Ehh, probably true, but this sort of thing is true of every poll. This particular "anomaly" has been singled out because certain people in certain quarters don't like how he votes. That's why we give more weight to 538's "10,000 foot view" (to coin a cliche) than any particular poll.
You don't get to selectively filter out the anomalies you don't like.
It's common and proper for a court to assume that a person in possession of facts that he does not release does not release them because they are harmful to his case.
The officer here is not in the exact same position, but he is in a very similar one--if he thinks the window won't go down because there are drugs in the door, the simplest next step is to check to see if the window goes down. The court notes that he did not, but it does not take the obvious leap that the officer did not because this was a ruse rather than a reason. He did not, at that time, believe that there were drugs in the door.
Normally I'm a fan of each side presenting its case as it sees fit. If one side presents a dumb case, then you take that into account when deciding who has the better argument. But some presentations are so dumb that it hurts my world view to know that they probably make more money than I do.
More importantly, there is no requirement that presidential candidates release their tax returns. Trump is free to not release his and you are free to draw whatever conclusions you want from that. What you are not free to do is pretend that Trump is doing something wrong by not releasing his tax returns.
One of them is, "bills shall be of a single subject." Sure, there will be lots of fighting about what constitutes a single subject, but no more omnibus late night rider crap. The issue stands or falls on its own. Period.
I know enough about the news media and their relationship to first amendment lawsuits to know it doesn't pass the smell test. The idea that they would hold this tape because they were worried about getting sued is laughable. They get sued all the time. Occupational hazard. They know it and they budget for it.
I'm blocked from many sites at work because of filters that don't work--online dictionaries because they contain "adult content" (of course they do, they're dictionaries!). One of my favorite legal analysis blogs has been blocked for a couple months as pornography (for no reason I can fathom). I check it almost every day to see if they've fixed their problem.
So if they're tracking my attempts to access porn, then I'm down for at least a hundred attempts, even though I have not once attempted to access porn at work.
If China and Russia don't like how we run our internet, they are welcome to create their own.
These AGs are exactly right on a point I'm surprised you don't get. It's not subtle--the internet is a product of the ingenuity of the United States. No other country or organization has a leg to stand on if they don't like the U.S. controlling this creation of the U.S.
The president is, without authority, giving away an asset of the United States.
I'm forever protected from this dilemma by virtue of being a Brown's fan.
The sad reality is, Canadians are not ashamed of protectionism. That was clear within days of moving to Toronto. The radio stations are required to play a certain percentage of songs by Canadian artists (I think it's 10%) and you can always tell when one comes on. Not just because it sucks, but because it sounds just enough like a song you haven't heard from a band you like that you listen to it for a minute before concluding, no, this just sucks, and you change the station.