Crimson77

quote:

---

Don't know the details to say he is guilty and don't understand why for some it's always guilty before charged

---

News outlets are reporting that prosecutors have the group texts of Arnold discussing, organizing, and participating in the kidnapping/beat down. If true, he's cooked. It's just about what kind of plea he can negotiate at that point.

Whether it has been good or bad for El Salvador, they are incarcerating 1.6% of their population. We currently incarcerate 0.7%. They are doing it at half the rate of spending per prisoner that we are. If we account for scale differences, we are basically incarcerating half as many people, but spending the same amount of money.

If we want to increase incarceration, we first have to fix the incredibly corrupt and wasteful jail and prison system to make it economically viable.

Trump backed out of the JCPOA on May 8, 2018. He did not have to do that, he chose to. In doing so, he retracted all oversight or Iran's nuclear energy program, and it gave Iran permission to begin working towards a nuclear weapon again.

The reality is that Iran has agreed to nothing in Trump's MOU that they had not already agreed to in the JCPOA. In sum, Iran agreed to the following in Trump's MOU:

Open the straight of Hormuz
Don't build a nuclear weapon
Downblend current highly enriched uranium

They may agree to some additional oversight mechanisms in the final deal.

We had already obtained every bit of these agreements from Iran in the JCPOA. Yes, Iran got parts of their country blown up with missiles, and I'm sure the war hurt their economy too. Their military is weakened, though the leaders we killed were replaced by even more radical ones. And the 80 year old Ayatollah got offed in favor of a younger one.

But the reality is that Trump did not get the US anything it did not already have. The only thing we accomplished in this whole saga from backing out of the JCPOA eight years ago until now is giving Iran a black eye. On the downside, we increased inflation, increased the deficit and debt, expended military hardware and ammunition, screwed up the oil market, and damaged relationships with allies around the world.

Great. At least Netanyahu got what he wanted.

quote:

---

Iran has agreed to give up their enriched uranium for real.

---

Exact Terms of Iran MOU

This is not correct, the deal says:

quote:

---

The Islamic Republic will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.

---

The current stockpile of highly enriched uranium is supposed to be "downblended" to a lower level of enrichment. They will keep their uranium.

quote:

---

Name a president who's gotten us closer if you dare.

---

Obama. As much as people on here will never admit it, the JCPOA had stronger terms restraining Iran's nuclear program, and stronger enforcement mechanisms. Like Trump's MOU, the JCPOA also included a commitment from Iran that they would not develop a nuclear weapon. In fact, Trump's MOU specifically references that the commitment to not develop a nuclear weapon is a "reaffirm" of what Iran had already committed to in the JCPOA:

quote:

---

8. The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons.

---

You can say - but the JCPOA didn't include BOMBS as an enforcement mechanism. Sure, neither does Trump's deal. Bombing them has always been an option, just a bad one, because it fricks up the world oil market as we saw over the last few months.

The JCPOA also only included a release of 1.7 billion in frozen Iranian assets. Trump's MOU includes the following:

Release of ALL frozen funds and assets to the Central Bank of Iran:

quote:

---

The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran

---

Lifting of ALL sanctions against Iran, both those by the US and UN:

quote:

---

The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal.

---

Immediate waivers for all oil-related industry pending the lifting of sanctions:

quote:

---

The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives and all associated services including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.

---

And 300 BILLION dollars (Iran's entire annual GDP, 17,647% more than the JCPOA granted, in addition to the money they'll get from full sanction relief and unfreezing of all assets and funds) of investment, which will undoubtedly be funded primarily or entirely by the US (taxpayers, you and I), with minimal input from regional partners:

quote:

---

The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

---

Also, this is just a simple Memorandum of Understanding. The MOU specifically requires a full and formal deal to be made. The details of that deal could blow the whole thing up and we're right back to square one.

quote:

---

Well, he can't prove that he wasn't drunk unless they happened to do a BAC or something at the time. So what he would need is the word of someone else willing to go to bat for him who was actually there at the time (Patel alleges The Atlantic's sources do not have first hand knowledge of what they are even alleging) and says they're untrue, right?

---

Prove is relative. The burden of proof (in other words, the degree to which the thing must be proven) is by a preponderance of the evidence. That means greater than 50/50. Patel proves to a jury greater than 50% (even 50.1%) that the claims are false, then he's met his burden of proof on that element. And by "prove to a jury" I simply mean convince, or persuade. Depending on your jury, if they find him credible, his own denials could be enough. To survive summary judgement, he only needs evidence sufficient that a jury could believe by a preponderance of the evidence that the story is false.

Falsity/Truth is usually not the issue on summary judgement. These types of things are nearly impossible to prove definitively one way or another. If falsity/truth was the only issue, you'd at least get the case to the jury and avoid dismissal every time.

The problem is finding some evidence to show that a jury could believe the reporter knew it was false, and published it anyway in order to harm Patel. That evidence is usually hard to find, and pure "well that's what makes sense" isn't enough. You need some real testimony and documentary evidence to make the case. Conversely, evidence to show the reporter at least had a reason to believe it was true is almost always present. Even if that evidence falls well short of what we would all expect a quality outlet to rely on before publication.

quote:

---

I think they have to proof the truth first or show that they did not have animus which is very difficult for the publisher given past history.

---

I am a practicing litigator. Your thinking is wrong. The Plaintiff (Patel, the person who brought the suit) has the burden to prove his case. His burden is to prove falsity, knowledge, and malice. Under the Sullivan case, none of those elements can be presumed based on the contents of the alleged defamatory statements.

quote:

---

you serioisly think there are documents showing a drinking problem???

seriously???

---

I think there's enough anti-MAGA people in DOJ/FBI that a diligent reporter could find a few people to produce a "memo to self" email which details embarassing drinking problem stories. Even if the stories are completely made up, putting it on paper and giving it to the reporter while representing them to be true, is likely enough to defeat the lawsuit on summary judgement.

This is no judgement on whether the article is correct or not. As a matter of law, the case is likely to get dismissed if not settled. It is very, very, difficult to sue a reporter for defaming a public official, due to the NY Times v. Sullivan case. He would essentially need to prove not only that the story is false, but that the outlet new for a fact it was false, and even further that they published it for the purpose of trying to hurt him. If the outlet can even show that they had a couple of sources that alleged what was in the story, they'll likely get the case dismissed.

Source: I litigate defamation cases regularly.

quote:

---

Our expected standard of living is too high, honestly. We would rather have a luxury SUV and a family trip to Cancun and eating out than have two more children.

---

I mean, when my choice is a half-decent daycare or after school care program that costs the equivalent of a second mortgage, or a cheap one run by literal ghetto crackheads... yeah I'll just take another vacation instead.

Oh and good luck even getting into a decent daycare. You better sign up before you even start trying to make a baby.

This is reality for those that don't have a family support system around them to help out and need to work a 9-5.

quote:

---

Or, you know, there are still bombs falling on the very buildings you are expecting them to overrun.

---

That's a problem in the short term for them. The long term problem is that the current regime probably still has a plurality of the population's support.

Sure, the majority don't support the regime. But that majority is fractured into various political, ethnic, and religious groups. Some of which is more problematic than the current regime. There is no unified front to propel a revolution.

Also, the current regime has had five decades to arm itself and prepare to fend off an uprising. The opposition would be severely outgunned.