Sulley? Wazowski?
prohibits any federal department, agency, officer, or employee from engaging in actions that restrict or limit the lawful free expression of Americans.
Semantic douche question: does that include telling someone to shut up?
[reddit ad] promoted by nomorerobotshq
What a username to be included in this preddit screenshot.
I'm jussaiyan... https://xcancel.com/TheOnlyDSC/status/1881435949940593081
How transpho-- oh, nevermind. Kamala's partner has approved.
Please don't get me wrong about my desire. Our difference here is what we consider to be a "worse" punishment, ultimately with timing.
This twitter post doesn't include a formal document, so I couldn't say.
The pardon documents are posted here:
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-joseph-biden-2021-present#19-Jan-2025-pardon
It seems each group has their own lengths of time.
Correct. There's still the issue of what preemptive pardoning should truly entail. So you could feasibly just start investigating them (probable cause or whatever?) because, by making the pardons, Biden has arguably identified things for which to pardon them.
Midnight armed raids, seize documents, arrest for whatever reason you like (blanket pardons cover all crimes y'know), build respective cases.
Perhaps guilt admission is no longer part of pardoning, but pardoning itself implies potential criminal action to be investigated.
That has been countered in 2021: https://xcancel.com/JayOrsi/status/1881358908109000948
In 2021 the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals set new precedent and ruled President Trump’s pardon of Clint Lorance did not imply guilt. That ruling has been cited as precedent in a 5th Circuit ruling.
Consider this act of "lawfare":
- Wait to see who accepts the pardons.
- Challenge constitutionality of the pardons.
- Jail "pardoned" people
for admission of guilt per precedent decisions on the acceptance of pardons.edit: guilt no longer implied per 2021 ruling on a previous Trump pardon.
I was going to say, I think something like this was discovered a long time ago.
What is there to say when it turns out that the majority of businesses are "minority-owned?" Other than the probable self-congratulations from regressives, that is.
In theory, other countries may eventually come around to find criminality in his actions. Unlikely perhaps, but I would think possible.
Suppose the pardons are upheld: Could some of these people still be forced to appear if there was to be some sort of grand presentation of the truth? More or less a humiliation ritual? Yes, it's a gigantic cope for me.
Imagine creating characters specifically for fighting and/or lewd games and then considering them akin to real life offspring.
I don't know why, but there are separate "tags" and "flairs." Maybe one is relevant to kia2 and the other to the wider .win site. Anyways, you can apply an "old" flair (it's the only option here) to your own post after posting.
40 years after We Are the World, surely Africa is being called upon by the divine to return the favor.
I get the discouraging and maddening aspect of the death of morals. I don't see where
These people vote
necessarily enters the picture here. These two seem somewhat savvy to how the modern world is and how to take advantage of it, at least in the short term.
This clip on its own doesn't show me much evidence to say they should have no voice in politics. They don't present a political argument or try to defend one.
shots of military vehicle interiors
I might guess they already knew about some of them before.
and locations
That, I think, is a much bigger issue.
How does the world save women from destroying themselves?
His name was Seth Rich.
More jerbs = line on graph go up. Line only go up.
Consider this possibility: Separating profitable sports from schools would potentially be better for elite athletes and force schools to provide students with a worthwhile education to stay viable.
This isn't entirely in the domain of NIL stuff. This is regarding school revenue sharing. The message is that funds dispersed by the school to students will be counted as "financial assistance," subject to Title IX rules. Third parties paying athletes isn't necessarily affected by this.
You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.