, etc..) but with the same or similar systems being spread across 2 or 3 branches you get a lot of unnecessary duplication and incompatibility. You're also stuck within the hierarchy of branches who may not prioritize space based operations.
The main purpose of this is to create a specialized force to handle current and future orbital related issues. Most of these jobs already exist, this is just a plan to bring them all together into a single structure.
Zero rating can apply to any plan that has a set data limit which is not all that unique. It has nothing to do with paying a per/gb rate as most plans it applied to have a have set monthly allowance.
It's merely a system in which certain services will not be counted against your monthly data allowance so even if you have a 5 or 10gb plan you can still listen to Spotify 24hrs a day without having to worry.
Almost half of the homeless are employed either full or part time; they just can't afford housing. This is especially true in overly regulated California where the cost of development is so high and NIMBY policies make any type of affordable housing a pipe dream.
Cutting unnecessary regulations or increasing wages (through company policy not government regulation) are both ways that would drastically reduce homelessness. You'll always have issues with the extremely mentally ill sub group of the homeless population but outside of forced hospitalization there is limited ways to deal with them in any meaningful way.
I don't think the issue was ever really about Netflix paying for their connection but rather their ISP trying to cheap out on peering.
Most peering agreements rely on a general balance of traffic. In the case of Netflix' ISP they wanted to continue using standard peering agreement while greatly increasing their traffic. This meant that instead of a 1:1 data transfer they were demanding more like 100:1 while paying no additional costs. Some ISPs accepted this and upgraded their systems to accept more incoming traffic while others refused and demanded Netflix' ISP pay up for the imbalance. This is why it's possible to change your Netflix bandwidth using a VPN on some networks. With a direct call you'll hit the local ISP/Netflix ISP limit, but if you redirect through a third party ISP who does not have that limit than voila, 4k Netflix.
Netflix themselves worked around this by offering to connect their servers directly into other ISPs backbones, usually at no cost. Once again, some ISPs took this offer while others demanded payment to 'host' Netflix servers.
There really are no good guys in this situation. Everyone is just trying to save themselves a dollar while offloading their costs onto the next guy. The only real losers are the customers who have no control over this situation.
As the classifying authority the President can pretty much legally tell whatever he wants to whoever he wants. Not necessarily smart but also not illegal.
Joking at a televised rally about "maybe they can get her 30,000 emails" has no bearing on any actions some foreign power may have taken. The actual deletion of the 30,000 emails was illegal (as they were under subpoena) but in a discussion about Russian Hacking joking that maybe they have them is just that, a joke.
Very few legal scholars believe anything Trump has done has reached the level of Obstruction. The investigation continues unabated even though legally he has the authority to fire anyone involved, including Mueller himself.
What campaign funds has he misused? If you're referring to the payoffs they were all private payments and no one has made any claims otherwise.
Abuse of office because he revoked security clearances for people who no longer hold any position in the US Government? While a tradition to let high level appointees keep their clearances it is only that, a tradition. Any low level employee will tell you as soon as they leave their jobs their clearances are revoked. Regardless, a lack of security clearance doesn't stop any former government employee from spouting off on CNN, it just means they can't trade on their access for financial gain, which they all claim they would never do anyway so what's the difference?
Mueller investigations have so far amounted to next to nothing. The convictions are all process crimes (lying to the FBI which is effectively a trumped up charge (pardon the pun)) or completely unrelated to anything having to do with the election or Trump. The closest he has is Cohen who claims he was told to payoff Daniels to help the campaign. Even if true, it was with personal funds and would amount to a small fine. That's if it could be proven to be 100% true. All Trump has to claim was it was protect his family from the embarrassment and there's really no case (ex, John Edwards).
Trump may be immoral and brash but there is almost no chance he will be charged with anything that's even be proposed up to this point and while the House may impeach if the Dems take control there is no way the Senate will even convict and penalize him.
I'm not sure which international treaties you're referring too but a large number, if not a majority, of countries don't grant birthright citizenship and technically there is no legal requirement for the US to either.
The constitution grants citizenship to "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Children of foreign nationals are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States unless at least one parent already has citizenship. This is why as an American it is still possible to break several US laws when travelling abroad because you are still subjects to US jurisdiction but someone from France doesn't have to worry about US law when visiting Singapore.
Now there may be some court rulings but as they do not have a strong Constitutional backing a properly written law could override them.
There is nothing illegal or impeachable about actually enforcing the Constitution though impeachment being a political procedure technically they could impeach because he likes his steaks too well done.
What did Cohen corroborate? That he paid off a porn star and was then repaid by Trump?
If you're trying to refer to the Trump tower meeting, although it's been reported Cohen had knowledge of Trump involvement, both his Senate and House testimony as well as his own lawyer statements claim that he has no knowledge about Trump's involvement. Apparently it was all just another CNN fever dream and since no one in todays news offices ever bothers to corroborate anything or look for original sources the circle jerk of reporting made it a internet fact.
Trump's position has always been the same (his August 5th tweet was actually just a repeat of statements made a year earlier):
- Jr. had a meeting with a Russian lawyer in which he thought some dirt on Hillary was going to be dished and it turned into nothing.
- No one told him about it because nothing came of it.
- Talking with foreigners isn't illegal (even most legal experts won't commit to the idea that simply giving information is a violation of election rules. Even Politifact doesn't commit to calling it a crime).
The clearest involvement of foreign nationals and campaign violations would be Clinton using her lawyers to contract Fusion GPS to hire Christopher Steele to then contact Russian government officials to create the infamous dossier but even that is a technicality. It is illegal to hide the ultimate beneficiary of campaign payouts and burying oppo research under 'lawyer fees' is a textbook example of a breaking the rules. You could potentially make the same case for Trump and the Stormy payout but at that point you simply have a he said he said issue with Cohen claiming it was campaign related and Trump saying it was personal.
In either case, even if every possible allegation is true it would still amount to nothing. Both Clinton and Trump would be charged with campaign finance violations and as is the norm, pay a small fine.
The confidential information that these servers hold doesn't really have anything to do with voter registration, that's public knowledge (with a fee in some States) it's the contact and donation histories of party members.
So the voter registrations show Sally Joe is a registered "D" but the Dem database shows Sally also gives the max political donation to both state and federal candidates each election cycle and possibly some Democrat PACs as well. To some people that could be useful information but it's primarily mostly valuable to other Democrats.
Aren't voter rolls public knowledge in the US. All most States require is a service fee to get access and I'm assuming all political parties routinely pay those fees to get access to the breakdowns in each state and district.
The information usually contained in the parties databases is actual contact information like email addresses and I haven't seen any wide scale reports of registered Democrats suddenly receiving targeted political blasts from Trump during the last Presidential election. Hell the only story I remember is that the Dems were withholding that information from Bernie's campaign until he filed a lawsuit against them.
There is no "against the United States" aspect to the charges, it's simply lobbying on "behalf" of a foreign power without registering. Foreign lobbying probably makes up 50% or more of what goes on in Washington and a very large portion of that is unregistered. Violations of the registration regulations are rarely prosecuted and most times the person can simply retroactively register. It's basically the 'fix-it' ticket of the political world. I remember seeing reports of a large uptick in retroactive registrations after Manafort was initially charged.
I'm pretty sure those charges are just sticking around because of the money laundering he apparently did while working for the pro-Russian Ukrainians. Of course that was all pre-Trump campaign when he was actually working with the brother of the Clinton campaign chair so has no impact on Trump legally speaking.
As for Cohen's guilty plea on poorly defined charges, legally speaking this also has little to no impact on Trump. Even large campaign finance violations are usually dealt with through small fines and on the scale of violations, if it even is adjudicated as one, this is small potatoes. Politically speaking, by hiring Clinton's top strategist and advisor as his lawyer who then advised him to plea to a violation that's almost impossible to prove (John Edwards was a more straight cut case and even that couldn't be prosecuted), Cohen gave Trump all the cover he would need.
Speaking of Sarah Jeong, if you haven't read her timeline lately it's worth a gander. To try and bury her blatantly racist past tweets her current ones are all of the "puppies are amazeballs" and "I can't wait for Fall" variety. I was on the edge of my seat wondering just how refreshing that cold glass of water truly was on a warm summer day.
Or being a 'Bernie Bro' who just wanted to prove that the left wasn't against the American flag (hint: it did not work out well for him).
And yet if you ask which TOS they violated the answer in most cases is ???.
Gavin McInnes even put up the copy of the notice he was given when he was perma-banned from Twitter and the reason they gave him was literally a blank space. You'd think for a text based platform they'd at least be able to cut and paste in his offending tweet if they were actually claiming a direct TOS violation.
True to a point but as companies that hide behind common carrier protections they do have some legal requirements. With all this outright banning and/or shadow banning Twitter, Facebook etc.. are doing they are pushing very close or even crossing the line into publisher status. This would open them up to all kinds of litigation and is something I'm sure their lawyers are freaking out over every time one of these stories comes up.
How is removing security credentials from an ex-employee in anyway the same thing as banning and censoring? No one has stopped Brennan from blathering on about how "Trump has committed treason", or whatever his current ramblings are about. If nothing else it just endeared him ever more with the anti-Trumpers.
Security clearances are requirements for a job he no longer has and from his well documented track record of lying under oath about his own violations of the constitution while holding his previous position they probably should have been revoked much sooner.
I'll never understand why so many ex-intelligence officers get to keep their clearances once retired. If they require them for a new job they can reapply and get them reinstated or if someone in their previous agency specifically requests they keep them for future dealings then they could have them extended for a bit, if not then they are just a title being used to help prop up their street cred with the media which is not a valid reason to retain them.
The puncture was caused by the battery explosion itself. Batteries don't tend to fragment much when they fail just simply blow out at a single point. Just like when my tire 'exploded' due to faulty construction, even the guy at the garage described the point of weakness where it popped as a puncture.
Both linked articles as well as every other article mentioning this case all describe it as a spontaneous explosion with no outside influences mentioned. The fire departments statement to the reporters blamed the issue directly on the battery.
You'd think if someone was running around the store with a knife or screwdriver stabbing iPhones that would have warranted at least one mention in the dozens of write ups about this incident.
I think you were only seeing what you wanted to see.
"Physician, heal thyself"
Nothing in either the English linked story or the original source point to anything else besides simple battery failure.
Fighting over the semantics of 'punctured' vs 'exploded' is meaningless. Like almost every other li-ion batter 'explosion' in this case the battery didn't actually do a Hollywood explosion and fragment into a thousand pieces. It appears to have followed the same steps of almost every other li-ion battery 'explosion' and simply burst into flames when a small puncture occurred as the internal components overheated and expanded beyond the cases ability to hold them.
How do you think the various military branches control their drones? Handle their communications? Perform long range targeting? Observe high value areas?
It's all done through the use of military satellites.
This 'Space Force' is simply a concept of putting the development and protection of the US's space based systems under a specialized branch as opposed to the current system where every branch does their own thing and only cares about their final objective and not the technological framework that's allows them to reach that goal.
Other governments, China especially, are already developing weapons of mass disruption to interfere with satellite and ground based systems. All this proposal, which is not new, is actually meant to do is create a group tasked with developing proper counter measures as well as possibly some of their own similar offensive capabilities. And by offensive I don't mean killer nukes from space but the ability to jam enemy communications or disrupt targeting systems.
You can agree or disagree with how much should be spent on programs like this and whether or not it should remain spread across countless military branches and assorted federal agencies or consolidated into one department but the only idiots here are those who can't get passed the idea that this has nothing to do with 'marines in space' and all about developing and protecting orbital defense assets.