It’s obviously an overly legalistic and technical argument that doesn’t speak to the merits. But it’s an appeals case, you have to argue legal errors not factual ones. I’m not a lawyer and have no idea how likely it is to succeed, but I think “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” is best legal practice, so I don’t see how this filing hangs him out to dry. It’s bad optics but I don’t think is gonna matter to anyone.
Did you not read the article?
and that Trump technically did not swear an oath to “support” the Constitution. Instead, during his January 2017 inauguration, Trump swore to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution during his role as president.
You’re talking about the reasoning in the ruling by the district judge. This article is about trump’s argument in filings to the appeals court.
Here’s wiktionary:
Although sometimes used, normalcy is less common than normality in American English. It is very rarely used in the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It is frequent in India and Zimbabwe however.
So it’s a regional thing.
Although the claim that in US English the “normality” form is more common does not match my experience as a speaker of US English.
I did not recognize that form and assumed it was not a word. I stand corrected.
Even if dems win a majority in the house, they may not have a majority of state delegations. the house vote is by state delegation.
but the encryption keys are not stored on the 1password cloud systems
1password user data is encrypted, right? so even if a hack had allowed a bad actor access to user pw databases, it’s not like they would’ve just scored everyone’s passwords… right?
We call this pose “the strong arm”
I don’t get it. Are those toppings controversial? What even are they? Pickles?
he was also all geared up to run in 2016, but then his son died. If I recall, Hilary Clinton actually waited for Biden to decide he couldn’t run before she entered the race.