James Comey Indictment
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Halligan is a bimbo complete unfit for her job like the rest of the administration |
Anonymous
Nobody is saying that elite schools give any character advantage, of course they don’t. But generally speaking the elite schools enroll and graduate people of higher intelligence and ability. Not always, as in the case of the Trumps and Penn - certainly many of those legacy admissions are not really qualified to be there. And certainty you can get the occasional very sharp graduate of a mediocre law program because they couldn’t afford anyplace else, or they had test anxiety on the LSAT but are really very bright otherwise. But generally speaking the sharpest tools go to the best schools. |
Anonymous
Yeah but have you seen the legs on her? |
Anonymous
The non-merit admits aside, I agree that there is a higher threshold for entry. But beyond that, it's about ambition and finances. Certainly not the sharpest. |
Anonymous
| Why are people whining about Harvard and Yale? Halligan got her law degree in Miami. |
Anonymous
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/judge-dismisses-cases-james-comey-letitia-james-finding-prosecutor-was-rcna244775 Twitter is not an appeal venue last I heard. |
Anonymous
|
We can't know why the Law is "attracted" to certain parties, but at the same time, the Law is always right and always assigns guilt to the right party, even if we don't know why.
-Franz Kafka |
Anonymous
She's just following her Dear Leader who also leads by tweets. |
Anonymous
| 'Without Prejudice' means a variation of the charges can be refiled within 6 months |
Anonymous
Not by Halligan. And there's no one else who can/will do it. |
Anonymous
That's a huge overstatement. There are more extrememly bright people than there are spots reserved for actual bright people in those few schools. You seem to start from the assumption that all bright people will aim for the highest "ranked" schools, but they don't always make that choice. That's not how most people actually operate in this world. Sometimes they have better reasons than "prestige" for the choices they make. So, you end up having the brightest minds from various places attending their local schools in part because they intend to stay local, somtimes it's because they got more money to go somewhere else, sometimes they didn't even apply to the "top" ranked options because they didn't want to go there at all, even with stellar applications. It really isn't surprising to see a fair number of terrible people with no scruples coming out of some of these schools becuase too many of them went into these schools with the desire for prestige -- not a good frame of mind or starting point for anyone who intends to do good things for the world as opposed to being in it for themselves and their own reputations and egos. This isn't everyone, of course, but too many are given the benefit of the doubt due to this pedigree. |
Anonymous
Interesting that you were fine with Aileen Cannon! |
Anonymous
It isn't that clear. The statute speaks to "legal defect" or "grand jury irregularity". It doesn't permit a "variation", whatever that may be. And typically, phrases like "legal defect" are highly technical issues. Here, we have a gross constitutional violation. It would be tough to argue that a gross constitutional violation is a "mere legal defect." Maybe one of our litigators who have run across this provision in practice might chime in. |
Anonymous
You need help! |
Anonymous
Bondi? |