This is fake. Stop posting this. This guy's name is Anthony Zingale and he went to a party in Wisconsin in 2019 and threatened to stab a married woman if she didn't have sex with him. He was arrested and this is his mug shot.
Nothing at all to do with Teslas or politics. The left is screwing with us and you fell for it.
Some of us may remember a little-known secret service agent named Dan Bongino saying the same thing ten or fifteen years ago.
They didn't bother to remove the four screws that hold the license plate frame on?
True.
But things are the way the are at this time. We can wax poetics all we want about how things should be but right now we need to focus on how things are right now. Not how they would be in a perfect world.
I've seen Hillary.
If it's all the same to you I'd prefer not to talk about it.
I quote the immemorial words of Yahoo Serious from the movie "Young Einstein" when he said, and I quote, "If you can't trust the governments of the world, then who can you trust?".
I have said this multiple times on GAW and other sites.
The SNAP (Food Stamp) program is not a social services program. It is a farming program covered under the Farm Bill which is under the Department of Agriculture. It has nothing to do with social services.
Congress sets prices on commodities such as beef, pork, eggs, milk, and, yes, even sugar.
In the old days if a farmer or rancher produced a certain amount of their commodities and it wasn't sold the US government agreed to buy it. Usually what happened is that the raw food staples would go rotten in a government warehouse. This was not a good option. So then the government came up with the "Free Cheese" program in which the government hired contractors to convert the raw material into products that the government handed out to those who qualified as "needy". But the problem was so much of it was very low quality and over half of the finished product ended up rotting in government warehouses.
So then the government came up with the idea easing regulations on prices and allowing farmers to be competitive and they took the money and issued it to those American people in need and allowed them to decide what products they would buy.
Now we're at a crossroad of where neediness meets luxury. The farmers selling meat, tomatoes, potatoes, wheat, and eggs are totally allowed to receive the benefit of this program while the farmers who work their asses of in the thankless job of producing corn and sugar to be used for candy and soda are not allowed to take part in the program? How does that make sense?
If the SNAP program was a social services program it would make sense to limit what food people buy. But it's not. It's a farming program and all farmers should be allowed to benefit from it equally.
She probably died of COVID 19. I don't know if you heard about it or not but it's been reported to be pretty deadly.
Don't you watch CNN?
Yes! Thank you!
If I was smart I'd start a greeting card company to rival Hallmark but I'd hire a bunch of Aussies to write the sentiments:
I dunno - the Septuigent is all Greek to me.
Amazing! That explains a lot.
Since I read your comment I did a cursory search but couldn't find this information. The stuff I did see didn't contradict this but was very obfuscating by focusing on what percentage of this little bit go to poor schools in poor neighborhoods and that sort of heart string pulling.
Where did you hear about this? You gotta link you could spare?
The problem with things like this are that Jesus taught in parable. When the words are re-written to be more modern and pragmatic it takes away from the original intent.
The user TaQo mentioned William Donahue. I think he made a good point with the modern phrase "shoot the bull" If the Bible were to be written today and it said Jesus and Peter went to the alley to shoot the bull about the day's events the New Translated version would say that Jesus and Peter went into an alley and fired a gun at a male cow. The meaning would be completely lost.
Tell her to start with the New Testament. Skip the Old Testament for now. King James Version. One printed before 1960 when they started taking out important things like fasting. Stay clear of the Scofield Reference Bible or as some call it the Scofield Study Bible.
The main goal is to listen to what Jesus is saying. Too many people worship the teacher himself but disregard his message.
I love stuff like this. Every time they do stuff like this they shed a thin layer of Democrat voters. Every time.
"We hired a performer who calls himself "Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey" because we assumed, as any level headed person would, that he would show up dressed up as Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain and read classic American literature or teach the kiddies about civics, but when Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey showed up he was dressed up as a rainbow monkey exposing his rear and he had a dildo with him. There's no way anybody could possibly have predicted that based on his name alone."
They issued an apology? Somebody needs to be fired at least and arrested at best.
If you tell a guy in a dress "Women are women and men are not women" they get mad. Why? Don't they buy their own bullshit. If they truly believed they are women and you said "Women are women and men are not women" then they would agree because they would think they are in fact women. But they don't.
I've seen the one with the boy and girl but I haven't seen this one. Is this the same girl from the other video?
The way she talks leaves no doubt that she's talking about things that really happened. There's no indication that she's lying at all.
He is survived by his sons George, George, George, George, and George.
What is this from? Who are the two people having this conversation?
I completely agree but I made the post based on the number of posts on GAW asking when we'll see arrests and trials and I started wondering of people really knew how things operate. When we were kids we played cops and robbers and as soon as we caught the robber the cop took them directly to jail. Sadly it's not that simple in real life. The real life process is more of a game than what we did as kids.
The idea isn't to arrest everybody right now because there is a chance they will get to go free.
The idea is to build an iron-clad case so that the jury can find them guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Life in prison or more capital punishment.
I have faith that the people working against the corruption know what they are doing and that they are being meticulous knowing that they only get one chance to get it right unlike we, the armchair radicals, who are chomping at the bit for a more reckless approach.
Good point. Most likely both depending on who it is and what they did.
Part two of two
- Trial After many weeks or months of preparation, the prosecutor is ready for the most important part of his job: the trial. The trial is a structured process where the facts of a case are presented to a jury, and they decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charge offered. During trial, the prosecutor uses witnesses and evidence to prove to the jury that the defendant committed the crime(s). The defendant, represented by an attorney, also tells his side of the story using witnesses and evidence.
In a trial, the judge — the impartial person in charge of the trial — decides what evidence can be shown to the jury. A judge is similar to a referee in a game, they are not there to play for one side or the other but to make sure the entire process is played fairly. Jury Selection
At trial, one of the first things a prosecutor and defense attorney must do is the selection of jurors for the case. Jurors are selected to listen to the facts of the case and to determine if the defendant committed the crime. Twelve jurors are selected randomly from the jury pool (also called the “venire”), a list of potential jurors compiled from voter registration records of people living in the Federal district.
When selecting the jury, the prosecutor and defense attorney may not discriminate against any group of people. For example, the judge will not allow them to select only men or only women. A jury should represent all types of people, races, and cultures. Both lawyers are allowed to ask questions about their potential biases and may excuse jurors from service. Each side is allowed to excuse certain potential jurors without providing a reason by using a limited number of “peremptory challenges.” Opening Statements
Opening statements allow the prosecutor and the defense attorney to briefly tell their account of the events. These statements usually are short like an outline and do not involve witnesses or evidence. The prosecutor makes an opening statement first because the Government has the burden of proving that the defendant committed the crime. Presentment of Cases
Witness Examination Following opening statements, the prosecutor begins direct examination of his first witness. This is the prosecutor’s initial step in attempting to prove the case, and it can last from a few minutes to several days. During direct examination, the prosecutor can introduce evidence such as a weapon or something from the crime scene.
Following the prosecutor’s examination of a witness, the defense attorney has an opportunity to cross examine or ask questions to the same witness. The purpose of cross examination is to create doubt as to the credibility of the witness.
After the defense attorney cross examines the witness, the prosecutor asks the witness final questions to clarify any confusing testimony for the jury. This is called redirect examination. Once the process of direct examination, cross examination, and redirect of all the witnesses is complete, the prosecutor rests his case. After the prosecutor rests, no more witnesses can be called to the stand or evidence introduced by the government.
After the Government rests, the defense has the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence to the jury. The defense also has the option of not having the defendant testify. There is no burden upon the defendant to prove that they are innocent. It is the government's responsibility to prove the defendant committed the crime as detailed in the indictment. The fact that a defendant did not testify may not be considered by the jury as proof that the defendant committed the crime. The defense may also waive his case. If the defense does not put on any evidence, the jury cannot assume that the defendant is guilty simply because they did not put on a defense. The decision to put on a defense is solely up to the defendant and the defense attorney. However, the defense will usually present its own version of the case.
Objections During direct or cross examination, either attorney can make an objection to a question or a piece of evidence to the judge. For example, a prosecutor or defense attorney may object to the wide range of the direct examination because it is beyond the knowledge of the witness, the attorney may be arguing with the witness rather than asking questions, or the witness may be talking about things irrelevant to the case.
Common objections include:
Hearsay – Statement by a witness who did not see or hear the incident in question but learned about it through secondhand information such as another’s statement, a newspaper, or a document.
Relevance – Testimony and evidence presented at trial must be relevant to the case.
The judge decides the outcome of an objection, sometimes after allowing attorneys on both sides to comment before making a ruling. The judge either “sustains” the objection so that the action stops, or they “overrule” the objection and allows the action to continue.
Closing Arguments After the defense’s direct testimony and cross examination by the prosecutor of all the witnesses, the defense rests, and the prosecutor and defense attorney prepare for closing arguments.
Closing arguments are the final opportunity for the prosecutor and the defense attorney to talk to the jury. These arguments allow both attorneys to summarize the testimony and evidence, and ask the jury to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty. Jury Instructions
Following the closing arguments, the judge “charges the jury,” or informs them of the appropriate law and of what they must do to reach a verdict. Jury Deliberations & Announcement of the Verdict
After being charged, the jury goes into deliberation, the process of deciding whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. During this process, no one associated with the trial can contact the jury without the judges and lawyers. If the jury has a question on the law, they must write a note to the judge, which the judge will read in court with all parties present. In federal criminal trials, the jury must reach a unanimous decision in order to convict the defendant.
After they reach an agreement on a verdict, they notify the judge, the lawyers, and the defendant in open court. Everyone is present in court for the reading of the verdict. The United States Marshals Service is present during trial to protect the judge and prosecutors from potential harm. If the defendant is found not guilty, they are usually free to go home.
- Post-Trial Motions
If the defendant is convicted, there are several motions that can be filed after the trial is over.
Common post-trial motions include:
Motion for a New Trial – The court can vacate the judgment and allow for a new trial. This is rarely granted, but may be done “if the interest of justice so requires.”
Motion for Judgment of Acquittal – Court may set aside the jury’s verdict and allow the defendant to go free.
Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence – Often successful for the purpose of correcting a clerical error in the sentence.
- Sentencing
A few months after the defendant is found guilty, they return to court to be sentenced.
The judge receives guidance and assistance from several sources in order to sentence a defendant. Congress has established minimum and maximum punishments for many crimes which the judge uses to craft a sentence. The United States Sentencing Commissions has produced a set of sentencing guidelines that recommend certain punishments for certain crimes while considering various factors. Further, the judge will look at a presentence report and consider statements from the victims as well as the defendant and lawyers.
The judge may consider a variety of aggravating or mitigating factors. These include whether the defendant has committed the same crime before, whether the defendant has expressed regret for the crime, and the nature of the crime itself. Death Penalty
The death penalty can only be imposed on defendants convicted of capital offenses – such as murder, treason, genocide, or the killing or kidnapping of a Congressman, the President, or a Supreme Court justice. Unlike other punishments, a jury must decide whether to impose the death penalty. Many states have stopped using the death penalty, though the federal government may still use it. The Supreme Court has found that imposing the death penalty on those under age 18 at the time of the crime or the intellectually disabled to be “cruel and unusual punishment” under the United States Constitution.
- Appeal
Even after a defendant is found guilty, they can appeal to the Circuit Court if the defendant believes they were wrongly convicted or the sentence was too harsh. An appeal is not another trial but an opportunity for the defendant to try to raise specific errors that might have occurred at trial. A common appeal is that a decision from the judge was incorrect – such as whether to suppress certain evidence or to impose a certain sentence. Appeals are complicated and sometimes result in the case going back to the trial court. A specific conviction may be reversed, a sentence altered, or a new trial may be ordered altogether if the Appeals Court decides that particular course of action.
Even after an appeal is decided by a circuit court judge, a defendant can try to appeal that decision to the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.
The United States Supreme Court — the highest appellate court in the American court system — makes the final decision concerning a defendant’s appeal. The Court is not required to hear an appeal in every case and takes only a small number of cases each year.
They might try but it won't work this time.