VakAttack

I mean....yeah, of course not, lol.

What did he predict? If it was wrong he probably deleted it.

Ech screwed himself. Just let him up, you clearly panic in any sort of compromised position.

I'm currently reading "The Invisible Life of Addie Larue." Really interesting story/idea!

No, I don't agree with you. Just because YOU don't know something doesn't make it a fact. Everybody who cared to know/didn't have ulterior motives knew this was exactly what he was facing and what the charges were. There was much discussion over how the charges were a somewhat novel legal theory. It wasn't as the jury was receiving their instructions that the State revealed like a game show what crime they were alleging Trump was trying to conceal. Prosecutors file vague indictments all the time, I deal with it constantly; that doesn't mean I don't know what they're alleging. I can then, if I truly don't know and/or want to lock them in, file a Motion for a Statement of Particulars asking the court to force the State to commit to a specific charge/allegation. This, of course, doesn't matter as in Florida the State is allowed to change the charges at any point up until the actual trial date. And that's just for piddling charges with regular people as defendants, whereas with high profile defendants, like, say, former presidents, the State goes out of their way to cross t's and dot i's.

Again, this is just flatly untrue. You can read the jury instructions, read to the jury before deliberation for yourself. Just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean nobody else does. He was charged with falsifying his business records in an effort to conceal his violation of New York election law 17-152, regarding conspiring to promote or prevent the election. https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf

Flatly untrue.

You don't just get to make up your own definitions for things.

Well, with the death of Chevron doctrine, I just think it ends up a non-starter. The nature of crypto itself and the emerging technologies is beyond the grasp of the vast majority of our (very old) legislature, and thus the reactions required would be nimble, but the people responsible for said regulation will have neither the knowledge (because they're so old/technologically stupid) nor ability (loss of Chevron deference means that any sort of regulatory agency will have to go thru Congress to get regulations passed, at which point the regulatory needs will be well beyond the conceived of regulations). The overturning of Chevron deference is truly one of the most consequential things coming from the first Trump presidency that most people don't know or care enough to reckon with, nor will it be recognized if/when *I poop my pants, don't laugh at me* hits the fan thanks to the overturning.

Somehow typing on my phone autocorrected here: "I would imagine there will be very little, if any, regulation..."

The swamp, within politics, is used to refer to reducing the influence of special interest groups and lobbyists. Trump is a part of the ruling class, he was president for 4 years, surrounds himself with lobbyists like Steven Mnuchin in his first term, and other creatures beholden to lobbyists like Marco Rubio and JD Vance this time thru. I believe the super scary, very real conspiracy theory you're trying to reference is "the deep state" not "draining the swamp."

The greatest trick he ever pulled was somehow convincing people he was not a part of the swamp, lol. The people that voted for him for that reason were hoodwinked and bamboozled.

I would imagine there regulation in this sector going forward, given how much crypto money went into this election cycle (successfully). RIP to Sherrod Brown's Senate career.

Two of the initial wave with serious sex crime accusations is impressive.

Good luck, be safe.

I thought he might get the nod for Department of the Interior. "Pillows are on the interior of the house, right? Seems like a fit."

He has now withdrawn his candidacy, which means he lasted less than a full Scaramucci. Is this a record for a failed nomination? Probably not, but still undeniably hilarious.

Yeah, but Block (and Peterson) are freshmen. Big gains as the year goes on is far from abnormal. I don't see it at all with Hughes and Ayala.

Who is more likely to pick off a weight where the other team is favored? 125: Can Peterson beat Spratley? Possible, but unlikely. 133: I don't see a realistic shot for Okie State here against Ayala. 141: Ryder Block over Jamison? Again possible if Block improves throughout, not abnormal for a freshman, but unlikely. 149: Can Carter Young beat Parco? Possible but I think this is unlikely. 157: Travis over Teemer? I don't think so. 165: Amine over Caliendo? Very possible, maybe the most likely upset pick. 174: Brands over Hamiti? This version of Brands seems like no shot. An interesting stylistic match up. Probably this is the next best shot at an upset IF Brands returns to form. 184: Arnold over Plott? No shot. 197: Surber over Buchanan? I don't think so. 285: Kueter over Hendrickson? Don't think so. I would say Iowa has more spots where they can pick off an upset, but Okie State has the most likely "upset" at 165. Next question is bonus points. We could see bonus for Okie State at 125, 141, 174, and 285. We could see bonus points for Iowa at 133, 149, 157, and 197. I think Okie State's guys are more likely to pick up bonus. So, in essence it could be a real barn burner.

...maybe a little more fear was warranted.

This is objectively hilarious to put next to each other.

That just made me all kinds of sad.

Sigh.

In an ideal world, they would just beef up the already existing department; a new department doing something that already exists is inherently wasteful. But no, I don't have a problem with trying to curb wasteful spending.