Sad thing is that I would be 0% surprised if the Pelosi’s were buying an extremely over the top FL beach place. They can afford stuff like that with all the insider trading money. They would obviously keep every other piece of real estate they own and it wouldn’t be to ‘flee the CA dumpster fire’ lol.
Christie’s issue is he has no PAC or National Committee constituency to buy tens of thousands of books. No Dem PAC is buying, and neither are the MAGA PACs. Who’s left? Whatever that thing is that Kinzinger started? Hard to move books that way.
3 Likes
Yea the story shouldn’t be “Christie’s book bombed” because his book is probably identical to every other conservative politician’s drivel. The story is that the public doesn’t give a fuck about conservative politicians’ life stories and the only reason these books sell is so that campaigns can launder money to the writer.
2 Likes
WTF is a Giza dream sheet and where do I get one?
And what does the coupon code BLP stand for? Black Lives Protesters (are destroying our heritage)?
Voice analysis/comparison with members of Congress results in a hit with probability > expected for a random sample of the general population imo.
But Steve Scalise!
1 Like
That dude sounds way too weak to ever actually do anything
idk I’m kinda numb to them, people have done them extremely frequently throughout history and even recent times and often are way worse than that.
He’s well aware himself.
I like how he was very deliberate about how he could not “guarantee” but only “almost guarantee” that she wouldn’t be alive much longer.
Everyone with an 80 IQ would agree. Proves the point, libtards.
1 Like
Thata the most amazing combination of words and graphs ive ever see
Lol they’re furious gerrymandering is coming before banning mask mandates.
I want to think that this is going to depress republican voter turnout enough to matter but lol. It’s probably the right political move. Rigging elections has more value than throwing red meat to your base.
Am I wrong in thinking that’s always been the norm?
I don’t know about sentencing. I’ve always heard it in the context of parole.
I used to be of the opinion that variable sentencing was a good thing. And on one hand in an ideal world I suppose it is. One purpose of prison is to protect people from those who would assault or otherwise harm them, and the level of threat a criminal continues to pose makes sense as a variable to determine their sentence.
But fuck that. The system does not and will never work that way. One conviction = fixed sentence length, regardless of the specific nature of their crime. Repeat offenders sure, there can be a scale there. But no more of this Brock Turner shit. Judges in this country have enough power already. Sentencing should not be one of them, because it’s quite clear how it gets used in practice.
2 Likes
The trial judge had numerous valid reasons for imposing the maximum sentence here, but, as stated previously, he did not need to articulate any reason. The judge was statutorily authorized to impose a sentence up to fifteen years based solely on the fact of the conviction, regardless of any sentencing considerations and whether or not Davis took responsibility for his actions. “The conviction alone was enough to justify the sentence. No ‘aggravator’ or additional findings were necessary.” Davis, 268 So. 3d at 965-66. The Supreme Court has long recognized that due process permits “a sentencing judge [to] exercise a wide discretion in the sources and types of evidence used to assist him in determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed within limits fixed by law.” Williams, 337 U.S. at 246. The Court has “never [called into] doubt[] the authority of a judge to exercise broad discretion in imposing a sentence within a statutory range.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233 (2005). Whether a defendant says nothing at sentencing or takes full responsibility and is able to show that he is a pillar of the community, a judge retains the discretion to impose the maximum sentence.
Further, while a defendant does have the right to maintain his innocence by pleading not guilty and going to trial, and the right to remain silent, Davis chose to voluntarily allocute at his sentencing and thus waived his right to remain silent. And because Davis waived the right to maintain his silence, the trial court did not violate Davis’s right to due process by considering the words that Davis voluntarily offered in imposing a sentence. “Just as a jury weighs a defendant’s testimony once he waives his Fifth Amendment privilege at trial, a judge may consider a defendant’s freely offered allocution . . . during sentencing.” United States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d 633, 652 (11th Cir. 2014). This is true even if those words are detrimental to the defendant.
Seems a little more complicated than that. He didn’t invoke his right to remain silent in sentencing and chose to allocute. Seems reasonable that the judge could use his statements made during allocution to help inform sentencing, that’s one of the main reasons for an allocution, right?
2 Likes