With the help of the Sandy Hook families, The Onion has reached a long-awaited deal to take over InfoWars.
We've enlisted the help of @timheidecker.bsky.social, who will be InfoWars' Creative Director.
Please stand by for more.
I’ve been pronouncing your name wrong for years
This is ... not new
Very interesting discussion. But I still want to know why this weird "motion to vacate conviction" followed by dropping the case instead of a presidential pardon.
A screenshot of the table of contents of the linked special issue from NM&S
This looks like a really cool special issue!
New Media & Society: Contextual Complexities of Violence on Digital Platforms. journals.sagepub.com/toc/nmsa/28/4
"In these videos, men film themselves lifting the closed eyelids of women to show they are sleeping or sedated, with some “eyecheck” videos surpassing 50,000 views. Inside the Motherless “sleep” community ....members trade advice on how to drug their partners." edition.cnn.com/interactive/...
Good for him but I am tired of learning about all the ways a 41-year-old candidate for U.S. Senate supposedly has a lot more growing and learning to do. Maybe do that before the Senate? And maybe try out a lower office before then?
Or maybe we just watch him blossom into another Sinema/Fetterman.
I can’t wait to read this
[board meeting] well when you really think about it AI is like a shoe for your head
I keep thinking that there *has* to be a legal strategy here, in addition to the important communicative/symbolic purpose. Maybe this is it?
I am stuck on trying to figure out why this rather than a pardon. Do you have insight on that?
thing would mean that, legally speaking, Minuta won’t be an ex-felon.
But will FL respect that and automatically let Minuta to register to vote?
I have trouble imagining that the state proactively looks for pardons in order to restore rights, but maybe something like this comes to their attention…
But if they are residents of other states and are registered to vote in that state, would that state’s laws about felon voting apply? Eg: Minuta (maybe) wants to vote in Florida, I think I saw that he moved there. FL requires ex-felons to petition to get voting rights. But a pardon or this reversal…
Oh yeah, I’m just counting angels on the pinhead.
I mean, ahem, I’m asking questions the illustrate the complexity of reaching definitive answers given the complications arising from federalism.
(I wonder if this is one of the weird legal labyrinths that @jesspish.bsky.social knows about….)
And if those states do disenfranchise federal felons, do they automatically restore voting rights if POTUS pardons them?
What about in states where felons don’t automatically have their rights restored but have to individually petition to get those rights back? Is that also true for pardons?
Ohhh the favorable termination is *required* not disqualifying. Got it.
Oh no I have more questions.
According to my skim on wiki, most states restrict voting rights for felons. Is that just for state felonies? Do those states disenfranchise people convicted only of federal felonies, no state felonies?
I don’t know the FL case at all. Is that about *pardoned* felons, or is it about felons who have completed some/all of their sentence?
Let’s see if I understand you. “Favorable termination” here would typically mean the lawsuit would fail — petitioner has already received the remedy for malicious prosecution: the pardon?
But this legal argument doesn’t actually matter here because DOJ would settle before the suit got to a judge?
Ugh.
I’m imagining a new type of hell, where for the next few years, we see these types of motions and then have an agonizing two week period where we wait to see how big the settlements are
Or maybe I’m assuming there’s logic and strategy where there isn’t any. If recent past behavior predicts future behavior, I shouldn’t rule out quirky or defiant incompetence as the likeliest explanation.
I can understand its symbolic importance to the J6ers: “see, the courts ruled that our convictions were unjust and therefore null and void.”
But going this route rather than a pardon opens the possibility - if remote - that a judge could rule against them.
Serious question: why would the Trump administration do this rather than extending the pardon to the people who previously got commutations?
One possible answer is this restores any lost civil rights (gun ownership, voting). But doesn’t a pardon also do that?
Also, remember how ICE was going around saying that their shitty AI facial detection tool carried more weight than REAL IDs?
GOVT ASKS DC CIRCUIT TO VACATE CONVICTIONS AND REMAND FOR DISMISSAL IN OATH KEEPERS AND PROUD BOYS CASES. Stewart Rhodes, Ethan Nordean, everybody. ...
www.documentcloud.org/documents/28...
dark_spanberger.gif
How cool