SkyBlue

If, big IF, Youngkin is the pick it would be interesting to see how well Sears would do in VA

As do I which means we also get all of the minor league teams which is great when you have three monitors and games on all of every non Monday night.

Can their pitchers throw to first?

My wife's great great great great great grandfather was one of the signers was a fun family moment visiting Philly and seeing his name there.

Think i saw vote totals were along lines of Macron almost 7m votes Socialists 7m votes LePen 10m votes

Erie game is the free game of the day on MiLB tv

I don't disagree.

And now I head for the mountains, waterfall hikes, elk and bear.

I typically read everything from NR to NYT and WaPost and host of others. Too many look at who the author is or the publication and just discount it, like you here. There are some that is justified on all sides but living in an echo chamber benefits no one.

Im in no mans land at the moment as I despise both these candidates and wish there were better options on both sides. Oh, I'm aware of the echo chamber on this portion of the board, lol. The irony, for me and I doubt many here will agree, is that many of your concerns on trump running a dictatorship so to speak were present with Biden's covid policies. Or many governor's policies. Mandating an EUA vaccine was not something I agreed with. Firing first responders for not taking it I did not agree with. masking never had science behind it for the purpose of covid. And I could go on. For most part I read only this portion of the board.

From archive Actually, Presidents Still Can’t Murder People with Impunity'' Sorry for all caps and bold, still figuring portions of this board out.

And when the court gets a makeup you don't like, ie decisions that don't fit your beliefs, do you expand the court again?

I need to stop being on zooms/teams meetings while also posting and missing context of your posts which I may have done here. Instead dealing with reflectivity of mirrored metal on flight paths impacting air traffic and conducting study to reflect the rays paths.... Think I quit one of the two discussions for the moment, lol. Or both and go to the mountains instead.

They sent it back for clarification in a few areas which had not been done.

Is one scheduled, if yes, for when I had not seen one scheduled or even being contemplated by Smith or the judge in this trial? This should have been done prior is the point.

Uh, no they didn't. Read the ruling. They remanded it back to the court.

I decried that there was no evidentiary hearing and I speculated that the reason for it was to get the trial in prior to the election. So, I agree that Chutkan may be able to go faster than Cannon, that doesn't allow you to forgo requirements, such as an evidentiary hearing. Now Smith does that.

Apologies, recalled that after i hit post and was going to edit when you responded. I think there was one in favor of Trump and one in favor of Smith iirc.

True and I don't think many disagree with you on that. Yet rule of law still is to be followed and appeals are available for which Cannon has already been overruled by the appeals court once.

Such as?? Dearie? Others??

Not sure Shelby Miller is helping his value.

It shouldn't, it is ensuring that the rule of law is being followed as it wasn't. This thread as a whole has been an interesting read, this isn't directed at you to be clear. The two judges involved in Trump cases have handled the cases very differently one has continued to press for evidence to back up the indictments Smith offered in that case. The other judge has not done this and continued to expedite. The reaction on this board has been to villify one and praise the other. Praise the one who is following what the law requires the prosecution to do and condemn the one who isn't following the law. Or, did I get that backwards? Smith doesn't have a strong track record and that is continuing here.

Well to be fair the moron's you list don't have exclusivity on this playbook, it is found in the right and the left.

No, the case that was before them is what was ruled on and as there was no evidentiary hearing, ever, they remanded back to the lower court so they would actually do their job. Lets be honest about this, the case was always about getting to trial prior to the election and getting rid of Trump. In order to do this rules of law were NOT followed. I think it is obvious that most on this board seem to be ok with this as the goal, getting rid of Trump seems to justify the means to get there. This ruling said no, laws and rights need to be applied even when the defendent is Trump. This ruling actually protects all presidents going forward which is excellent. Now it is up to Smith to justify his indictment with an evidentiary hearing

Actually the opposite was done. This also goes to why most other prosecutors refused to try this case as they didn't think there was a case as was said prior.