If it’s a lawsuit instead of a criminal trial, it can’t be disrupted by prosecutor corruption or pardoned away. It also can’t result in jail time though. That will only be possible once Trump’s goons are no longer running the Dept of Justice.

Not surprisingly, people who couldn’t admit when they were wrong didn’t come into this thread and admit that they have been wrong.

Like RGB lighting in general, those are things I only enjoy putting in other people’s computers.

Yes, there is precedent. Some random Catholic who wasn’t even a priest got selected after a conclave had been stuck in political deadlock for literal years. He couldn’t actually take the job till he was ordained, which he did. He immediately instituted a bunch of rules including locking them away together with no luxuries until a decision was made to make sure that problem didn’t happen again. (It happened again multiple times anyway.)

Seriously, why would they wear hats so unsuited for their head shape? This answer suits their head shape perfectly and is far superior to all the provided answers.

That’s the spirit!

Right, but Qatar committed to treating those tourists as guests, and as far as I know, did exactly that, even easing some of their morality laws for the visitors. Attending the Qatar World Cup was unethical, but not stupidly self-endangering. Attending the World Cup in the US under the current situation is stupidly self-endangering, especially if you aren’t “white”, but also sometimes even then.

That’s never stopped them before.

I’ve occasionally seen it activate itself on computers with only a local account, though I’ve so far only seen it when upgrading in place to 11 with secure boot enabled in the BIOS, and not every time. Fortunately the one time it locked me out was on a freshly cloned drive, so it only cost me redoing the work.

Also, the number of people who I’ve seen lose all their data because they don’t even know they created an MS account during OOBE, and later had a boot or BIOS hiccup, is too bamn high!

There’s a bunch of different styles, but all of them are made of a single piece of cloth and they all pass between the legs, so nobody wearing one has their bits flopping loose.

(I may mis-recall all the details because this was some years back.) There was girl who took a Danny Devito cutout as her “date” to highschool prom and posted the professional prom photo online, and the story got big enough that he heard about it. He was so amused by it that he brought a custom made cardboard cutout of her from the prom picture to the It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia set to take a photo with.

A plausible guess, but the article says he’s on the website’s board of directors.

Their statement on being a press conference venue for the Trump administration was that their business was not supporting anyone in particular, but was thrilled to be part of the democratic process. The tone this statement was said in led me to believe that they were also thrilled to facilitate Trump’s goons making a hilarious fuck-up.

An impressively complete and comprehensive list. I don’t think they missed a single reason. Bravo.

Seriously, read the actual fucking legal documents linked in that biased-ass article. They denied him bond while waiting for the real hearing due to the gang allegations. Nothing more, nothing less. The judges themselves refer to them as allegations in their findings. The traffic court thing is unrelated to him being a gang member, it is relevant to if he should be released while waiting, which is the only thing they were finding on. I read the orders myself, they clearly make no finding on if he’s in a gang and no findings on deportation.

Ok, that’s something. Let’s see, the article headline still says “DOJ Releases Dossier Of Deported Maryland Man’s Alleged MS-13 Gang Ties.” Emphasis added by me. Now why would they say “alleged” if the court already found him guilty? Ah, right, because those were bond hearings. Yes, I actually read the legal documents linked by that article and both court findings were that the unproven claims of gang affiliation, combined with the fact that he had missed traffic court in the past, were sufficient to deny release on bond until his status hearing could be held. No further hearing was ever held. At no point did the legal system establish guilt, make a definitive finding of fact, or make a judicial decision on his deportation.

So, unless you have other court records to link me to that show otherwise, then you are wrong: no such thing has been legally proven.

Edit: Even the appeals Judge refers to it as “allegations of gang affiliation” in their order affirming the lower court decision that you are calling proof.

Sure it has. Go on, do tell. Which court? What case? Who was the Judge?