By LFMartins86 Go To PostOne wonders how he ever got convicted.
"We don't wanna fill the holes for the prosecution"
Basically Freudian slip that calling them as witnesses would've sealed the case for the prosecution unless they were willing to perjure themselves.
By reilo Go To PostBold strategy, Cotton
Trump is now complaining about the gag order in the case, which he falsely attributed to President Biden even though it was imposed by the judge. The court, he says, “is in total conjunction with the White House and the DOJ,” a claim for which there is no evidence
Trump repeats his now-familiar complaints about Justice Merchan, who presided over his trial, accusing him of bias because of rulings he made about witnesses and who could be called to the stand..
Within a year of the rule’s adoption in 2021, Colorado’s Department of Transportation, or CDOT, had canceled two major highway expansions, including Interstate 25, and shifted $100 million to transit projects. In 2022, a regional planning body in Denver reallocated $900 million from highway expansions to so-called multimodal projects, including faster buses and better bike lanes.Hopium?
Now, other states are following Colorado’s lead. Last year, Minnesota passed a $7.8 billion transportation spending package with provisions modeled on Colorado’s greenhouse gas rule. Any project that added road capacity would have to demonstrate how it contributed to statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets. Maryland is considering similar legislation, as is New York.
“We’re now hoping that there’s some kind of domino effect,” said Ben Holland, a manager at RMI, a national sustainability nonprofit. “We really regard the Colorado rule as the gold standard for how states should address transportation climate strategy.”
That won’t be easy. States have almost unilateral power to determine how billions of dollars in federal transportation funding is spent. A recent analysis showed that more than half of $1.2 trillion enabled by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 will be spent on highway expansion and resurfacing.
Gonna be hilarious going from one state to another where depending on the political party in power you may be in a Mad Max universe or Japan
By reilo Go To PostHopium?Wasn’t Colorado the first to make weed legal ? They leading the way for a better future for some of us
Gonna be hilarious going from one state to another where depending on the political party in power you may be in a Mad Max universe or Japan
President Biden said Friday that Hamas was no longer capable of carrying out a major terror attack on Israel and declared that it was time for a permanent cease-fire in Gaza.https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/31/world/israel-gaza-war-hamas-rafah
“At this point, Hamas is no longer capable of carrying out another Oct. 7,” Mr. Biden said from the White House. “It’s time for this war to end, for the day after to begin.”
NY Times tomorrow: "Why Biden calling for a permanent cease-fire the day after Trump's felony conviction is bad news for his re-election campaign"
Didn't the Israeli government just turn down a deal like this, recently?
I see. So, schrodinger's Hamas agent is still in play, and they can keep terrorising Palestinians.
A first phase lasts six weeks includes a "full and complete ceasefire", withdrawal of Israeli forces from all populated areas of Gazah
I see. So, schrodinger's Hamas agent is still in play, and they can keep terrorising Palestinians.
In other, less interesting news, we're about to elect our first woman president on Sunday m9s.
It almost makes you feel like you're being a part of history or something something meme
It almost makes you feel like you're being a part of history or something something meme
By inky Go To PostIn other, less interesting news, we're about to elect our first woman president on Sunday m9s.Congrats m8. Women get things done 💪
It almost makes you feel like you're being a part of history or something something meme
By FortuneFaded Go To PostCongrats m8. Women get things done 💪Those 3 are like every woman who used to be in my mother's workers women's union lol.
Must have realized the chances of grifting any money from the US got a lot smaller after Trump's conviction.
Probably the best chance in all of history to squeeze and wipe out the Tories too. And if he's successful at doing that then it's payday.
https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits
Nine witnesses in the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have received significant financial benefits, including large raises from his campaign, severance packages, new jobs, and a grant of shares and cash from Trump’s media company.
The benefits have flowed from Trump’s businesses and campaign committees, according to a ProPublica analysis of public disclosures, court records and securities filings. One campaign aide had his average monthly pay double, from $26,000 to $53,500. Another employee got a $2 million severance package barring him from voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. And one of the campaign’s top officials had her daughter hired onto the campaign staff, where she is now the fourth-highest-paid employee.
By Lunatic Go To PostLooks staged
By rossonero Go To Post
I had to double check it wasn't the Onion.
US House is the onion
Thought Starmer was fucking rubbish last night. Sunak was too petulant, tetchy, rude, etc, but he was allowed to dictate and dominate the conversation by an opponent too concerned with the old ‘when they go low we go high’ doctrine.
Didn’t address Sunak’s repeated £2k claim. Didn’t point out the hypocrisy of him not raising his hand on not raising taxes while continually saying Labour would raise taxes. His final response to the Southgate question was piss weak. And he looked like a sociopath saying he’d let a family member die rather than use private healthcare, without hammering home his intentions to fund the NHS enough so no one has to make that choice.
Useless prick. Losing a debate to one of the most ineffectual Prime Ministers we’ve ever had.
Didn’t address Sunak’s repeated £2k claim. Didn’t point out the hypocrisy of him not raising his hand on not raising taxes while continually saying Labour would raise taxes. His final response to the Southgate question was piss weak. And he looked like a sociopath saying he’d let a family member die rather than use private healthcare, without hammering home his intentions to fund the NHS enough so no one has to make that choice.
Useless prick. Losing a debate to one of the most ineffectual Prime Ministers we’ve ever had.
That is a very stupid tweet.
Why wouldn't Starmer highlight a major failing of the conservative government? Lowering immigration has consistently been a big part of their manifestos and it is one they have consistently failed to achieve; even if you are very pro-immigration, demonstrating the lies of your opposition is always going to be good politics.
And even if that weren't the case, why wouldn't you address immigration? It's an important part of government policy. I daresay one of the reasons why someone like Farage is popular is because he talks about it, while the main parties are cowed in fear of guardian midwits like this. Or is it only Farage-ification if someone argues for lower immigration? If Starmer wanted to make an argument, for example, that british universities are too reliant on international students for funding, would this be verboten? The province of UKIP and reform only?
Why wouldn't Starmer highlight a major failing of the conservative government? Lowering immigration has consistently been a big part of their manifestos and it is one they have consistently failed to achieve; even if you are very pro-immigration, demonstrating the lies of your opposition is always going to be good politics.
And even if that weren't the case, why wouldn't you address immigration? It's an important part of government policy. I daresay one of the reasons why someone like Farage is popular is because he talks about it, while the main parties are cowed in fear of guardian midwits like this. Or is it only Farage-ification if someone argues for lower immigration? If Starmer wanted to make an argument, for example, that british universities are too reliant on international students for funding, would this be verboten? The province of UKIP and reform only?