Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted

That the framers never considered the possibility that a federal judge appointed by a sitting U.S. President who would later have to appear before that judge to answer for treasonous acts against the Republic could be in a compromised position?  I know they get a bad rap, these old white men in whigs...but fucking-A, how the hell could have seen this coming?  

Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I can't believe there are still people trying to give any explanation for Aileen Cannon other than the painfully obvious one.

Because it can only be one thing.  Okay, Curly.

 

m4x69c.gif

 

I think I'm on record for some time now that it likely is both bias and incompetence.  The fact that I don't predict the future or speak in absolutes should not be interpreted as a change in opinion just because I don't have a conclusion paragraph at the end of every post on the subject.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
27 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

That the framers never considered the possibility that a federal judge appointed by a sitting U.S. President who would later have to appear before that judge to answer for treasonous acts against the Republic could be in a compromised position?  I know they get a bad rap, these old white men in whigs...but fucking-A, how the hell could have seen this coming?  

Well, there is impeachment, but tribalism has all but nullified that avenue.

  • Like 1
Posted
53 minutes ago, dcbc said:

This is the problem with appointing ideologues to positions of power regardless of experience.  Elections have consequences.  The contrast between Cannon and Merchan could not be more stark.

I think it's ridiculous that the judicial system has no error correction mechanism when a judge is clearly not fit for the bench. I appreciate that such a mechanism would immediately be used as a weapon by the fascists, were it ever to exist, but holy fucking shit having no way to deal with it makes us just as vulnerable to extremely negative outcomes. 

5 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Because it can only be one thing.  Okay, Curly.

I don't think it matters if it's anything else, isn't that plain corruption enough on its own? Why are you surly lawyers bending over backwards to fondle the balls of a busted and farcical judicial system?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Of course you are uncertain as to if aileen is in the tank for trump. Heaven perish the thought of anyone in the judiciary not being objective!

It is still beyond me why you're such an asshole to @TwiceHorn as if he has any ability to remove the judge. Your otherwise a good poster. Here, you're just an asshole and should be treated as such. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Fair point on impeachment, but going through myriad Federalist Papers, the judiciary impeachment mechanism was largely performative.  To appear 'fair and balanced' and offer a level by which some psychotic, senile judge could be removed.  Prima facia, it does not appear to have been installed as a way to remove a federal judge from ruling on a President who appointed her.  And one day soon, when this question is taken up the SCOTUS...they will lean heavily on the fact that the 'Historical Precent of Strict Constructionism' of the Constitution does not preclude a Federal Judge from ruling on the person who appointed her, therefore she should be given every wide, legal berth with which to carry out justice.  This is it folks, this is how it ends. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I think it's ridiculous that the judicial system has no error correction mechanism when a judge is clearly not fit for the bench. I appreciate that such a mechanism would immediately be used as a weapon by the fascists, were it ever to exist, but holy fucking shit having no way to deal with it makes us just as vulnerable to extremely negative outcomes. 

I don't think it matters if it's anything else, isn't that plain corruption enough on its own? Why are you surly lawyers bending over backwards to fondle the balls of a busted and farcical judicial system?

Well, there is error correction.  But like I said, it's pretty well neutered by tribalism.

 

And dial back the hyperbole.  I don't know what you do for a living, but the fact that you indict the entire judicial system because some bad actors exist within it seems pretty ridiculous.  It's not perfect.  We get it.  But what most of us are doing our best to accomplish here (on Surly) is explaining how things tend to work for the uninitiated and calling out bullshit in the system where it arises.  And some of us are doing our best to uphold the pillars of fairness and impartiality within the system.I don't know what you expect anyone to do in response to your constant complaints and hand-wringing.  Sometimes it works.  Sometimes it's fucked.  It's a little bit of both.  But the fact that some of us are not running around here like our hair is on fire just yet isn't the equivalent of a sexual kow tow to something you're decided to be wholly ineffectual.  If there's something to be fixed, let's fix it.  How do we go about that?  Is it whining on the internet?  No.  But keep fucking that chicken for all the good it does.

 

Are you a shepherd?  What do you do for a living?  I'm sure your industry is a model of perfection.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
5 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Fair point on impeachment, but going through myriad Federalist Papers, the judiciary impeachment mechanism was largely performative.  To appear 'fair and balanced' and offer a level by which some psychotic, senile judge could be removed.  Prima facia, it does not appear to have been installed as a way to remove a federal judge from ruling on a President who appointed her.  And one day soon, when this question is taken up the SCOTUS...they will lean heavily on the fact that the 'Historical Precent of Strict Constructionism' of the Constitution does not preclude a Federal Judge from ruling on the person who appointed her, therefore she should be given every wide, legal berth with which to carry out justice.  This is it folks, this is how it ends. 

Yeah.  Tribalism.  It's there.  It won't be used.  Elections have consequences.

Posted
5 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Yeah.  Tribalism.  It's there.  It won't be used.  Elections have consequences.

So much this...  the real bummer is that the Senate is where this all goes sideways... and you can't even put it on gerrymandering

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, locodos said:

So much this...  the real bummer is that the Senate is where this all goes sideways... and you can't even put it on gerrymandering

"But her emails . . . "

 

I'm sure there are plenty here who just couldn't pull the handle for Hillary because reasons.

Edited by dcbc
Posted
8 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Yeah.  Tribalism.  It's there.  It won't be used.  Elections have consequences.

True, true.  There've been dozens of Federal Judges of myriad benches who've been impeached.  Most were discarded, never fully convitced, pardones, or simply lost to time.  Ricks of Ohio is about the closest parallel I've studied that comes closest to Cannon's situation.  But it's a far second place.  

But Aileen would do well to note that the odds of Trump winning a legit election in 2024 and upper her status to Courts of Appeal or SCOTUS are about the same as the Democrats taking back the House and retaining the Senate.  Which, even for those spineless folks, would spell out certain impeachment and conviction in both chambers for her.  Probably even loss of license.  Georgia is gonna carry their case through until the end.  Democrats may be forced to lay off the D.C. Inciting Insurrection case at some point to "work across the aisle."  But Aileen has to understand at some point between the 2024-2032 cycles, she will have to answer for her dodging of national security breaches.  Right now, she's trying to ass-kiss and delay for Trump.  But at some point in the next 8 years, she knows this will come back all on her because he'll be gone and she's left holding the bag.  She's naive, but she isn't stupid.  

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, safe sex said:

Man, when I'm out of my depth in something, I ask for help or for someone to take over for me so I can learn by observation. Yeah it's kind of embarrassing, but making a medical error is a big deal, so I try to err on the side of caution. 

Well, that evidences a certain maturity, professionalism, and subjugation of your pride.

Although I think it was entirely warranted, if the Chief Judge and another judge actually suggested that she decline the assignment, no matter what their stated reasons, that had to be incredibly professionally humiliating.  A judge voluntarily "recusing" (it's not really recusal if there aren't actual grounds) is the mark of a mature professional.  Again, Cannon does not seem to be that.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
20 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I don't think it matters if it's anything else, isn't that plain corruption enough on its own? Why are you surly lawyers bending over backwards to fondle the balls of a busted and farcical judicial system?

IMG_1325.gif.378e9d493f863d6fb1233db6237a729e.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, dcbc said:

If there's something to be fixed, let's fix it.  How do we go about that?  Is it whining on the internet?  No.  But keep fucking that chicken for all the good it does.

We go about fixing it by passing legislation

....

image.png.35754f1197aeece2c47620e97bfdc18f.png

So we're all completely fucked until our democracy's fever breaks or our experiment comes to an end. Last time things were this dire socially it took a fucking surprise outside act of war to unify the nation.

  • Like 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, locodos said:

So much this...  the real bummer is that the Senate is where this all goes sideways... and you can't even put it on gerrymandering

The fact that the senate was gerrymandered a long ass time ago doesn’t mean it’s not gerrymandered.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Because it can only be one thing.  Okay, Curly.

 

m4x69c.gif

 

I think I'm on record for some time now that it likely is both bias and incompetence.  The fact that I don't predict the future or speak in absolutes should not be interpreted as a change in opinion just because I don't have a conclusion paragraph at the end of every post on the subject.

Of course it can be both.

But if it's bias and incompetence, the bias is what matters.  Hell, if she were more competent, she might be able to be biased more effectively.

The point is that she's in the bag.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Of course it can be both.

But if it's bias and incompetence, the bias is what matters.  Hell, if she were more competent, she might be able to be biased more effectively.

The point is that she's in the bag.

Why does it matter, for now, if the outcome is the same?  Incompetence, if not cured, is a longer-term problem.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, elfenix said:

The fact that the senate was gerrymandered a long ass time ago doesn’t mean it’s not gerrymandered.

 

10 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

the original gerrymander

Yeah I get that, but my point is that Florida and  Texas have bat shit crazy senators...  you can't just blame the game (politics) you've got to blame the player (our fellow iggit countrymen)

 

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why does it matter, for now, if the outcome is the same?  Incompetence, if not cured, is a longer-term problem.  

Why does it matter?  Really?

Okay, let's say the Red Sox and the Yankees are playing, and they get notoriously awful umpire Angel Hernandez.  Let's say ol' Angel misses 30% of his ball/strike calls overall.

Now, in this game, Angel misses his usual 30% of calls in ways that hurt the Red Sox, because he's incompetent, but he misses 100% of his calls in ways that hurt the Yankees, because the Red Sox paid him to...  If he were just being his usual incompetent self, it would be hurting both teams more or less equally...

Now, this isn't a baseball game.  It's a judge who keeps fucking up in ways that benefit the completely corrupt side over and over again, and by the way, the defendent gave her the job.  Yeah, that matters a little more than the fact that she's inexperienced.

Edited by TexArcher
  • Like 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why does it matter, for now, if the outcome is the same?  Incompetence, if not cured, is a longer-term problem.  

One kind of interesting data point is that, like Kascmaryk, she's a "one man show" in her division, so a good place for forum-shopping for christofascist causes.

Yet, no one seems to be bringing cases to her, despite her seeming bias in favor of Trump, or conservative causes, or whatever it is.

Might be because she's a known incompetent.

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Captainant said:

We go about fixing it by passing legislation

....

image.png.35754f1197aeece2c47620e97bfdc18f.png

So we're all completely fucked until our democracy's fever breaks or our experiment comes to an end. Last time things were this dire socially it took a fucking surprise outside act of war to unify the nation.

As to my other question, not a shepherd.  Got it.

 

Some of us are doing our best to uphold the system from within.  Every fucking day.  For decades.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

True, true.  There've been dozens of Federal Judges of myriad benches who've been impeached.  Most were discarded, never fully convitced, pardones, or simply lost to time.  Ricks of Ohio is about the closest parallel I've studied that comes closest to Cannon's situation.  But it's a far second place.  

But Aileen would do well to note that the odds of Trump winning a legit election in 2024 and upper her status to Courts of Appeal or SCOTUS are about the same as the Democrats taking back the House and retaining the Senate.  Which, even for those spineless folks, would spell out certain impeachment and conviction in both chambers for her.  Probably even loss of license.  Georgia is gonna carry their case through until the end.  Democrats may be forced to lay off the D.C. Inciting Insurrection case at some point to "work across the aisle."  But Aileen has to understand at some point between the 2024-2032 cycles, she will have to answer for her dodging of national security breaches.  Right now, she's trying to ass-kiss and delay for Trump.  But at some point in the next 8 years, she knows this will come back all on her because he'll be gone and she's left holding the bag.  She's naive, but she isn't stupid.  

No one's impeaching her for this.  She faces no consequences beyond whatever the Chief Judge of the Southern District or the Judicial Conference somehow takes action (a la John McBryde).

As of 2017, only 15 federal judges were ever impeached and only 8 convicted following impeachment.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

the original gerrymander

Wut?

(Original gerrymander was done by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry's administration in drawing up STATE senate districts.

33 minutes ago, elfenix said:

The fact that the senate was gerrymandered a long ass time ago doesn’t mean it’s not gerrymandered.

While there has been SCOTUS case law involving gerrymandering involving senate seats (how votes were counted in Georgia Democratic senate primary, Gray v. Sanders), U.S. Senate seats are specifically incapable of being gerrymandered so long as they are elected statewide and each vote counts.

Posted
1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

While there has been SCOTUS case law involving gerrymandering involving senate seats (how votes were counted in Georgia Democratic senate primary, Gray v. Sanders), U.S. Senate seats are specifically incapable of being gerrymandered so long as they are elected statewide and each vote counts.

I may be misinterpreting, but I believe he means how Wyoming has the same power in the Senate as New York. In the Senate, land is what grants power - not the number of citizens behind you. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I may be misinterpreting, but I believe he means how Wyoming has the same power in the Senate as New York. In the Senate, land is what grants power - not the number of citizens behind you. 

While that is certainly an undemocratic aspect of our system, it is not gerrymandering in the true sense of the term.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

its a quip, not an etymology lesson.

Excuse me, but this is Surly.  We are firmly dogmatic here.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Wut?

(Original gerrymander was done by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry's administration in drawing up STATE senate districts.

While there has been SCOTUS case law involving gerrymandering involving senate seats (how votes were counted in Georgia Democratic senate primary, Gray v. Sanders), U.S. Senate seats are specifically incapable of being gerrymandered so long as they are elected statewide and each vote counts.

States were drawn and admitted specifically to balance first slaves vs free states, and later for partisan reasons. That's a gerrymander.

  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, elfenix said:

States were drawn and admitted specifically to balance first slaves vs free states, and later for partisan reasons. That's a gerrymander.

Yeah, 1889.  Omibus Bill that enabled the Dakotas to split and Montana and Washington to form states. 

Posted
1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

No one's impeaching her for this.  She faces no consequences beyond whatever the Chief Judge of the Southern District or the Judicial Conference somehow takes action (a la John McBryde).

As of 2017, only 15 federal judges were ever impeached and only 8 convicted following impeachment.

We were just discussing that mechanisms exist for removal.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that it might happen.  Quite the opposite, in fact. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, elfenix said:

States were drawn and admitted specifically to balance first slaves vs free states, and later for partisan reasons. That's a gerrymander.

 

24 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yeah, 1889.  Omibus Bill that enabled the Dakotas to split and Montana and Washington to form states. 

I believe the quote to which I responded contended that the ORIGINAL gerrymander was in the Senate.  The makeup of senate seats is in the Constitution, which predates the 1889 Omnibus bill by a few years, and I'm pretty sure (although I haven't done the research) that the original states and signatories to the Constitution weren't admitted to specifically to balance slaves versus free states but instead were all separate British colonies.  The ORIGINAL gerrymander got its name from Gov. Gerry, in a newspaper article that described the district that was drawn as looking like a salamander, and hence coined the term gerrymander.

I don't dispute that subsequent to the original gerrymander there have been political grounds for the drawing of state lines (all of which had nothing to do with providing representation in the senate to citizens based on the relative population of each state), but that's not gerrymandering.  Pedantic thread drift over.

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

I believe the quote to which I responded contended that the ORIGINAL gerrymander was in the Senate.  The makeup of senate seats is in the Constitution, which predates the 1889 Omnibus bill by a few years, and I'm pretty sure (although I haven't done the research) that the original states and signatories to the Constitution weren't admitted to specifically to balance slaves versus free states but instead were all separate British colonies.  The ORIGINAL gerrymander got its name from Gov. Gerry, in a newspaper article that described the district that was drawn as looking like a salamander, and hence coined the term gerrymander.

I don't dispute that subsequent to the original gerrymander there have been political grounds for the drawing of state lines (all of which had nothing to do with providing representation in the senate to citizens based on the relative population of each state), but that's not gerrymandering.  Pedantic thread drift over.

I responded to locodos, you responded to me (while also responding to the "original gerrymander" quote).

 

The original 13 weren't gerrymanders but many of the other 37 were. The term gerrymander has been around since ~1812, demonstrating that early on under this constitution politicians understood the power of carving electoral districts to benefit themselves or their colleagues  (and I very much doubt that Elbridge Gerry was the first politician to do so). Which is what a gerrymander, ultimately, is.

Edited by elfenix
Posted
31 minutes ago, elfenix said:

I responded to locodos, you responded to me (while also responding to the "original gerrymander" quote).

 

The original 13 weren't gerrymanders but many of the other 37 were. The term gerrymander has been around since ~1812, demonstrating that early on under this constitution politicians understood the power of carving electoral districts to benefit themselves or their colleagues  (and I very much doubt that Elbridge Gerry was the first politician to do so). Which is what a gerrymander, ultimately, is.

Yeah I got the point and concede that the states were admitted via a political process to balance various interests (most long since irrelevant)  But I was going more for a blame the red state morons approach.

Which I think everybody got...  but if not read on

My comment was meant to convey

  1. There are effective controls on the courts  (despite hyperbolic posts to the contrary)
  2. Those controls are largely wielded by the senate in the form of approval/consent (I know the house is needed for impeachment)
  3. The fact that the senate has not wisely used (or used at all) those controls is an indictment of their constituents because...
  4.  Senators are sent via a state wide election so that local level fuckery is not an excuse for shitty, unethical, hacks diddling the levers of power instead of wielding them
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Why does it matter?  Really?

Okay, let's say the Red Sox and the Yankees are playing, and they get notoriously awful umpire Angel Hernandez.  Let's say ol' Angel misses 30% of his ball/strike calls overall.

Now, in this game, Angel misses his usual 30% of calls in ways that hurt the Red Sox, because he's incompetent, but he misses 100% of his calls in ways that hurt the Yankees, because the Red Sox paid him to...  If he were just being his usual incompetent self, it would be hurting both teams more or less equally...

Now, this isn't a baseball game.  It's a judge who keeps fucking up in ways that benefit the completely corrupt side over and over again, and by the way, the defendent gave her the job.  Yeah, that matters a little more than the fact that she's inexperienced.

She's a judge.  Her job is to try cases, or at least ride herd over them until they settle.  Bias, as much as it gores your ox right now, affects only one party to one or more cases, or perhaps a class of parties to a class of cases (conservatives/christofascists pushing their cause).

In other words, bias affects a relatively small percentage of her cases.  Incompetence affects all of them.

And, kind of like jurors, it's impossible to entirely eliminate bias.  It often operates subconsciously.  Lawdogs encounter judges who may be biased against the defense, or the government fairly routinely.  There's a predictability to it.  Incompetence is random error.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

She's a judge.  Her job is to try cases, or at least ride herd over them until they settle.  Bias, as much as it gores your ox right now, affects only one party to one or more cases, or perhaps a class of parties to a class of cases (conservatives/christofascists pushing their cause).

In other words, bias affects a relatively small percentage of her cases.  Incompetence affects all of them.

I figured it out, you work at the DOT.  

Posted
True, true.  There've been dozens of Federal Judges of myriad benches who've been impeached.  Most were discarded, never fully convitced, pardones, or simply lost to time.  Ricks of Ohio is about the closest parallel I've studied that comes closest to Cannon's situation.  But it's a far second place.  
  


“Ricks of Ohio” sounds like a strip joint so shitty that if I signed up for a shift, I’d be the prettiest gal dancing there.
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Incompetence is random error.

Uh huh. And aileens incompetence has eclipsed mere random error, so I don't see your point. It's like you're #bothsiding that since some people are biased sometimes, it's justifiable that aileen is wiping her ass with the judicial process to favor trumpco. I don't understand this weird reflex on your part to defend the indefensible

  • Fuck You 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Captainant said:

Uh huh. And aileens incompetence has eclipsed mere random error, so I don't see your point. It's like you're #bothsiding that since some people are biased sometimes, it's justifiable that aileen is wiping her ass with the judicial process to favor trumpco. I don't understand this weird reflex on your part to defend the indefensible

I'm not even talking about Cannon.  I'm talking about bias vs. incompetence in a general case.

All she's really done so far is delay things.  I can't think of a single substantive ruling, final, that actually favors Trumpco in a serious way.

Of course, delay is what Trump wants, but delay alone is not meaningful evidence of bias.

ETA:  There are at this point two pending decisions that she could really fuck up (she came close on the PRA/Espionage Act non-intersection, but appeared to recover the fumble).  The first is the piercing of Corcoran's privilege under the crime-fraud exception.  That has been ruled upon by a judge I trust, Beryl Howell, and affirmed on the "Shadow docket" of the DC Circuit.  If she undoes that, that will be a big sign.  The second is the Appointments Clause challenge to Smith's appointment.  That's been rejected by numerous courts, although some of the spins here are slightly different.  These were the hearings conducted Friday and Monday.  She really shouldn't have had hearings on either of these issues.  The prior opinions give plenty of guidance along with the briefing of the parties.  Her attempt to rehear these issues in this fashion I think demonstrates her desire to play court of appeals at the trial court.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 


“Ricks of Ohio” sounds like a strip joint so shitty that if I signed up for a shift, I’d be the prettiest gal dancing there.

 

Welcome to stage 2, Ricks of Ohio.  Ricks of Ohio on Stage 2.  Take care of your waitresses, here we go with some Def Leppard. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

All she's really done so far is delay things.  I can't think of a single substantive ruling, final, that actually favors Trumpco in a serious way.

All trump really did was pay a pornstar. I can't think of a single substantive way that favors him in any way with an election mere months away. 

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Of course, delay is what Trump wants, but delay alone is not meaningful evidence of bias.

If you ignore the outcome that's being driven though this totes-not-spiking-it-for-trump that cannon has been up to, then sure it's just mere delay. But delaying past the election and allowing these issues of SELLING OUR NUCLEAR SECRETS AND HUMINT SOURCES to remain unresolved is just plainly and loudly stating to the world that we don't give a shit and our laws are inadequate to handle an existential threat

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

All trump really did was pay a pornstar. I can't think of a single substantive way that favors him in any way with an election mere months away. 

If you ignore the outcome that's being driven though this totes-not-spiking-it-for-trump that cannon has been up to, then sure it's just mere delay. But delaying past the election and allowing these issues of SELLING OUR NUCLEAR SECRETS AND HUMINT SOURCES to remain unresolved is just plainly and loudly stating to the world that we don't give a shit and our laws are inadequate to handle an existential threat

He's not even charged with the caps.



×
×
  • Create New...