I'll try to address your questions but I'm no legal mind which is why I wanted her view on it.
It tells you what she thinks about whether Trump is manipulating the system, or whether the system is being manipulated against him.
I would have liked a more explicit response, it felt more like political deflection tbh.
Do you think Trump is filing motions to manipulate the system?
There were some which I understood to be just to delay. Like repeatedly asking the judge to recuse himself while not offering additional reasons on subsequent requests. What is "delay" to me could be "trying to bring attention to a corrupt judge" to another, I understand that. I lean towards the former as the greater motivator.
I don't know enough about the legal system to answer most of the other questions, for example whether it's ethical/moral to delay the cases until after the election. Certainly it's not illegal, but one point often made is how much it costs taxpayers to extend it. Yes I know the initial cost of them even happening is enormous but we're talking about the use of employing delay tactics.
I believe Trump could run for president on his own terms while pointing out the hypocrisy of being singled out for ticky tacky charges while they say "no one is above the law". There's no need for him to capitulate and become a controlled candidate.
In my view he's trying to stay more favorable to independent voters who could be swayed by headlines.
The question was related specifically to Trump's case, but it was about the ability to use the system to achieve goals using means not for their intended purpose.
For example, submitting motions that you know will fail only because you know that everything will be put on hold until it's responded to.
People who can afford lawyer fees can game the system when it suits them, but I do struggle to think of another circumstance where it could actually be of use .
I would have liked to hear her view on it, given her experience in the courtroom. And the fact that she was a Haley supporter, thus a little more neutral.
Your copy/paste stopped right before the critiques of the move, which are worth considering.
But opponents of the measures have said the benefits are too skewed toward higher earners and that the state should instead put more money toward reducing the high maternal mortality rate and providing more services for people with disabilities.
“Now is not the time to be underfunding the programs that deal with these problems,” Democratic Rep. Denise Garner said before the House voted on the cuts Tuesday.
There are a number of details in the article that would answer your questions.
He has admitted that she told the truth, and even confessed to the church in the late 80s. He was given "counselling" for a couple of years and then allowed to continue his duties (.. so don't hold your breath waiting for him to be expelled). Like the Catholic church they seemed to want it swept under the rug.
Morris also referred to her as a "young lady" which she dislikes, as do I. She was a child and that is how she should be referred to.
And too bad Trump didn't get the same read from him as you, or he wouldn't have hired him as an advisor.
That was an impressive amount of effort!
What I can't reconcile is the comparison to the Powerball. In lottery there is one winning number, where here there isn't one anticipated outcome, but an outcome that was decided after it happened. So I guess my question to you is, how many "potential" outcomes were there, for all possible connections that could have been made? If the potential number of combinations approaches 28 trillion, then does this one remain special?
That is amazing, thanks. I'd much rather read all of that than take some random one-line tweet at its word, and it turns out that yes it was more complicated than they made it out to be. I hope everyone takes the time to read your summary.. but I think it would help if you edited in some formatting! Right now it's just a wall of text and obvious places for line breaks.
I hope it makes you feel somewhat better to know that "missing kids" statistics include mostly "runaways" (for example a kid returning home late and a worried parent reporting it to the police), and are found 99% of the time. Of course one missing kid is too many, but wherever you got that 185k number from it's probably much lower for kids who stayed missing.
And finally able to get to it! I'm glad to go through the exercise because if challenged on something that I took for granted (that Trump wants to delay the trials until after the election), I want to have more background on motivations.
Interacting with mods in the past has lead to my being banned, and I realize I have a lengthy "rap sheet", but you do come across as one of the more even-tempered mods so I'll allow myself to speak plainly.
For trials across the board, there were many calls for a mistrial (see trials for Cannon, Kaplan, Merchan, Engorgon). Below is one example, from the recent NY trial. Per the bolded part, I do concede that this tactic isn't exclusive to Trump's strategy. It sounds like the motion (for a mistrial) could also be used a set-up for a later appeal; again I'm not a law-head and this is the kind of thing I'd like cleared up by someone who is.
And I found some details about the motion I alluded to earlier (re-submission without adding anything new):
I couldn't get a good read on the presidential immunity motions. The lower court was quick to dismiss it but it's been sitting with the SCOTUS for so long. Guess we'll find out Monday whether it had merit!