fishbane

Like she claims both her parents were black to some audiences?

Sure. Does that matter? She attended Howard University. Is that a Historically Indian University?

Why would Harris need to pretend? She is black, no?

That is correct that the portal closes 5/2. I am less surprised that Davis hasn't hit the portal. His situation is different than Ryder's. The biggest difference is that Ryder used his redshirt and Davis has not. So he can wait a year to try and make the team and decide and not lose any eligibility. If Ryder stayed and can't beat Welsh he's used a year of competition. The arrival of Ono and Blaze isn't the end Davis starting. One could redshirt and the other wrestle 141 leaving Davis with the 133 spot. If Lilledahl uses a redshirt he could go down and wrestle 125. He also has the option to go down and challenge Lilledahl instead of Ono/Blaze. 4 guys into three weights that all have redshirts to use gives flexibility. I am more surprised Nagao hasn't entered the portal. He's used his redshirt and presumably was beaten out by Davis this year, meaning he could be 3rd on the depth chart at 133 going into next season.

Interesting I am not sure what time zone those news sources are using in part because I don't have a times subcription. but the AP on the Supreme court decision in the body of the article reads "The Supreme Court on Saturday blocked, for now, the deportations of any Venezuelans held in northern Texas under an 18th century wartime law." Seems impossible that it was authored on Friday. Anyway Saturday is what I have seen in virtually all other reporting on the matter. So you probably got this news fairly hot off the press at 6:30 this morning. In case it's tomorrow wherever you are have happy Easter!

That's how I'd vote, but I voted for Starocci this year.

I was thinking more as it applies to due process, whether the administration illegally sent him there, or whether they are complying with the order to facilitate his return. I don't think it does on those points either. There might be a slight implication that it does. For example as someone else pointed out possibly this means we asked for him back and said he aren't compensating El Salvador for his imprisonment and El Salvador said they aren't sending him back he has crimes he has to answer for here, but that is all speculative at this point.

I found that Smith only had 3 falls in 30 matches in 1994. He had 13 his junior year, 1992. I couldn't find the number of falls Fried had in 1994, but he had a bonus rate of 83.9% bonus rate in 1994 which means bonus points in 26 of 31 matches. Smith's bonus rate was lower, 80%. I found a full breakout of their career records. Fried had more falls and a higher career fall percentage. Assuming a constant rate of falls over all seasons Fried would have 6 his senior season, though I haven't found any example of a match he won by fall that year. Fried 128-6, 26 Falls, 1 FFT, 18TF, 53MD., Win %95.52, Bonus %73.1 Smith 122-4-2, 21 Falls, 2 FFTs, 27TF, 35MD, Win %95.31, Bonus %66.4

You act like everyone had been omitting these facts. They are new. The Supreme Court paused deportations today and the word that Garcia was no longer at CECOT came from Van Hollen yesterday. He also isn't free or on his way back to the US. Does being imprisoned at a different Salvadoran prison (Santa Ana) change things in a material way?

If Iowa lands the Raney brothers that will give them 2 top 5 wrestlers, 3 top 10 wrestlers, and 4 top 15. Each of these would be the most at Iowa under Brands. Iowa's previous best in a single season was 1 top 5 recruit, 2 top 10 recruits, and 3 top 15 recruits.

With Terry involved in recruiting Tom Brands has had 2 #1 ranked recruiting classes in 2010 and 2012. These are the only years when they had 4 top 25 recruits in a class. They had 3 top 25 recruits in 2009, 2016, 2023 and Tom secured 3 top 25 recruits at Virginia Tech in 2005. They also had the #2 overall classes in 2017 (Lee, Warner) and 2020 (Kennedy, Ybarra) despite only having 2 top 25 recruits each year. 2010 #4 Mike Evans, #11 Nick Moore, #12 Josh Dziewa, #19 Bobby Telford, and #31 Matt Ballweg, #74 Michael Kelly, #79 Anthony Baldosaro 2012 #15 Nate Skonieczny, #16 Thomas Gilman, #20 Sammy Brooks, #23 Cory Clark, #41 Alex Meyer, #198 Connor Ryan, #NR Nathan Burak

Brands 2005 class at VT was #2 Metcalf, #19 Borschel, #24 Slaton, and #40 LeClere. Total 6 AA finishes, 3 titles. Zalesky had a decent class at Iowa in 2005. #11 Morningstar, Keddy (NR), Erikson (NR), Dennis (NR). Total 9 AA finishes, 0 titles. Sanderson may have had the best class in 2005 too. #4 Sanderson, #5 Mueller, #10 Varner, #13 Gallick, Zabriskie (NR), Fanthorpe (NR). Total 12 AA finishes, 3 titles.

He wasn't the same year as Metcalf and co. Metcalf was class of 2005 and Murphy was 2006. Murphy didn't lose a year because he wasn't a transfer.

Not just me but the general public and most of the government too. If you know then please elucidate it for everyone. The terrorist watchlist has almost 2M people on it. I am many don't know how they got on or how to get off.

It is difficult to time the market. You have to be right multiple times to come out better off than just staying in. If you are 100% sure the market is going down, but not 100% sure when then it might not work out in your favour. Similarly if you wait too long to get back in you might lose out. The gains often come just as suddenly as the initial crash and if you're late and miss them it eats into your potential gains. Many people who get scared and sell on the downturn lock in their losses then stay out until things have recovered and miss out on the gains.

The problem with the terror watch list is that it's Kafkaesque. How does one get on it? What evidence if any is required to get on it? How do you get off it or challenge your inclusion? I recall 10 or so years ago after the Orlando night club shooting Democrats were proposing "common sense" gun regulations which included preventing those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms. I think the shooter's was on a terrorist watch list at some point. Oppose such a thing and you get accused of being in favor of allowing terrorists to buy guns. It's a preposterous assertion. If these people were actually terrorists then the government could charge them with a felony, get a conviction, and then they wouldn't be allowed to own guns under current laws. Those on the terrorist watch list are individuals where there is some level suspicion, but the government lacks evidence to pursue charges. It's a punishment without due process. Lucked into the right result shouldn't be acceptable. They've admitted the mistake under oath. They should bring him back and do it the right way if they have the evidence.

My understanding is that we, the United States, initially took him into custody on March 12. He was detained in US facilities for some period of time. It is unclear when he was transported to El Savador, but it's likely he was on one of the March 15 flights that the US sent to El Salvador. The administration has refused to release the names of the detainees on those flights even to Judge Boasberg.

The DHS lawyers that have appeared in court and filed the status update under oath have not made the claim that Trump requested Abrego Garcia's return from Bukele and Bukele declined the request. That would seem like an odd omission since the judge had ordered the government to file a sworn statement every day from an official with personal knowledge of the situation, detailing Abrego García’s location, his custodial status, and what steps—if any—are being taken to secure his return. The US President requesting his return and Bukele's answer sounds like something that should be included in the status update. Below is a link to the government's filing after the meeting with Bukele. Mr. Mazzara included an unofficial transcript of the video of the meeting which was limited to the public meeting everyone has seen. Trump did not ask Bukele in that meeting and the judge did not accept the transcript. He also wrote that if Abrego Garcia were to present at a US Port of entry he would be detained and either removed to a third country or sent back to El Salvador. How that fits within the definition of facilitating his return? I have no idea. I might believe the claim that Trump asked Bukele to return him if the government can find a lawyer willing to go into court/write it in a status update under penalty of perjury. I am skeptical they could find such a person at this point in time. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.77.0.pdf

I am not sure of the details of the agreement with the USA and the Salvador. I had heard that the US paid them $6million to house 300 prisoners for 1 year. Has the money been paid? Does the US owe $6M whether they send 300 inmates or 0? Or is the Salvador sending them a monthly bill based on how many of our inmates they are currently housing? My point is there might not bill with a specific charge for Abrego Garcia that the US could chose not to pay. If there is then I think we should stop payments for him and continuing to pay for him to be housed there would violate the judge's order, but if the deal was $6M for up to 300 prisoners for a year we are kind of screwed. We could try sending a 301st prisoner since in our mind we aren't paying for Abrego Garcia, but if they refuse to take the new prisoner without additional payment what do you do?

This topic is regarding the IRS re-evaluating their non-profit status. It is not related to the grant money. Behaviour certainly has consequences and on a private college campus those consequences are up to the institute's administration. This is similar to your example with RV potentially being disciplined by his employer for his words/actions at work.

Who won that fight?

I don't get it either. 24-1 with 4 falls. Who did he lose to that year? I also don't get the votes for the Iowa guys. Neither were undefeated and neither won a Big Ten title either.

My understanding is that there aren't terrorist activities going on at Harvard. What pro-terrorist activities are happening at Harvard specifically? A conservative or liberal lean to an organization is not a reason for the IRS to treat them differently. This was a big issue years ago under Obama when it was alleged that the IRS gave greater scrutiny to conservative non-profits. It would similarly be wrong now for the IRS to give greater scrutiny to liberal colleges and universities.

I think it is only criminal to provide material support to such a group. This discussion makes me think of that Russian-American lady who was imprisoned in Russia on treason charges because she had made a ~$50 donation to an American non-profit that was providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Such a thing is not illegal in the US. I don't know about your Viet Cong example specifically, but food and pleasantries sound like humanitarian aid. I mean feeding the military directly probably is, but I don't know if that was the intended destination. I don't think Harvard or the student protestors are in general providing material support to Hamas. There aren't doing a weapons drive to send to Gaza. If there are some individuals providing material support then I think the government should charge them with a crime and present the evidence rather than attempting to change the tax designation of Harvard, which makes very little sense.

I believe it's that he says he is not affiliated with MS13.