Better for a greedy law officer to go after one of trump's kids who has managed to escape Secret Service protection so he/she can have some fun that, oh, smells like MJ. A fancy car and wallet full of $$ forfeited for even a while would raise a ruckus that couldn't be covered up forever. Secret Service, already tired of trumpish antics, might look the other way for a while as local news/citizen journalists investigate.
Of course, as you know, none of those wealthy folks in trump's cabinet will suffer any from the consequences of their actions (at least, not obviously). They will remain in the 1%.
First, he picked them because they are richer than he is (or his taxes would say otherwise), and so he can look down his nose at them and boss them around and they have to comply or leave. They won't leave because they'll be missing out on the extra $$$$$$$ (and I don't mean salary).
Second, he can get tips from them on how to sidestep any and all consequences for actions taken against others because they have been working in the background for so long they know the ins and outs of how to lie, cheat, steal, destroy, etc., even better than he does.
Fortunately(?), the one thing they can't do is escape the consequences of their part in destroying the environment. They, too, have to breathe, drink and eat the toxins they have so thoughtlessly poured onto the earth and into the air and seas. As the old saying goes, what goes around comes around -- even for god's chosen, as they surely think they are.
As someone who has transcribed court hearings as well as conversations between police officers and witnesses and potential, um, accused folks, I wonder if whoever transcribed the original police interview was questioned by the Bar. In my business we give the customer (be it a lawyer for a plaintiff, a prosecutor or whoever pays for the transcript) a print out or we email a PDF, and append a certificate that says "this is what we heard" and we sign off on it. Murray may have scanned and changed the document or had someone do it for him, and submitted the results to the court, keeping the signed certificate. Thus I wonder if the Bar asked the transcriptionist (or her/his company) for the original to do a comparison. I also wonder if the transcriptionist or her/his company might sue Murray for making them look incompetent with his prank. He might not feel sorry for the child he hurt, but a lawsuit could sting and add more bad publicity for him to deal with.
"The left collectively..." Which "left" are you talking about? My branch of "the left", the Green Party, certainly never does that. But you wouldn't know that because there was so little coverage of Jill Stein et al. and what the party stands for.
I wish commenters on forums wouldn't use sweeping generalities because lumping a large group of people together under one name just shows how weak the argument is.
When people wanted to -- and *did!* -- vote third party, the "major" party candidates and their fans called such voters and their preferred candidates all kinds of unkind names. It happens every time. I recall being warned against voting for Nader, I believe, in 2004, or Bush would win (no, Gore lost). Rather than warn us about Pence, for example, a lot of pro-Hillary pundits just used the argument of "nobody votes for 'third-party' candidates so they don't win so nobody votes for them." They can't argue their "major" candidate is better, they can only argue how less evil he or she is than the "major" opponent. So Clinton and her friends were really her own worst enemies.
I think next year will also be the year of "don't blame me, I didn't vote for him!" (even though many of those who claim that actually did vote for him, threatened civil war if he lost, and crowed about his win, too...).
He'll pass anything confusing (which for him is 99% of what he hears) (it is thought he is illiterate, so don't write him a letter) -- he'll pass it on to Pence, who is the one who has to be stroked. Good luck with that, because Pence will enjoy it, but proceed to do whatever the far right has always dreamed of doing.
I'm assuming you mean "a huge majority of the voters", but interestingly, Clinton won the popular vote by around 250,000 votes (as of the last count at http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php ). Not that she would be innovative unless she gets the big $$$ to be, IMO, but it's likely she'd understand innovation better than DJT and his handlers.
Rekrul, I just got done early voting here in Albuquerque. I should have read the long ballot before hand! However, the process was quick, but people are waiting until election day maybe. On the ballot was a question that went like, should citizens of the city have the right to vote on whether or not [a big transit project destroying travel on a major city avenue] should be allowed? So it was as though we might get to have a say... on something the mayor started work on yesterday. Actually he is doing no work himself, no shovel in his hand, and I'm sure he never takes any bus anywhere in the city. It doesn't matter that I don't think the US Govt has actually given the city the funding yet, though the mayor's contractor buddies may not get their cut, so local taxpayers will probably have to make up for it. At least, should the mayor decide to run for some other office, it is highly unlikely he will succeed as people will remember his giant ego and the even bigger traffic jams, all for a "service" no one wants or needs. No amount of citizen protests of the whole idea were listened to by "leaders/city fathers" who think they have a brilliant idea and everyone will (or better) learn to love it. This happens everywhere, all around the world, so you are right to point out the irony that protesting is useless if TPTB think they are right.
Richard Dolan, on his show on KRGA (internet radio) on October 10, 2016, explained how these new Democrats are the definition of Neoliberal. Basically very warlike "liberals" who need little or no justification for feeling the way they do. H Clinton and B Obama are good examples.
I live in New Mexico, unfortunately situated between three of the four states in question. New Mexico's Attorney General is Hector Balderas (D), though our two-term governor is (R) and she can't run again, but despite low polling numbers she has aspirations to higher office, so who knows what she'll do in relation to the IANA.
It would probably be *safer* for the athletes if there were no games at all in Rio or Tokyo due to the literally poisonous and/or radioactive environments in both places. But the IOC doesn't care about that, obviously.
Don't worry about the molluscs, Oblate. Fukushima is taking care of them -- as in killing them and starfish and anchovies and seals and sea birds, killing them and their food. If it's in the Pacific and it's still alive, it's wishing it were elsewhere. Can't vaccinate against radiation :(