He doesn't have immunity for the crimes but there is testimony about things he said to staff while in office and the Supreme Court has declared such conversations off-limits. They really went out of their way to cover for Trump, except for the part where Biden would probably have immunity for having him killed.
I meant kill it by stalling it in Parliament long enough to make sure implementation couldn't happen in time for the election. If the Conservatives won the election they wouldn't follow through with implementing the bill.
The line is in the subtitles as "At least Z’s safe with us until we do.”
But what if Trudeau tried to recapture that significant slice of the electorate whose hearts he broke, by bringing back his pledge to reform our election system? Except this time, don’t just talk about it: do it.
If his confidence-and-supply agreement with the New Democrats endures until Fall 2025 as scheduled, Trudeau would have ample time to dust off all the work his previous ministers and committees undertook and get a bill before Parliament for debate.
The author seems to think that passing a bill is all it would take to implement electoral reform, but I suspect it would just be the beginning of a process that almost certainly could not be completed before next year's election. The Conservatives might even try to stall the bill long enough to kill the whole thing.
The president couldn't be charged for taking the billionaires' money but the money could still be returned. An assassination can't be undone.
As opposed to the discs movies are sold on.
Apparently "recordable media" here means the kind you can record on at home, e.g. CD-R, DVD-R.
I think he'd at least need to be clear on which part is a lie; did the killings not actually happen or are they not his fault?
With any tech that allows the same quality with less data, there will always be someone pushing to cut quality to save even more data.
Scrutiny!? Whatever will she do? (Tell Fox News she's being persecuted, probably)
"There are so many other loopholes, we should focus on the ones poor people use"
Don't forget that the $25k wouldn't all be gains in the first place. If the investment had increased in value by 25%, it would be 20k base and only 5k gains; if it had increased by 100% it would be an even split. We're talking about taxing a part of a part of the sale value.
Here's the article; the link in the OP points to a discussion thread.
The chair ought to be questioning whether the company should continue to employ someone who needs that much "motivation", not urging shareholders to give it to him.
The standard fine for violating the STOCK Act is $200, but frequently the House Committee on Ethics and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics waive the fee.
Craig Holman, a Capitol Hill lobbyist on ethics and campaign finance rules for nonprofit Public Citizen, said the fee is one of two reasons why the STOCK Act is frequently violated.
“The penalty is so minimal that these millionaire members of Congress really don't care about it," Holman told Raw Story. “The second provision is the ethics committees are not really enforcing it or taking it seriously.”
So basically this "law" is just a suggestion.
Meanwhile, his classified documents case being handled by a judge he appointed to the court is somehow not a conflict.
Less likely isn't the same as unlikely, most of those people probably just went from definitely voting for Trump to probably voting for Trump.
I've seen suggestions that the AI Overview is based on the top search results for the query, so the terrible answers may be more to do with Google Search just being bad than any issue with their AI. The AI Overview just makes things a bit worse by removing the context, so you can't see the glue on pizza suggestion was a joke on reddit or it was The Onion suggesting eating rocks.
Well, you see, they don't have cash on hand because they spent it on stock buybacks to boost that market cap