Why is it 50/50 if she's innocent?

The claims she got from the psychic who was speaking to a headless ghost?

But she did plead guilty. She's a lawyer, are you accusing her of legal incompetence?

You kinda glossed over the "major disservice" part

He likes people that question the narrative even if he doesn't agree with their conclusions?

Is there another option? Or does it have to be this for everything else you believe to make sense?

Like could she just have been along for the ride?

*Costa Rican judge. I know it hurts the click count but it's pretty relevant

Why "have to"?

The crumble didn't really pan out, huh. Is this one of those websites that just tries to reinforce a narrative?

People jump through a lot of hoops to explain it away, just look for some of the more upvoted comments in this post. Usually boils down to "optics".

Whey is this still pinned after he lost worse than McCarthy?

Just ask Raffensperger and Kemp

"political hit team" happens to be "the largest law firm headquartered in the Pacific Northwest"

Were you the kid who would always say "I'm not touching you!!" with your index finger an inch away from someone's face? ;)

Do you think that's why it hasn't showed up at any previous court cases?

Criminal defendants can have their freedom of speech rights curtailed. I think this is a special case because of implications on political campaigning

Yeah I'd like to see the language used to define that term. In court they mentioned him calling JS a "thug"

Some context missing from that headline. He is restricted from "attacking" Jack Smith, his staff, witnesses or court staff. Not just "making public statements".

I'm assuming GAW content was posted on Reddit and they came to poke fun. Posts like this one invite the "that happened" or "and then everyone clapped" comments

I may have miscommunicated there, but yes we seem to agree that people are voting No based on trust (as opposed to feelings) toward the government, not on the content of the Voice proposal.

It sounds like u/Maccachook1 and yourself are voting based on feelings about the government, not the actual advisory body, so there's nothing really for me to debate here

Did you research the claims in that post? There is no mention of land whatsoever in the proposed constitutional changes

Yeah I don't see why all the hate either

So any real expectations for this, or just another "feint"?

I know people were saying it a lot after biden's inauguration. Less so after the Afghanistan withdrawal, inflation, etc.