So what is your expert legal theory for why no crime was charged then?
Good question. If there aren’t arrests perhaps there were no crimes. Just things you want to be crimes.
Waiting for them to actually commit a crime is usually necessary.
Sure thing - it’s an excellent composition regardless of my nitpicking. I’ve struggled a bit with drone photography and this has given me ideas!
I like this a lot. Though I do think the “human” elements do detract from the desired effect a bit. Without them it’s more “abstract” and just leaves the lines, colors and textures which are fantastic.
Beautiful shot!
They’ve gone full Archie Bunker.
… Yes? Not sure how the second sentence is relevant though.
Do you mean to say it’s a bad idea to interpret a political slogan literally and in a different context from where it is meant to be used?
If that’s how you interpret “pro life” then you must be okay with this execution if you’re “pro choice”. The state “choose” to execute this man after all.
That doesn’t sound right… According to Cornell:
In some jurisdictions, prosecutors and defendants can work with judges to predetermine what sentence the defendants will get if the defendants accept plea bargains. In most jurisdictions, however, judges’ role in plea bargaining is limited. For example, federal judges retain final authority over sentencing decisions, and are not bound by prosecutors’ recommendations, even if the recommendations are part of plea bargains.
So the court can still sentence the party pleading guilty as they like but it sounds like they don’t typically have anything to do with the plea deal itself.
They also play a role in enforcement:
Courts treat plea bargains as contracts between prosecutors and defendants. A defendant breaking a plea bargain is akin to a breach of contract, which will result in the prosecutor no longer being bound by his or her obligation in the plea deal.
I believe the judge will have some limits set on what she can say, and she won’t be able to talk about details of the case.
I dunno - the deal is with the prosecution not the judge if I understand correctly… And judges can’t limit speech arbitrarily as people are finding out with Trump’s gag orders. I suppose we’ll find out soon though. If she has violated any court order she’ll likely be pulled back in to face the judge.
She has to testify truthfully under oath, but I don’t think it covers what she says otherwise? She may be trying to keep the mob from turning on her in the meantime.
I feel like Powell is a “true believer.” She’s convinced that she was right to break the law even if she admits to doing it.
We need something akin to a “vote of no confidence” when Congress refuses to work.
You didn’t pass a budget? Great, we get to elect new people who will.
There needs to be some sort of consequences for not governing.
You would do well to indicate in your posts that you know absolutely nothing about the topic and have no business discussing it then. It sounds more like a suggestion than a question.
Do you want a dictator? Or do you not understand that Biden can’t do that?
Are they? Where? It seems odd to me that a government would disclose how much everybody makes.
We definitely need to build more nuclear.
I really like this.