deleted by creator

This, plus just how egregious was it?

No one is wanting to read these messages like they’re 50 Shades of Grey or anything like that. Well, there’s probably somebody but that’s not why most want to see it. Clearly it was not bad enough to get the police involved at the time, so we’re talking less than To Catch A Predator.

Ignoring the age difference for a second, because that part is not relevant to my specific point here… What some people consider flirty, others consider creepy. On a similar note, the same comment coming from a person someone considers attractive and from someone they find ugly often has a completely different reaction.

Doc says that it crossed a line, that’s not under debate by anyone at this point. He says there were no pictures, etc. exchanged, just messages and there was no intent to meet up or anything like that. On the other side one of the original tweets claimed they were sexting. Peoples definitions of sexting can vary dramatically as well.

So clearly the messages went over the line of being inappropriate, no argument there from anyone paying attention, but how far over that line was it? Were they truly explicit messages, or just inappropriate within the context of a 35 year old talking to a minor?

It’s an officially recognized spec, so Apple will ignore it as long as they can. Until they can find a way to make money from it or spin marketing as if it’s some miraculous new invention of theirs, for something that should just be how it’s done.

It’s the DOJ that would determine whether to prosecute. Almost surely there is a policy of not arresting sitting members of Congress, there are valid reasons for this. But if Congress expels him like they should… free game for the DOJ there.

Take the money then use it for something they are against. And make sure it’s known that’s where the contribution came from.

So the only products that met the budget actually approved by management.

He’s been using it to further his political career and court donations.

Prosecute him under 18 U.S.C. § 704

The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 amends the federal criminal code to rewrite provisions relating to fraudulent claims about military service to subject to a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both for an individual who, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds himself or herself out to be a recipient of:

• Medal of Honor
• Distinguished Service Cross
• Navy Cross
• Air Force Cross
• Silver Star
• Bronze Star
• Purple Heart
• Combat Action Ribbon
• Combat Infantryman’s Badge
• Combat Action Badge
• Combat Medical Badge
• Combat Action Medal
• Or any replacement or duplicate medal for such medal as authorized by law.

It wasn’t just “the corpos”, you can basically tie changes to the copyright system back to Disney trying to maintain a strangle hold on their fucking mouse.

https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/mickey/

That depends on if you see the current copyright system as far to start with. The current system is a far cry from how it was created and was co-opted by companies like Disney to maintain monopolies on their IP for MUCH longer than the system was supposed to protect.

Right. Contempt of Congress charges are submitted to the DOJ to prosecute. And the DOJ has the policy to not prosecute those situations, as I posted previously.

Executive privilege doesn’t just disappear, it would still apply to everything under previous presidents as well, but it’s the current President that determines whether to remove it. Biden a while ago said it wouldn’t apply to things Trump’s administration is being investigated for.

Contempt of Congress is determined by Congress, and that did happen. But the DoJ has a longstanding policy not to prosecute in situations like Garland’s. And even if it did, the DoJ determined the source of the contempt charge wasn’t valid, so neither was the charge itself.

Contempt of Congress is a crime. That being said, this was already addressed:

In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Justice Department official cited the department’s longstanding policy not to prosecute for contempt of Congress officials who don’t comply with subpoenas because of a president’s claim of executive privilege.

Garland is part of the current administration and the President has not waived executive privilege.

That left. And far as I remember it wasn’t a situation of being pushed out, he left on his own. Probably because he disagreed with everyone else about something.

Ironically with all the hubbub about Sam Altman, it seems like he somehow might have not been the clear worst of the bunch. Somehow.

Sort of. It’s there if you already had it. Otherwise it’s gone on new vehicles.

My model 3 still has it listed.

Almost like instead of relying on faulty AI predictions, they can just include that as a bio and search option. No bullshit AI necessary.

Increasingly likely? Clicking on the profile of the poster, they self-described as a professional shit poster.

It was clearly fake from the beginning. Of course it needs to be verified, we need to be thorough, but no trust should have ever been put into it in the first place.

It’s been made painfully clear this last decade or so that a lot of people are plain fucking stupid or incapable of making their own informed decisions, relying on paid media to tell them what to think following a specific narrative.

We’ve seen a lot of cases where people were villified by the media and then evidence turns up proving their innocence, or that the evidence we originally were presented was faked, out of context, or otherwise the opposite of what was claimed.

Just look at the recent back and forth both on social media and in “news” articles with that guy in Michigan and the suspended drivers license. It’s went from a guy in Zoom court while driving on a suspended license, which seems to be pretty clear, and had people viewing the situation a certain way. Oh but then it was just a State clerical error from something that was supposed to be cleared 2 years ago, to maybe he never actually had a driver’s license. So then what was actually suspended in the first place? And all that within just a couple days for a viral video.

We cannot simply trust the information we’re given blindly online, we as individuals need to keep in mind that even though things may look one way, that there is a possibility we are getting incorrect info, even from a trusted source.

There are a good number of people that actually take the whole “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” thing all the way to its extreme. Even with glaringly obvious public evidence before that.

It is the foundation of our justice system, as much as some groups are trying to tear it apart, even from within in some cases.

Of course. They assume that because they are dick and, that everyone else must be too.