All aktivitet

"Rocket man":

Merkeleg sak.

Det måtte altså eit angrep på Israel til for å gjere dette.

6 https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spania

BlizzCon 2024 er avlyst Blizzard styrer unna, men lover at showet vil vende tilbake. Les hele saken på Gamer.no»

Det har vore to år med utmattande krig og terror, og dei mest erfarne soldatane og patriotane som melde seg som frivillige i starten av krigen er kanskje for det meste døde. Ukrainarane som er vant med friheit og demokrati er kanskje ikkje like villige til å kjempe til døden som zombie-soldatane frå Russland. Det er forståeleg. Ein vil jo helst leve og ha helsa i behald. Ukrainarane står ovanfor umogelege val, og mangel på ammunisjon og sviktande hjelp frå Vesten gjer ikkje situasjonen betre. Ein får håpe at støttepakken frå USA og auka støtte frå europeiske land kan virke motiverande, og at krigslukka kan snu.

De med større makt har mer innflytelse enn de med mindre makt. Sjefen og sine fordommer/bias kan skade mer enn medarbeiderners fordommer/bias

Gruppen som har mest makt har større innflytelse enn de som har lite makt. Minoriteter har mindre makt generellt enn majoriteten

De mener det fordi de mener Obama ikke ble født i usa. Trodde de han ble født i usa hadde det vært. Ingen diskusjon

Tusen Takk, Cassidy Tvillingene ønsker deg en finfredag.😊😊🥰🥰

God fredda' til the folkz

Cassidy Tvillingene ønsker dere alle sammen en Godfredagsmorgen.👨‍🦰👩‍🦰

Banner MR SPEED for Cassidy Tvillingene ser at du har peiling vi.😉😉🥰🥰♥️♥️

Banner CC de er krona til KING AND QUEEN FROM NORWAY BERGEN CITY ❤️❤️❤️❤️♥️♥️♥️♥️😎😎😎😎😄😄😄😄🤪🤪🤪🤪😛😛😛😛😜😜😜😜👍👍👍👍😍😍😍😍😝😝😝😝

♥️♥️♥️♥️ OK, Cassidy Tvillingene forstår. For det er vi også.

Nei jeg er det 🤪🤪😜😜😛😛

Trykk her 👍 @Ciaran og Ciara ( Cassidy Tvillingene )

Cassidy Tvillingene forstår at Robotstøvsugeren din er i Full Vigør i natt.😉😉🥰🥰

Jeg kan ikke tro det. Jeg bare kan ikke fatte det! Under høringen kom det fram at de konservative dommerne med Roberts i spissen bevisste bryter med sedvane fordi de er på gli mot ideen om absolutt immunitet for en president. Trump Had a Good Day in One Court (msn.com) Even now, “President Donald Trump,” is still a phrase that requires conceptual gymnastics — a leap from the tabloid depths to the heights of power. Consider a pair of scenes, in a pair of courtrooms, Thursday morning. Promptly at 10 a.m., in Washington, to the ritual incantation of “Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!” nine black robed justices of the Supreme Court filed in to hear arguments in a case that could determine whether a president can be prosecuted for committing crimes while in office. Meanwhile, Trump was mired in Manhattan criminal court, listening as David Pecker, the former chief executive of the National Enquirer, testified about hushing up Trump’s alleged affair with a Playboy model, and once discussing the arrangement in the presence of the FBI director. High, low. Low, high. They say justice is blind, but with Trump, it’s dizzy. Let’s start at the top. In the marbled Supreme Court chamber, the mood was grave as the justices considered whether presidential immunity exists to protect Trump from prosecution for crimes related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. “There are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who posed a hypothetical about a president who ordered assassinations of political rivals. Her colleague Elena Kagan broached the scenario of mounting a military coup. Brett Kavanaugh warned of steamrolling prosecutors. Ketanji Brown Jackson theorized that White House might one day become a “seat of criminal activity.” Samuel Alito raised the possibility that the United States might be devolving into a cycle in which each president prosecutes his predecessor, as sometimes happens in the developing world. Neil Gorsuch, never one shrink from grandiosity, said the court needed to write “a rule for the ages.” The second hand on the large antique clock hanging over the bench kept sweeping forward. Each tick brought Trump that much closer to his goal: getting to November. His immunity appeal makes a number of arguments, some mildly plausible and some risible, but for now they hardly matter. The appeal has already created the best thing Trump could have hoped for: a long delay. If the justices take a reasonable amount of time to make a decision, a trial in Washington — where even Trump’s lawyers admit he faces a high likelihood of conviction — is certain to be pushed past the election. And so just being in the Supreme Court in April represented an enormous victory for Trump, who wasn’t, in the literal sense, actually there. He had been hoping to attend oral arguments in person, but Juan Merchan, the judge overseeing his other case, had told him his presence was required in Manhattan, telling him that “having a trial” was “also a big deal.” So Trump was forced to sit through another undignified day of testimony by Pecker, the silver-haired sleaze merchant who said he considered Trump a “friend” and “my mentor.” As he spoke, Trump would lean back in his chair, sometimes with his eyes closed, listening to a laborious account of the work it took to keep damaging stories about Trump out of the public domain before the 2016 election. “I wanted to protect my company, I wanted to protect myself and I also wanted to protect Donald Trump,” Pecker said. Prosecutors from the district attorney’s office sought to show that the two men had engaged in a conspiracy that continued after the 2016 election. Pecker testified that Jared Kushner had pulled him up to see President-elect Trump at Trump Tower during the transition, where he joined a meeting that included then FBI Director James Comey, and Trump asked him about his alleged former mistress, Karen McDougal. Because Trump allegedly made the payoffs to McDougal and Stormy Daniels before he was elected, his immunity claim before the Supreme Court would not have helped him in the New York case, but if the Court does find he has some protection, it would likely end or severely hinder the other three cases against him. (Under questioning from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the attorney representing the Justice Department, Michael Dreeben, conceded that an immunity doctrine that applied to the January 6 case would likely also cover the substantially similar state case in Georgia.) John Sauer, a raspy-voiced appellate attorney for Trump, told the justices that the Framers intended to protect presidents from this sort of criminal liability. As proof, Sauer cited the fact that for “234 years of American history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts.” He suggested that without such immunity there could be no presidency as we know it,” and raised that the possibility of future prosecution would make presidents vulnerable to “blackmail and extortion” by opponents. “I understood it to be the status quo,” said Justice Jackson, who pointed out that it had long been presumed that presidents could be prosecuted after leaving office. Sauer responded by quoting something that Benjamin Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention. “So what was up with the pardon of President Nixon?” Jackson retorted. It is conservatives who usually accuse liberals of reading previously invisible meaning into the Constitution, and the Democratic appointees on the Court seemed to relish the opportunity to play up the irony. “The Framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution,” said Justice Kagan. “They knew how to. There were immunity clauses in some state constitutions.” But, she said, “They were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law.” Kagan focused on the most un-originalist element of Trump’s appeal: its interpretation of the impeachment clause of the Constitution. By any normal reading, it’s an accountability mechanism, but Trump seeks to turn it into a nearly impenetrable liability shield. Under Trump’s theory, a president could not be prosecuted for anything he did officially — no matter how illegal or immoral — unless he was first impeached and convicted by Congress. Kagan brought up a series of doomsday scenarios. Would it be an “official act” for a president to sell nuclear secrets? What if a president ordered a coup? DId he have to be impeached in order to be held responsible? Each time, Sauer was forced to dissemble, saying the answers to each hypothetical were “fact-specific” and “context-specific.” “That answer sounds to me,” Kagan said, sardonically, “as though it’s like, ‘Yeah, under my test, it’s an official act, but that sure sounds bad, doesn’t it?’” After about 90 minutes, Dreeben, a veteran Justice Department attorney on the staff of Special Counsel Jack Smith, rose to speak, saying Trump’s “novel theory” would allow presidents to get away with “bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and, here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power.” There seems to be little chance that any of the justices will go along with that. Trump’s own appointees seemed to be at pains to distance themselves from any defense of his actions. Barrett seemed particularly skeptical in her questioning. Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said they were less concerned with the “here and now of this case,” as Kavanaugh put it, than with creating a durable standard for the future. Kavanaugh grew impassioned as he criticized what he called “one of the court’s biggest mistakes,” a 1980s Supreme Court decision that upheld the law creating the independent counsel, a prosecutorial office meant to investigate high officeholders. He seemed to be speaking from experience: He once played a key role in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton — which led to Clinton’s impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair — and he may have been alluding to Starr when he questioned Dreeben about the “risk” that the president could be victimized by “a creative prosecutor who wants to go after a president.” (Then again, maybe Kavanaugh was subtly needling Dreeben himself, who previously worked on a variety public corruption investigations, including Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump.) At any rate, the justice sounded determined to make sure that any decision on Trump’s immunity would be tailored narrowly, to prevent presidents from being prosecuted frequently. By the end of the hearing, it sounded as if the Court was trending in the direction of a ruling that would potentially offer Trump immunity for some of his actions and not others. Barrett, in her questioning of Sauer, went through a long list of offenses alleged in the indictment, and compelled him to answer that some of them — like sending private attorneys off to put together fraudulent slates of electors — were in no way official actions. When Sauer proposed the Court strip the indictment of official acts, Chief Justice John Roberts said that would be like a “one-legged stool.” With Dreeben, she explored the idea that the January 6 case might still be able to proceed, with only those indisputably private actions being presented to the jury as crimes. It seemed as if she were trying to offer a way out. Unfortunately for Dreeben and his boss, Smith, it was hard to count five votes for a resolution that would allow them to take their case to trial before November. Roberts sounded particularly dubious of an appellate court ruling that resoundingly resolved the immunity issue in Smith’s favor, calling its reasoning “tautological.” Of the justices, Roberts, a proceduralist to his core, sounded the most inclined to punt the issue back to the district court, asking for it to come up with a test that would draw a distinction between the president’s official and private actions. If that happens, the Washington trial will be delayed many months. If Trump wins the election in the meantime, that will put the question to rest—unless Trump starts prosecuting his predecessors. Justice Jackson suggested that her colleagues’ concerns about unintended consequences were misplaced. If anything, she said, a ruling that affirmed absolute presidential immunity would have the opposite of a “chilling” effect on the presidency. “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table,” she asked Sauer, “wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office?” At roughly the same time, in New York, prosecutors displayed a photo of David Pecker with Trump at the White House, showing him as he discussed how he and the president had discussed the McDougal payoff during a walk in the portico. Justice Jackson’s concern wasn’t just a hypothetical. The White House, according to the Manhattan prosecutors, had already been a “seat of criminal activity.” “Today was breathtaking,” Trump said Thursday afternoon after he emerged from the courtroom, where his defense attorney Emil Bove had begun his cross examination of Pecker. “I was forced to be here, and I’m glad I was, because it was a very interesting day in a certain way. But the U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity.” He claimed that, if deprived of immunity as he conceived it, the presidency would become merely a “ceremonial” office. “We want presidents that can get things done and bring people together,” Trump said. “The justices were on their game. So let’s see how that all pans out. But again, I say presidential immunity: very powerful. Presidential immunity is imperative, or you practically won’t have a country anymore.” With that, the ex-president left the courthouse. The screen split again and he returned to his campaign. JEG BARE KAN IKKE TRO DET! Enhver som lese dette vil straks innse hva Roberts er i ferd med å gjøre! Han er villig til å gi president immunitet som overgikk alle formelle grenser og ser ut til å ønske et "kompromiss" uten å fatte ALVORET hvor en president må på prinsippet ikke ha absolutt immunitet! Han bruker helt presist samme taktikk som under diskvalifiseringssaken ved å si fra at hvis man følge lovens tekst kan det åpne for politiske inngrep for å diskvalifisere uten legal begrunning! Dette fulgt til forskjellbehandling og ødeleggelsen av diskvalifiseringsregelen! Det er som hvis Roberts er kommet i troen om at "alle" er skurker som kan fritt misbruke lover uten hindring - som det amerikanske rettsvesenet vil stoppe. Hvis Earl Warren var der under høringen, er det mulig at han ville ha eksplodert og marsjert rett til Roberts for å rive dommerkappen av ham! Nå er det utvilsomt; Roberts og hans gjeng må kastes ut. Warren var meget klart at det ikke finnes snarvei, kompromiss eller rom for tolkning i en prinsipielle sak. Her prøver Roberts seg på å treffe en mellomvei uten å fatte at dette er i strid med allmenn fornuft! Tre ganger har han forbrutt seg mot etablerte sedvaner; først diskvalifiseringssaken, deretter saken om delstatlige immigrasjonslover, og nå ser vi at han vil gi president mye større immunitet enn det er tradisjon for, kun i offisiell tjeneste. Dette er meget alvorlig. Roberts er blitt Trumps alliert. Han er blitt en fiende mot det amerikanske demokratiet. WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court, hearing a last-ditch appeal from Donald Trump, appeared open Thursday to granting some level of immunity to protect former presidents from being prosecuted for alleged crimes committed while in office. Over nearly three hours of oral argument, the court’s conservative majority expressed greater concern that a future president might flinch from bold action for fear of prosecution than the possibility that Trump could avoid accountability on charges he attempted to steal the 2020 presidential election from Joe Biden. The risk, said Justice Brett Kavanaugh, was that a Trump trial could open the door to a new era of American politics where prosecution of ex-presidents became routine, much as the use of special counsels accelerated after the Watergate scandal. “It’s going to cycle back and be used against the current president or the next president and the next president and the next president after that,” Kavanaugh said. Trump himself amplified that concern before arguments began Thursday. “Crooked Joe deserves life in prison!” Trump said in an email to supporters. “Put Biden on trial.” The court seemed unlikely to accept all of Trump’s arguments, which seek “absolute immunity” for alleged crimes committed while in office. But most justices agreed that former presidents deserve strong protection from prosecution. Any high court decision embracing that position could further delay Trump’s trial, if not end the prosecution entirely. And it likely would cloud other prosecutions Trump is facing, including charges before a Georgia state court that he pressured officials there to fraudulently deliver to him electoral votes Biden won. “If a president can be charged, put on trial, and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president’s decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed,” Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, told the court. Liberal justices, however, suggested the greater threat to democracy was a decision that effectively placed the president above the law, not one holding him to the same rules that apply to other high officials as well as ordinary Americans. Telling “the most powerful person in the world” that there was no possibility of punishment for breaking the law, could turn “the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sauer did little to assuage such concerns. Posed various hypotheticals, he suggested that a president might face no penalty for such acts as selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, ordering the assassination of a political opponent or directing the military to stage a coup. “The framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “Not so surprising—they were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law.” Sauer said that the president remained obligated to follow the law, but that accountability came from forces outside the judicial system, such as Congress and public opinion. But if the high court rejected wholesale immunity, Sauer said that the district judge should be required to sift Trump’s official acts which couldn’t be subject to prosecution from private ones that could before trial began. Under such an approach, the judge’s decisions could be appealed to the circuit court and then the Supreme Court, likely putting any trial date far into the future, if ever. Michael Dreeben, a Justice Department lawyer representing special counsel Jack Smith, sought to focus attention on the antidemocratic crimes alleged against Trump, actions he said had no relation to a president’s legitimate powers. Siding with Trump “would immunize former presidents from criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and, here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power,” Dreeben said. He told the court that the justice system had adequate safeguards to protect ex-presidents from politically motivated prosecutions. Following a grand jury investigation, Smith brought a four-count indictment against Trump last year, accusing him of a criminal scheme to subvert the presidential election. The charges included conspiring to submit fake slates of Trump electors for states Biden won, pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to fraudulently alter the electoral count at the Jan. 6, 2021, congressional session to certify the election, and directing his followers to obstruct that proceeding, culminating in a riot at the U.S. Capitol. Chief Justice John Roberts said the grand jury process wasn’t enough to protect the presidency. “You know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment,” he said, adding that he wasn’t speaking of the Trump case in particular. “Reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases.” Dreeben allowed that the unique role of the president meant that some laws applied differently to holders of the office, something a former chief executive could raise in defense if put on trial. Justice Samuel Alito suggested that still exposed ex-presidents to unwarranted retribution. Under Dreeben’s approach, “there has to be a trial, and that may involve great expense and it may take up a lot of time, and during the trial, the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in,” Alito said. “We are trying to design a system that preserves the effective functioning of the presidency and the accountability of a former president under the rule of law,” Dreeben said. “And the perfect system that calibrates all of those values probably has not been devised.” That didn’t stop justices from trying. Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested a middle ground between Dreeben and Sauer’s positions, in which the trial would proceed, the district judge would rule on objections, but Trump would be allowed to seek immediate review from an appeals court rather than wait until he is convicted. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected by the end of June. Trump appointed three members of the Supreme Court, and they have at times sided with him. In March, for instance, they joined all other justices in deciding that Colorado overstepped its authority when it ruled Trump ineligible for future office after engaging in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. States "lacked authority" to enforce the 14th Amendment provision disqualifying former officials who engaged in insurrection from future office, the court then found. To date, however, the court, including Trump’s own appointees, more frequently has ruled against him. In 2020, the court rejected Trump’s bid to stop a New York prosecutor investigating potential crimes from obtaining financial records from Trump’s accountants. In January 2022, the court denied without comment Trump’s request to prevent the House Jan. 6 committee from obtaining White House records related to the Capitol riot. Most consequentially, the court in December 2020 rejected a Trump-backed suit to throw out the electoral votes of four states that supported Biden. Trump complained at the Jan. 6 rally preceding the Capitol riot that the three justices he appointed, Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, hadn’t stepped up to help him. Trump wasn’t present to watch the high court in action. In New York, where he is on trial over state charges of falsifying business records, the judge declined to pause proceedings so the defendant could attend oral arguments in Washington. Disse IDIOTENE evnet ikke å realisere at hvis de skulle gi fremtidige presidenter absolutt immunitet eller immunitet mot alvorlige lovbrudd i embetets tjeneste for egeninteresse - når de kunne kontrollere kongressen gjennom partilojalitet - en dyrkjøpt erfaring i Europa - risikere de at presidentembetet vil i praksis bli det samme som det er for Putin i Kreml; en sivildiktator på valg. De er så opptatt med å angripe kontrollmekanismene som de omtalte spesialanklagere som er en del av den amerikanske tradisjonen siden 1870, at de ikke fattet alvoret. De valgt å ignorere Trumps forbrytelsene. Det var en spesialanklager som brakt Nixon til kapitulasjonens rand under Watergatesaken, og den første historiske spesialanklageren var i forbindelse med en korrupsjonsskandale som involvert det hvite huset i 1875. Dette formaliseres i 1983 med "Ethics in Government Act"-loven, som helt siden den gang var dypt upopulært hos erkekonservative dommere som Scalia og republikanerne mens demokratene som regel ment det ikke er sterk nok. Da det var vedtatt, hadde ingen den gang forestilt seg at et parti skulle misbruke ordningen som sett under Clinton–Lewinsky skandalen i 1998. Ikke bare ønsker de konservative dommere å gi presidenten større immunitet enn normalt - uten å presisere hvor mye - for det er ikke nedskrevet i 1789-konstitusjonen - de vil ta vekk et viktig kontrollverktøy som er en naturlig del av ethvert demokratisk styresett! Dette kan ikke aksepteres, nå er det meget åpenbart at Roberts og de konservative dommere vil beskytte Trump og vil dessuten også fremme nye ordninger som muliggjør uthuling av det amerikanske demokratiet. Nå MÅ alle juridiske, politiske og intellektuelle eksperter kommer på banen. Snakk om meget dårlige nyheter!

Alfred er på lufte tur

Man har et ansvar når man lanesplitter med motorsykkel. For teknisk sett så er ikke dette forbikjøring siden man normalt ikke krysser midtlinjen. Derav ordet lanesplitting. Altså man DELER feltet. Man skal forvisse seg om at bilistene har lagt merke til deg før du lanesplitter og er man usikker på om dem vet du er der så bruk skjønn og hold mer avstand. Ved et sammenstøt tror jeg du stiller dårlig som MC fører i en tvist hvis du kom borti en bil under lanesplitting. Så mye ansvar er ilagt MC føreren i slike tillfeller. når du lanesplitter er derfor plasseringen din veldig viktig. Sørg for at du legger deg ut mot midten av veibanen slik at bilisten forran ser deg i spesielt. Ikke legg deg for nær bilen da dette kan virke proviserende på mange og dem vil derfor ikke vike. Legg deg på god avstand bak bilen. Da skal du se at veldig mange svinger mot høyre for å gi deg plass og gjør EN det så får det gjerne en smitteeffekt. Når du har passert så skader det lite å hilse på dem for å si "takk". Da skal du se at du opparbeider deg en respekt og slikt er smittsomt. Isteden for å oppføre deg som en hooligan hvor du ruser sykkelen rett ved sidevinduet og og legger deg tett opp i ræva bilene etc. det går faktisk ann å bidra til en bedre sted og være som motorsyklist. Det er ingen som ønsker å stå i kø.

(Han sikter til Northwestern University. Abu Obeida er lederen for Al-Qassam brigaden, del av Hamas) Lurer på hvorfor han spør, "do you speak Hebrew", på slutten der? 🤔 Lurer på hva han mente med det?

Skriver tallene for 2024 her