Whatever you’re planning on doing about ICE agents, redirect toward anyone with 9+ figures of net worth.

You can seem reasonable and rational when you distinguish between your opponent’s truths and your opponent’s lies. John McCain earned a lot of respect when he rejected an attack on Obama and pointed out that Obama was a decent person and family man who merely disagreed with McCain on some political issues.

If you don’t want your opponent to appear reasonable and rational, don’t give them opportunity. Lie about everything, all the time. Lie when the truth sounds better. Lie so much that they never have the opportunity to do anything except call you a liar. Lie so much that your opponent loses credibility every time they rebut one of your lies.

Related: Gish Gallop

I shut it off the first time I tried to watch it. Seems like the first half of the premier could have been a flashback in season 2.

The screws don’t even reach through the drywall?

Well, we’re pissing off the right people.

Everyone forgets the next line:

But if you try sometime, you’ll find you get what you need.

It’s a little clunky, but KryptEY is an on screen keyboard that can encode/decode messages. The encoded messages can be transmitted over any service.

That would be terrible for their recruiting metrics.

Well, it’s a story that glorifies cops, and it completely fails to mention ACAB.

28 USC 1441:

Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

1. State level murder charges are not a civil action.
2. The district courts of the United States do not have original jurisdiction over state-level murder charges.

28 USC 1442:

(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

Apprehension or punishment of criminals: The president’s position is that ICE is repelling an invasion, not enforcing law. The president’s argument against Birthright Citizenship, and his entire justification for non-judicial deportation is that the immigrants in question are not “criminals”, but foreign nationals not subject to the laws of the United States. The detainees are not considered criminals; they are not afforded the rights of criminals. Since the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship, ICE actions in general are not for the apprehension or punishment of criminals.

Allowing the case to be moved to the district court on these grounds would set a more important precedent than the murder charge.

The other categories do not apply to ICE agents.

That’s not a thing that can happen. The state supreme court can substitute another state judge, but the federal government does not have the power you describe.

Right, but I’m saying, that that state is going to attempt to prosecute,

Right. Understood. The state prosecutor files charges in a state court

and the Feds are going to say it should be a federal trial,

Right. The federal prosecutor files charges in a federal court.

[The feds] drop charges.

The only charges the feds can drop are the charges in federal court. So there are no more federal charges.

Are you saying the state would refile charges?

I’m saying the state never dismissed the charges in state court. They don’t need to refile anything; the state charges are still filed.

I guess where I’m confused is, if the it went to federal court, it wouldn’t be tried in state court, correct?

That is incorrect. The state and the federal government can both decide they want to prosecute. Luigi Mangione, for example, faces charges in both New York and Federal courts.

No, I don’t think we are agreeing at all. I think you’re misunderstanding the concept of dual sovereignty.

The assumption you seem to be making is that there is only one court with the jurisdiction to try him. You seem to be arguing that if this was a federal crime, he will be tried only in federal court, and not in state court.

This is not accurate.

Dual sovereignty is the idea that the same act constitutes a crime against the state, and a completely separate crime against the federal government. He can be tried in both courts, not just one. The outcome of either court is irrelevant to the other. He can be acquitted in one or both; he can be convicted in one or both. The charges being dropped in one have no bearing on the other case.

He can, indeed, be tried and convicted twice for the exact same act, once in state court and once in federal.

No. The “reasonable person” standard is applied. Would a reasonable person in the position of the imperiled person believe they faced a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm? If so, anyone present may use any level of force that a reasonable person would believe necessary to stop that threat.

Even if we give him the benefit of an unreasonable doubt and say he was sufficientlt imperiled, “Necessary” is what is going to hang this guy: the level of “force” “necessary” to end the “imminent threat” was to take a half-step to the right. “Sidestep-Right” is the extent of the force he was justified in using against her here.

Under the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine, even if he is fully acquitted in Federal court, he can later be charged and convicted in State court for the same actions; this is not considered Double Jeopardy.

Double Jeopardy applies to the offense, not the act. It is an offense against the state to violate its law against homicide; it is an offense against the federal government to violate its law against homicide. The same act creates two offenses; each can be prosecuted independent of the other.

(I haven’t agreed with this doctrine in the past, but this particular case has forced me to consider factors of which I was previously unaware.)

Jon Stewart, 2028.

The problem with Reagan and Trump isn’t that they were actors. The problem is that they were complete pieces of shit long before they were elected.

Actor-presidents have demonstrated a natural propensity for revolutionary disruption of entrenched attitudes. Reagan completely fucked over economic policy; Trump is completely fucking over the fundamental concept of democracy.

Imagine that same degree of revolutionary disruption moving us toward egalitarianism rather than corpo-fascism.