US continues to go backward...

Do you disagree with a jury of his peers that heard all the testimony, sent the judge several clarifying questions, and deliberated for 20+ hours?
This seems like you are questioning why someone would question if the jury was right to me.
 
Why is this US going backwards?

Do you disagree with a jury of his peers that heard all the testimony, sent the judge several clarifying questions, and deliberated for 20+ hours?

I would not put in “US going forward”, but this seems to be a tough case and the jury took the civic responsibility seriously.
Going on record as agreeing 100% fully with you on this one.
 
So you think OJ was innocent?
That’s not really the question that a jury decides though…even in the OJ case. It’s whether the state proves he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I watched the OJ trial live religiously….studied it a lot for lessons to learn since then.

Once one of the chief investigators who found a critical piece of evidence (Mark Forman) got caught lying on the stand about the use of the n-word racial slur, a jury could have had reasonable doubt. Prosecution also made several other critical mistakes that helped lead to reasonable doubt. Should have never allowed the “trying on” of the glove. “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” became a very compelling closing argument.
 
That’s not really the question that a jury decides though…even in the OJ case. It’s whether the state proves he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I watched the OJ trial live religiously….studied it a lot for lessons to learn since then.

Once one of the chief investigators who found a critical piece of evidence (Mark Forman) got caught lying on the stand about the use of the n-word racial slur, a jury could have had reasonable doubt. Prosecution also made several other critical mistakes that helped lead to reasonable doubt. Should have never allowed the “trying on” of the glove. “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” became a very compelling closing argument.
Yes I used the wrong term. My point was I hate that question because it is basically saying you cant question the jury and that’s BS. I don’t think OJ was innocent. I also don’t like that people are fine with no one being held accountable when it comes to someone’s death.
 
Yes I used the wrong term. My point was I hate that question because it is basically saying you cant question the jury and that’s BS. I don’t think OJ was innocent. I also don’t like that people are fine with no one being held accountable when it comes to someone’s death.
My response to this would be that unless you were on the jury and heard what they heard AND ONLY what they heard at trial, it’s pretty unfair to question their decision and really unfair to suggest that they failed to hold a defendant accountable.

I’ve lost a couple of jury trials I’ve prosecuted. I never leave them claiming/feeling the jury got it wrong. I come out feeling I screwed something up or the Judge made wrong rulings regarding evidence that resulted in the verdict.

Just my perspective.
 
Why is this US going backwards?

Do you disagree with a jury of his peers that heard all the testimony, sent the judge several clarifying questions, and deliberated for 20+ hours?

I would not put in “US going forward”, but this seems to be a tough case and the jury took the civic responsibility seriously.
obviously the jury heard more info. that I have at my disposal...Neely was yelling for food, water, money...I read that he was yelling, but no physical contact...'m sure many on the subway were frightened by this...Penny decided to subdue him with a chokehold for several minutes and continued the hold for almost a minute after Neely stopped moving...I don't know what I would have done in such a situation; however, I feel it was excessive (obviously led to a death)...there will be people who side with Penny and others not...our treatment/mistreatment/no treatment of homeless is a problem in our country...just a sad ordeal all the way around...
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing it's real. I'm also guessing he can't do that. We are probably going to see alot of that the next couple of years.

About to be lawsuit city.
Most of the regulating agencies fall under the executive branch. That's why the GOP has been challenging the regulations at SCOTUS on.the grounds of them usurping congressional roles.
 
Me starting to see a trend of his appointments/nominations...ultra rich and/or relatively attractive women...I see what you're doing there donald...
 
Me starting to see a trend of his appointments/nominations...ultra rich and/or relatively attractive women...I see what you're doing there donald...
Whoever he's seen on FoxNews say something nice about him, or ultra rich that wants a way to fill their pocket more.

Sure glad all these super rich people care about me and can relate to me and my way of life.
 

Private foundations must donate 5 percent of their assets every year. Elon Musk’s enormous charity missed that standard for three consecutive years.

New tax filings show that the Musk Foundation fell $421 million short of the amount it was required to give away in 2023. Now, Mr. Musk has until the end of the year to distribute that money, or he will be required to pay a sizable penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. Musk’s group has fallen further and further behind. In 2021, his foundation was $41 million short, then $234 million the following year. Now, the hole is deeper still.

Private foundations do have a way to solve the problem if they do not give away enough money. They can distribute more the following year as a make-good. Mr. Musk could choose to do so in 2024.

Mr. Musk, who on Wednesday became the first person with a net worth of over $400 billion, has been an unusual philanthropist. He has been critical of the effectiveness of large charitable gifts, and his foundation maintains a minimal, plain-text website that offers very little about its overarching philosophy. That is different from some other large foundations that seek to have national or even worldwide impact by making large gifts to causes like public health, education or the arts.

The Musk Foundation’s largess primarily stays closer to home. The tax filings show that last year the group gave at least $7 million combined to charities near a launch site in South Texas used by Mr. Musk’s company SpaceX.

Other large charitable foundations have also failed to distribute the I.R.S.’s minimum required amount in recent years, sometimes by more than $100 million, according to tax filings compiled by the company CauseIQ, which analyzes charity data.

But Mr. Musk’s foundation is unusual even among those, both for the amount of its shortfall and the speed at which it is increasing. In 2022, the last year for which full data is available, the Musk Foundation had the fourth-largest gap of any private foundation in the country, according to CauseIQ data.

Mr. Musk’s charity, which he founded in 2002, has never hired paid employees, according to tax filings.

Its three directors — Mr. Musk and two people who work for his family office — all work for free. The filings show they did not spend very much time on the foundation: just two hours and six minutes per week for the past three years.

But the board’s task grew enormously in 2021 and 2022, when Mr. Musk tripled the foundation’s assets by giving it billions of dollars’ worth of Tesla stock. Tax experts said if he claimed those donations on his personal taxes in the year given, those gifts would have been very beneficial to him. Because of the deductions allowed for charitable gifts, they potentially saved Mr. Musk as much as $2 billion on his tax bills.

Because of the skyrocketing growth in assets, the three-person board had to give away hundreds of millions of dollars per year just to meet the minimum. That group entered 2023 needing to pay off the previous year’s $234 million shortfall, or they would have to pay a penalty tax of 30 percent on whatever was left over at the end of the year.

The foundation met that, giving away a total of $236 million and avoiding the penalty.

But it also had to give away another $424 million to meet its obligation for 2023. The filings show it did not come close, leaving an even bigger deficit to make up this year.

“The distributions made by the foundation are meeting the bare minimum to avoid penalties,” said Brian Mittendorf, an accounting professor at the Ohio State University who studies nonprofits. “It is clear that the organization is not in a hurry to spend its money.”

In 2023, as in other years, many of the foundation’s gifts went to organizations that were closely tied to Mr. Musk or his businesses. In 2023, for instance, he gave $25 million to a donor-advised fund, a separate charitable account over which Mr. Musk retains effective control.

Mr. Musk began donating to schools in the Brownsville, Texas, area just after his company’s reputation took a major hit: One of its rockets exploded, showering the area with twisted metal.

The foundation’s largest gift for the year — $137 million in cash and stock — went to a nonprofit called The Foundation. That charity, run by Mr. Musk’s close associates, has set up a private elementary school in Bastrop, Texas. The school is a short distance from large campuses operated by Mr. Musk’s businesses and a 110-home subdivision planned for his employees.

Dr. Mittendorf noted that Mr. Musk gave that school $102 million on Dec. 28 — days before the deadline to give away the unspent millions from the year before.

The Musk Foundation’s gifts for 2023 gave little hint of the political transformation that would follow this year, as he spent hundreds of millions of dollars to support Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign. Throughout 2023, Mr. Musk became increasingly right-wing in his public statements, especially on issues like crime and immigration.

But his foundation’s only gift with an apparent political tilt was a small one: The Musk Foundation gave $100,000 to a libertarian think tank in Utah.
 
Last edited:
One problem in America is that many more people are tuned to paranoid con nuts on the fringe, such as Alex Jones, more so than anybody on CNN trying to be serious. After all, it's more entertaining to hear far right fringe extremist Mike Adams tell Alex Jones that the coming robots as instructed by the globalist elite are going to try to kill us all by the billions, so don't buy one than it is to hear what Van Jones on CNN has to say about why Democrats lost.

CNN’s Van Jones Frets ‘Fringe’ Has Replaced ‘Mainstream’ Media: ‘We’re on Cable News Getting 1-2 Million’ While They’re ‘Getting 14 Million Streams’​


https://www.mediaite.com/media/cnns...lion-while-theyre-getting-14-million-streams/
 
Last edited:
Back
Top