Will Joe Biden be the next president?

[AccessBlaster]

Tucker is on the hit list, I'll be surprised if he last much longer. The left will not tolerate dissent of any kind

 

[AccessBlaster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1293577919613349888

 

[Steve R.]

To bad the student who asked Kamala about lowering the voting age did not see the video above. Video embedded in article: Kamala Harris on Reducing Voting Age to 16: More Voters Mean a More Robust Electoral Process

HARRIS: “I think there is no question if we are looking at what is going on in our country, we're putting more responsibilities on people at young age the larger number of people we can involve in the electoral process, I think the more robust it would be. I think one of the down sides but thank you do CNN for doing the town hall with students is if they don't write checks, they don't get heard.”

Based on the time stamps (if I have them correct), the video calling youngsters dumb/stupid making bad decisions occurred on April 10, 2019, while the video implying acceptance of lowering the voting age occurred on April 22, 2019. Quite a different stance. Where is credibility and adherence to what she says?

 

[moke123]

To bad the student who asked Kamala about lowering the voting age did not see the video above. Video embedded in article: Kamala Harris on Reducing Voting Age to 16: More Voters Mean a More Robust Electoral Process

Based on the time stamps (if I have them correct), the video calling youngsters dumb/stupid making bad decisions occurred on April 10, 2019, while the video implying acceptance of lowering the voting age occurred on April 22, 2019. Quite a different stance. Where is credibility and adherence to what she says?

Actually thats from 2015 while speaking about a program for low level drug trafficking defendants aged 18 to 24 when she was A.G.

 

[Steve R.]

Actually thats from 2015 while speaking about a program for low level drug trafficking defendants aged 18 to 24 when she was A.G.

The first words out of Kamala's mouth in the video are "When I am elected President ...". If what you are saying is true, then Kamala was running for President in 2015. Care to reconcile?

In locating another reference from National Review, posted on April 23, 2019.

Asked later about lowering the voting age to 16, Harris said: “I’m really interested in having that conversation.” Some Democratic bigwigs now think it’s time to have a conversation about Kamala Harris’s interest in “having that conversation.”

 

[moke123]

Based on the time stamps (if I have them correct), the video calling youngsters dumb/stupid making bad decisions occurred on April 10, 2019

I stand corrected. It was 2014.
there are 2 videos. you are refering to the video of her calling youngsters stupid. You are incorrect that it is april 2019. That occured in 2014.

Heres the full speech for context . . .

you can skip to @ 16 minute mark for her comment.

 

[Steve R.]

You are getting the videos confused. @AccessBlaster posted one video. I responded with a second video. See Post #203. Note that the video I posted started with Kamala saying: "When I am elected President ..." Also note the presence of the young woman, presence of the CNN logo, and the phrase "Presidential Town Hall with Sen Kamala Harris". Also note the absence of the Ford Foundation logo on the video I posted. Did you look at that video I posted and compared to your video?

 

[moke123]

Yes I looked at both videos.

Quite a different stance. Where is credibility and adherence to what she says?

You are comparing the two as if she is addressing the same subject. In your video she says she is open to discussing the voting age with her emphasis being young people are more engaged these days and need to be heard. A subject thats been discussed in the U.S. and around the world for a long time. In the other video she is discussing reducing recidivism rates and jokes about the age group being stupid. Context matters.

 

[Steve R.]

You are comparing the two as if she is addressing the same subject.

She may not be addressing the same subject, but in one case she is saying that the members of a certain population group require supervision because they are of a certain age, but she then turns around in another instance to say that they don't. Harris is changing her message to appeal to her audience rather than adhere to a defined belief.

So it has taken you three posts to clarify what you mean.

 

[Isaac]

for anyone still confused about the Jussie Smollett case and how hard it has been for the authorities to hold him responsible

Special prosecutor in Jussie Smollett investigation finds Kim Foxx's office mishandled case

Special prosecutor Dan Webb sharply criticized the handling of the Smollett case by Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx and her assistant prosecutors.

www.foxnews.com

 

[moke123]

for anyone still confused about the Jussie Smollett case and how hard it has been for the authorities to hold him responsible

Special prosecutor in Jussie Smollett investigation finds Kim Foxx's office mishandled case

Special prosecutor Dan Webb sharply criticized the handling of the Smollett case by Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx and her assistant prosecutors.

www.foxnews.com

Doesn't look as bad as the headline to me. Mostly criticized for her public statements and the cops for leaking info.
I've had murder cases that were suddenly dismissed only to be re-indicted later on. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion.
here's the report https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...ng-of-the-jussie-smollett-case-301113238.html

 

[Isaac]

Prosecutors have a lot of discretion

That's for sure. And, that's the point.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I should explain something for our UK friends. Moke123's comment about a prosecutor being allowed to withdraw and later re-indict someone is because the prosecutor is trying to make a better case going forward. IF for some reason the prosecutor "screwed the pooch" and botched the trial, our U.S. constitution says the person cannot be tried a second time unless some evidence arises to prove a specific type of misconduct. So they have to get it right the first time. Think of the infamous O.J. Williams trial, where everybody "knew" that O.J. had killed his wife Nicole and Ron Goldman. But they could not find the blades and that "glove" trick was actually technically wrong. ("If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.")

 

[deletedT]

our U.S. constitution says the person cannot be tried a second time unless some evidence arises to prove a specific type of misconduct.

As far as I know, UK has the same law too. After an acquittal judgment, no one can touch the suspect anymore unless new evidences are found. Isn't it called double jeopardy?

Maybe someone from UK can confirm it.

Edit: It seems that double jeopardy law have been dropped in UK since 2005.

Is Double Jeopardy A Law In The UK? BBC's New Crime Series Explores A Landmark Case

BBC Two's Catching Britain’s Killers: The Crimes That Changed Us explores some of the most monumental murder cases in history, many of which had a significant and long-lasting impact on the UK legal system. In one episode of the true-crime…

www.bustle.com

 

[moke123]

O.J. Williams

Simpson

Theres a movie on netflix "Double Jeopardy" Wife convicted of murdering husband but he's not really dead. She gets a free pass to murder him when she gets out of prison.
It's not factually correct but makes for a good plot

 

[deletedT]

Simpson

Theres a movie on netflix "Double Jeopardy" Wife convicted of murdering husband but he's not really dead. She gets a free pass to murder him when she gets out of prison.

I watched that movie a very long time ago, mostly because of Ashly Judd. I loved her movies then.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

So true, I meant O.J. Simpson. Fifty years ago I played music with a guy named O.J. Williams. He wasn't a killer but he played a killer guitar. Couldn't drive a motorbike worth a cent based on his most recent accident when I knew him. (I was going to use another C word but decided against it.)

 

[AccessBlaster]

The real danger to the Democrats is the item-by-item alienation of different groups of Americans based on adopting positions that please radicals but are deeply opposed by most Americans.

 

[Isaac]

I should explain something for our UK friends. Moke123's comment about a prosecutor being allowed to withdraw and later re-indict someone is because the prosecutor is trying to make a better case going forward. IF for some reason the prosecutor "screwed the pooch" and botched the trial, our U.S. constitution says the person cannot be tried a second time unless some evidence arises to prove a specific type of misconduct. So they have to get it right the first time. Think of the infamous O.J. Williams trial, where everybody "knew" that O.J. had killed his wife Nicole and Ron Goldman. But they could not find the blades and that "glove" trick was actually technically wrong. ("If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.")

That could be the reason a prosecutor withdraws a case, but isn't necessarily - and certainly wasn't in the Jussie Smollet case, if you actually read the story. In fact the prosecutor who settled with him on a very small penalty of 16 hrs of community service, clearly wasn't intended to re-prosecute the case. And, didn't. It took a special outside prosecutor, who currently is very much at odds with the original prosecution and has lambasted them for letting him off.

 

[moke123]

That could be the reason a prosecutor withdraws a case, but isn't necessarily - and certainly wasn't in the Jussie Smollet case, if you actually read the story. In fact the prosecutor who settled with him on a very small penalty of 16 hrs of community service, clearly wasn't intended to re-prosecute the case. And, didn't. It took a special outside prosecutor, who currently is very much at odds with the original prosecution and has lambasted them for letting him off.

You may also note, if I recall correctly, that the 2 witnesses had at some point refused to testify but then changed their minds. There could be a number of reasons. I've had many cases blow up due to credability issues with victims and witnesses.