Nougat
- 0 Posts
- 126 Comments
1·4 hours agoIANAL (giggity), but I know that the law is all about detail and nuance and really getting in the weeds, especially when the stakes are high.
And that exposes a problem with juries: they’re not made up of legal experts. In a bench trial, where a judge is responsible for deciding guilt or liability, ideally there would be a legal expert deciding the case, on the basis of law - but judges are also human, and can be swayed by “extra-legal” concepts.
First, the goddamned video clip ends before Epstein actually excersizes the 5th. Bad journalists, bad!
Second, do not take any of my comments here as a defense of Epstein. Take them as a defense of Fifth Amendment protections that we all (in the US) possess.
The way I interpret this, answering that question would have implicated himself (Epstein) so he did not answer it.
Still not quite right. Answering that question may have implicated himself. Because answering any question may implicate the person being questioned in a deposition. Ideally, pleading the Fifth on any question shouldn’t cast shadows on the pleader, but that’s not how the investigators or prosecutors or jury or public perceive it.
On top of that, answering some questions and taking the Fifth on others is most definitely an even worse look, even though it shouldn’t be.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure edits take a lot longer to federate, it’s still wonky on my end. Federation is still better!
25·20 hours agoState and local law enforcement is not obliged to assist federal agents with their federal “enforcement” actions.
As old as he was the first time, I imagine.
Your link has a trailing ) that makes it not work.
Fixed: https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/dd84fb3c-163d-4957-a68e-d03a91638a07.png
“The no has it” are you fucking kidding me.
I just fixed one of my motorcycles, and I’m currently doing a deep dive on the pros and cons of phenolic caliper pistons. I could go on about motorcycling and vehicle mechanics all day every day.
Thank you! That’s exactly what I wanted to hear!
We’re in a pre-truth era. Always have been.
WSJ: “Oh, you’re suing us? LFG.”
He’s still president. Even if he wasn’t, his sycophants are waiting in the wings to carry on. What people think doesn’t matter until and unless there’s open revolt because of it.
That’s great! Doesn’t matter, but it’s great!
6·2 days ago… since most employers don’t want to foot the bill for actual due diligence …
Employers in the US can be liable for damages if they communicate inaccurate information about a former (or current, I imagine) employee’s performance if that communication negatively affects the former employee’s hirability.
Unless your former employer has detailed and contemporaneous records of your work history and reason for termination, and they’re willing to risk being taken to court over telling those to your potential future employer, they’re going to confirm hire and term dates, and nothing more. Everywhere I’ve ever worked has been like that; “If someone calls to check on employment history, you tell them hire/term dates and nothing more.”
Himself, with a dull pen knife.
My wife has accused me of mansplaining when I really was just sharing the information I had in my head about “the thing” because I was proud of myself about that.
There’s also the “You may already know all this, but it’s worth saying out loud anyway.”
I’m not saying mansplaining isn’t a thing - it certainly is - but there are other innocent “info dump” kinds of things that can look like mansplaining but weren’t intended to be. I try to be very clear about why I am info dumping when I do, but I’m not always able to catch myself in time.
#TouchOfTheTism
This sounds a lot like “Have you tried not being poor?”