Preach

Disturbing yes. But I hate that I'm torn.

Politically, sort of convenient. Trump losing the opportunity to replace him and Alito with two 35 year old fedsoc hacks is, disturbingly in its own way, sort of good.

"Having sources" is what actual malice was designed to fall short of 😂

*shrug* same, honestly. Mills has no energy, she's getting outworked, its just about a wrap.

I mean, she might be making a mistake!

But I'll never forget watching Todd Akin bail a struggling Claire McCaskill out.

The fact that she hasn't even taken a meaningful swing at him is...telling.

The polls before a single true attack in the general don't mean much.

"But he can beat Collins!"

Then I hope he votes like he talks and not like he, uh, talks.

This shit is *mocking* his own supporters.

I'd say he'll keep letting em down, but let's be honest, a bunch secretly like that he's a bigoted little blockhead.

Man, then he should go improve, but spare the country his manifold moral failings.

Shit apology, too.

You kept the pineapple chunks substantial and its got that fond. That's good al pastor. Mouthwatering.

And suddenly the document is 3 pages shorter

The Baddie-Bush Doctrine of 1148, of course

I knew it.

ChatGPT isn't good at this, man, it just wants to appease you, pro tip.

Buddy, you're getting schooled.

Doing so is just a good opportunity to educate some willing folks in the process.

...do you know what an ad hom is, or are you using ChatGPT to try to reinforce you, here?

It means they'd seen a ton of smoke for years and now, there, finally, is the fire.

I worked in politics too, I share your read.

Testimony is evidence.

4 women and a whole bunch of sources saying "yeah this totally tracks with what we know about his behavior" is plenty of evidence. If it doesnt sway you, fine. It sways most, though.

Makes me more likely to believe he is.

Especially when the women he's running around with are both mich younger than him and his employees.

He's a creep. And I have zero trouble believing a creep is a predator. Perfectly logical. I'd make that argument to a jury any day.

Some states require them as a precursor to a defamation claim, to be fair.

That doesnt make them anything more than a box to check, though. Mandatory mitigation and diversion.

Simplified and flattened quite a bit, "close enough" can get you to a truth defense.

Also, 408, so.

Just not how any of this works.

For 99.99~% of people that kills actual malice stone dead and then backs over it with a vehicle.

Like, I'm not not 100% sure "she was very very very drunk and we did have sex" gist and stings "roofie and rape" but I'd probably be over 50%.

Honestly substantial truth doctrine is a massive lurking landmine here too

Yeah, no.

The anti-SLAPP motions for literally anybody else would be fish in a barrel.

"In order not to pay her attorney's fees and sanctions you jave to prove falsity and actual malice without discovery" is easy advice to both give and listen to.

Swalwell is familiar with the CalSLAPP and he'll stay clear of it.

Yeah, probably, now that I thi k about it for a few seconds.

I mean, I sorta wish, certainly wish the mandate was broader, but yeah, no.