Sorry for the Reddit and Twitter links, but this meme is old, at least two years old, and the watermark for the creator of this seems to be from @johnhackerla on Twitter who seems like someone I wouldn’t trust with monetary policy.
I’m not sure which day the stock market was like this in 2022-2023 but I assume it was during the period where the Fed was trying to manage a “soft landing” coming out of the Covid pandemic and avoiding a recession.
This is why US should never allow blanket pardons or pardons before a conviction.
Not sure if this is really a great example to make your point, considering Maxwell was convicted already, and Trump wouldn’t need to issue a blanket pardon to get her out of prison in exchange for her testimony.
The real issue here is that Trump knows there’s no consequences if he does pardon her. He wouldn’t get removed from office over it, and I doubt the House would even bring articles of impeachment. The Supreme Court has conceded him all the power, and Congress is too spinless to hold him accountable for anything.
No one is going to believe her if she says Trump was never a client of Epstein, and then he pardons or commutes her sentence. If she tells the truth, she’s not getting the pardon. Trump could promise her the pardon, have her say he wasn’t involved with Epstein, and then never pardon her, but then risk she might talk for revenge. Trump needs her to calm the conspiracy theory and shift the focus away from him, without appearing to give her clemency.
Who was the other CEO that died?
tea users don’t want men to access their data but tea admins did nothing to stop it
I edited my post to include a case which explains the plain view exception with regard for digital files. From the sound of it, if the warrant were for like a Bitcoin wallet or some data file, then movies and images are likely out of scope, but if the search warrant were for video files, then pirated material would be in plain view of the search.
Based on this, I think it’s safe to assume that if there is a search warrant for video evidence related to a crime, and you have pirated material in a folder called /media/Jellyfin/Marvel Movies, that content would be admissible. I don’t think you could argue that the analyst should have understood that the only files in that directory were Marvel Movies, because if that were the case, then everyone would hide video evidence of their crimes in a Marvel Movies directory.
IANAL and not really sure if this would hold up for digital assets, but if there is a search warrant, anything in plain view is up for grabs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California. I would assume anything on the hard drive can be evidence in court if it is in plain view of the assets of the search warrant.
But also, for simply possession of pirated content, I don’t think the state would charge you, but you could be open to civil litigation if the copyright holders find out somehow.
EDIT: Looked into it some more, and seems there’s precedent that files of similar type on a hard drive are considered to be in plain view if they match the type of files which would be searched via a search warrant of the hard drive
In the case of United States v. Wong, police were searching the defendant’s computer for evidence related to a murder when they discovered images of child pornography on the computer. Although the warrant was specific to evidence of the murder, the Ninth Circuit held that the plain view exception allowed them to seize the child pornography, as searching graphics files was valid under the warrant and the files were immediately identifiable as contraband.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1158361.html
Yeah, not a lot of details in this case. Unfortunately though, Google has previously banned accounts that don’t contain any illegal content and appealing it is a fools errand: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveillance-toddler-photo.html
Again it was just a guess, but why would a company like Google just randomly freeze all the data for this one person for no reason? Feels like there has to be a cause and effect, and the only info we know of is that the backup to scrivener the day prior. Obviously they never had a problem before to amass all the documents in there, so what just happened to get banned?
I don’t know the total file size or the tool used to pull the content from Google Drive. It could be that the behavior looked like file sharing to Google’s servers and the policy is to shut it down while they investigate.
If I had to guess, what probably triggered the ToS violation was transferring the content the day before, maybe the method or client used to do the transfer was too aggressive.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”
And they’re upset Obama suggested Russian interference in the 2016 election?
Is the joke that someone took a picture of the screen, and didn’t take a screenshot?
Timestamp to the point in the video: https://youtu.be/2S-WJN3L5eo?t=3287 although would not recommend watching it with sound on.
You’re right, best I can tell, WSJ only described the image, but has not published it. Here is an archive of the WSJ piece that Trump is suing about: https://archive.is/IUWMu
Still a disgrace that the officers who actually shot her saw no jail time, and the piece of shit who killed her actually got hired at another police department afterwards.
Not sure if this is the video you’re referencing, but it explained it for me: https://youtu.be/MzwY7ii582Y
What is the context of this picture??