Well, it's the only way she'll be a lawyer, so none of the rest of the thread (about her passing the bar and becoming a lawyer) is relevant if she doesn't pass.

Is the bar exam not a standard? If she passes the bar, in what sense can she not compete?

But hey, at least "most, if not all" of the people the government has murdered have been part of those imaginary armed conflicts. Who can ask for anything more?

Seems like an instance where the appropriate reaction is "Well, duh." These people need to see that reaction more often.

It's a basic tautology, literally a fancy way of saying "something is better than nothing." Duh, dude.

Well, then I've tried nothing, but I'm all out of ideas.

The classic quote is to turn it into a shitpost btw. Out of respect for the subreddit.

Post it in the shitpost subreddit. It's the respectable Simpsons subreddit (r/simpsonsshitposting) Maybe write a variation of a classic quote in the whitespace or post title like "I don't like the idea of Milhouse having two seasons of character drawings in the same post" (with season 1's composite)

And that lawyers only act when they're confident of winning. Sometimes, no matter how many times you tell them how likely it is to get dismissed, your clients will insist on filing with hopes of surviving due to a sympathetic judge or stumbling onto a clever legal argument. They aren't always wrong.

Great idea! I'm going to start running scam ads inviting people to "participate" in our class action against Meta (for a nominal fee to cover my expenses, of course).

People should also tell him "no duh" more often. Don't get out the graphs when he says investing millions of dollars and thousands of manhours in DC reduced reported crimes because duh. Most of his ideas are stupid because they're shortsighted and corrupt, not because they won't work. Tell him that.

"Hot wives not trad wives" would be a good slogan for any politician who really wanted to take back and own the term "cuck"

Therefore, as I said in my original comment, Comey's lawyers should have anticipated this argument from the prosecutors and done more to deal with it in this initial motion.

And if that was all he said, it would be an easier question. Instead, he said "I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but *mine is the same today.*" That gives the prosecutors a hook to say Comey testified his testimony "today" "is the same" as it was in 2017.

Yes, but that doesn't impact what I'm saying. I'm saying the testimony can be read as "I'm testifying the same thing today" no different than if he'd repeated the testimony verbatim. At that point, it would be refreshed and a new SOL would begin running.

I'm not satisfied by how he deals with "mine is the same today." If I were the prosecution, I would characterize that as his re-adopting his prior testimony. It's all vague enough that it should still be dismissed, but the implied subject really seems to be the prior testimony.

And will keep getting worse. If we think this is bad, think ahead to if anyone ever gets the chance to try and undo the damage of Trump. Once he corrupts the usual function any restoration to usual function will be seen as corruption.

Triggering their sense of "it could have been me" is key and I doubt it happens without there at least being a sense of "hey, I know that guy."

Yeah, I'd expect the same. Where the thought exercise gets interesting is figuring out the greatest number degrees of separation between "Jan 6 victim" and "R Senator" before this stops being likely. D Rep? Still probable. Backbench D Rep's Staffer? Closer to borderline.

And do you conclude things in the present day would be better or worse?