fpslem

joined 2 years ago
[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're almost certainly right, they will be fired if they disobey the would-be autocrat. That's basically what happened in Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" when he wanted to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Attorney General Elliot Richadson refused and resigned immediately. So too did Deputy AG William Ruckelshaus. Then loyal fascism supporter Robert Bork did as instructed, and the story of the resignations became bigger than the firing of Cox, leading to the impeachment proceedings and a new special prosecutor.

I don't really disagree with you, the system needs significant reform, and losing good career professionals is bad for everyone. But it's worth it to fight like hell at every stage, it slows them down and sometimes the opposition shifts public sentiment.

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 78 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

These defeats in court are good—necessary, even—but the protestors are still being prosecuted, put in jail, subjected to cash bond requirements and required to hire defense counsel. Yes, the Trump Admin loses a lot, but it doesn't have to win every case to chill and deter opposition. The power imbalance is still a huge threat when a would-be autocrat can bring the full force of the federal government to bear on individual citizens. I want to see more AUSAs declining to prosecute at all, they have independent obligations as officers of the court to follow the constitution.

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Portal 1 & 2 were the first to my mind as well. I really like this list, actually.

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Wait until you hear about the Gran Colombia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Colombia

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

How much did it cost them, what's the going rate right now?

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

.. . and Tesla stock is somehow STILL over-valued.

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago (2 children)

That's probably a fair assessment, but still a rather damning indictment of the industry writ large.

There are definitely better versions of cryptocurrency that I think could be more useful, but the industry is definitely not headed in that direction. Instead, it's all pump-and-dumps, rug-pulls, and other schemes that render them nothing more than highly speculative asset classes in which the underlying asset has no intrinsic value.

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 105 points 10 months ago (38 children)

It's just grift all the way down with crypto, isn't it? Scams layered on scams layered on scams.

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That's okay, I'm definitely more of a SuperbOwl guy myself.

https://lemmy.world/c/superbowl

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Tubi is owned by Fox Corp, and can absolutely fuck off.

 
[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

No, and the majority of New Yorkers don't own cars. Which is why it's been mind-boggling to have the majority subsidize the minority and out-of-towners when they want to drive in an store their 3-tonne vehicles in public space, often for free.

 

...

Private insurance companies have earned the public’s distrust. They routinely put profitability above their policyholders’ well-being. And a system of private health insurance provision also has higher administrative costs than a single-payer system, in which the government is the sole insurer.

But the avarice and inefficiencies of private insurers are not the sole — or even primary — reasons why vital medical services are often unaffordable and inaccessible in the United States. The bigger issue is that America’s health care providers — hospitals, physicians, and drug companies — charge much higher rates than their peers in other wealthy nations.

...

 
 

...

As bitter adversaries, the Trump administration and Maduro regime didn’t agree on, well, anything. Except for the fact that the US government wanted Maduro gone.

After that UN meeting, the Trump administration amped up its efforts around the world to isolate and depose the Venezuelan leader, including by levying additional punishing sanctions against his regime. Much of that diplomatic maneuvering played out in public. But the administration also put into motion another, very much secret prong to the US’s regime-change campaign: a covert CIA-run initiative to help overthrow the Venezuelan strongman.

That campaign would pull off at least one disruptive digital sabotage operation against the Maduro regime in 2019. But the CIA-led initiative—alongside the Trump administration’s wider efforts to get rid of Maduro—would fall well short of its ultimate goal. The story of that secret anti-Maduro effort also lays bare the tensions between an administration with hardliners laser-focused on deposing the Venezuelan autocrat and a CIA deeply reluctant, yet nevertheless obligated, to follow White House orders. It shows the limitations of covert, CIA-assisted regime change schemes, particularly when they are not aligned with larger US foreign policy objectives. And it provides new insights into how a second Trump administration—or a Harris presidency—might still try to dislodge the Venezuelan strongman, whose latest sham reelection in July 2024 has again thrust his country into chaos.

The details of that covert CIA-assisted campaign, told exclusively to WIRED by eight Trump administration and former agency officials with knowledge of the anti-Maduro operation, are reported here for the first time.

...

 

Days before the 2016 election, Donald Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen made a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence about her alleged affair with the Republican presidential candidate. It did not quite go as planned. When Trump was in the White House, Daniels’s claims about their relationship (which Trump denies) went public. Years later, in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to the payoff.

Trump has been trying to get his conviction thrown out or at least delay his sentencing (maybe forever). But we’ve already learned plenty of lurid details about the alleged relationship. So why would Trump make a second attempt to silence Daniels ahead of the 2024 election?

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reported on Wednesday that Trump’s attorney recently made another offer to Daniels. In 2018, years before the Manhattan DA brought charges against Trump, Daniels filed a defamation suit over a Trump tweet attacking her for claiming that she was threatened by a stranger to stay quiet about their affair. A federal judge dismissed the suit months later, and Daniels was ordered to pay Trump’s legal fees. As of this summer, the two camps were still haggling over the final amount: Team Trump had asked for $652,000 at one point, while Team Daniels said it should be closer to $600,000, per Maddow. Then in July, Trump’s lawyer sent a letter to Daniels’s representative saying that a payment of $620,000 was too low, but that they would agree to it if Daniels signed a nondisclosure agreement. According to MSNBC, the letter said this:

We disagree that a payment of $620,000.00 would be in full satisfaction of the three judgement. However, we can agree to settle these matters for $620,000.00, provided that your client agrees in writing to make no public or private statements related to any alleged past interactions with president Trump, or defamatory or disparaging statements about him, his businesses and/or any affiliates or his suitability as a candidate for President.

Daniels’s lawyer rejected the offer. Eventually, Trump’s attorney said that after speaking to “my client and co-counsel,” they would agree to $635,000 — with no mention of Daniels remaining silent. Daniels’s attorney said they eventually settled on $627,500 with no NDA.

...

 
 
 
 
 
 

With the Federal Emergency Management Agency reeling from major staffing and funding shortages amid the impact of Hurricane Helene, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) refused on Sunday to commit to reconvening the House before Election Day to aid recovery efforts. In response to a letter from President Biden urging congressional leaders back to replenish federal disaster loan funding, Johnson said during a Fox News Sunday interview that he’d only do so after the election—all but ensuring the funds will run out.

...

view more: next ›