What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.65: I'm Just Here For The Lincoln Project Ads

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah the thing to remember (and i am sure uno has said around here) is that the feds will always take their time because they don't go to court and risk losing. If you look at federal trial records conviction rates are high which is why defendents plead out a lot. According to THIS:

The Pew Research Center funded a study into federal conviction rates last year. Its researchers discovered that only 2% of federal cases ever make it to trial. They also determined that at least 90% of federal defendants end up pleading guilty. Only 8% of those cases that are filed by the U.S. Attorney’s office end up being dismissed.

All but .04% of the cases that the federal government files end up in a conviction. This means only 320 of the 79,704 defendants that were charged in 2018 ended up being acquitted of their charges.
Click to expand...

The Feds don't make the big moves until it is a slam dunk or they have enough to bully a plea. They have all their ducks in a row, have back ups for the ducks and could argue the case blindfolded.

note: that doesn't mean anything will come of any of this...but if the Feds have people cooperating AND they got a warrant to go after Rudy they have more than just conjecture and hearsay. He is a very public figure and former political big wig (not to mention well known attorney in his own right) the blow back on such a thing would be huge. They obviously felt pretty confident they had enough to not look foolish.
 
Spartanforlife4 said:
Does a retraction matter this late in the game? Legally, I mean. Clearly the ship has sailed on forming public opinion.
Click to expand...

Well Newsmax named someone and had to apologize for it. They already retracted the earlier stories worried about being sued now it is all but a lock they end up in court...

In other news: https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1388310221496504320

Ex-state Rep. Anthony Kern, who was at Capitol riot, seen counting ballots in Arizona audit
Click to expand...

Sounds legit and not shady at all...
 
unofan said:
Fcc regulates the airwaves, not cable. So unless they're actually broadcasting where you can get their signal using an antenna, no.
Click to expand...

So even if something like the fairness doctrine was implemented, cable "news" networks would still ignore it. Interesting.
 
Bronco said:
So even if something like the fairness doctrine was implemented, cable "news" networks would still ignore it. Interesting.
Click to expand...

There's an old Supreme Court case where they basically said airwaves come into your house whether you want it or not, so the Feds can regulate them. But you have to invite cable into your home, so if you don't like what's on cable, you can simply choose to not have it.
 
unofan said:
There's an old Supreme Court case where they basically said airwaves come into your house whether you want it or not, so the Feds can regulate them. But you have to invite cable into your home, so if you don't like what's on cable, you can simply choose to not have it.
Click to expand...

Was that the Carlin case?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top