Camilla

• Medical Negligence Solicitor
• Law & Science 🤓
• 🎻ist & 🎹ist
• Personal account, views are solely mine
• retweets ≠ endorsements

[Greg Lukianoff @glukianoff]

Violence is not extreme speech. Violence is the antithesis of what freedom of speech is for.

[The Redheaded libertarian @TRHLofficial]

“There will be no art, no literature, no science… There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed.”

Orwell, 1984

[The Rest Is Politics @RestIsPolitics]

Rory finally addresses THAT MEME.

[no context the west wing @LemonLymancom]

27 years ago today, 'THE WEST WING' pilot aired on NBC.

Feeling old yet?

[John Ruddy @jruddy99]

Macron convened a conference of all french intelligence and military chiefs along with senior politicians from all parties to discuss the threat from Russia.

Andy does a tiktok about Tea

[Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 @Bubblebathgirl]

We all know what Lindsay Clancy did. What’s new today is the holdout juror saying eight of the other jurors wanted her found not guilty from day one. That’s not justice. That’s activism.

Holdout juror Michael Desronvil just broke his silence. He said those eight were already decided before deliberations meant anything, and that they spent the week trying to drag the rest of the room with them. Those other jurors have been calling Desronvil arrogant for a week. He looked at the evidence and wouldn’t bend the knee to their vendetta.

A jury is supposed to start with the facts. If eight people walked in with their verdict already picked, the mistrial isn’t one stubborn man. It’s eight jurors who treated three dead children as an inconvenience to the story they wanted. Jurors who do that should face real consequences. They wreck confidence in the courts.

The next hearing is September 29. Retry the Clancy case. Get a panel that hasn’t already picked a side. Get justice for the three children.

[Sarah Fields @SarahisCensored]

🚨HUGE BREAKING UPDATE - 🚨The holdout juror broke his silence by speaking with an INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST, Fugitive TV Podcast, this evening! 👏👏👏 HERE IS A FULL DETAILED WRITE-UP.

The holdout juror is NOT an immigrant. According to marriage and divorce records, he married a Haitian immigrant. She was illegal. He did not know this when he married her.

He did not show his face. He is keeping to himself since his name was doxxed on X. His life has been threatened, and people have stalked his house. NBC Boston did not give you the full story.

Michael, the juror, is now divorced. He filed for divorce first. The marriage was fraudulent because she was not a citizen. When he did this, everything hit the fan. She didn’t want a divorce. His ex-wife filed a counterclaim a couple of months later. He was denied his divorce petition because she was not an American citizen.

The incident with the nephew - according to the juror, there is a lot of information that many do not know. For example, the nephew is 6-foot-2, and Michael is only 5-foot-7. This obviously does not give anyone the right to hit anyone. But I think it is safe to say that we do not know all of the facts of the matter. Michael stated the truth will come out.

None of this matters when it comes to what happened in the courtroom. He filled out his paperwork appropriately. He did not lie on his paperwork. He was asked if he had ever been arrested, and he checked the box “yes” and afterward had to describe what happened.

He even took the stand, and the prosecutor asked him questions. He was questioned about his past arrest. He was then selected. I would like to make it very clear that this is something that happens with all of the potential jurors present. Which means that the jurors who have already been interviewed could have said this at any point, but they chose to keep that information from the public.

Michael told Fugitive TV that from day one, eight of the jurors automatically wanted to go for not guilty.

The eight jurors were “activists,” according to Michael. He said every day they voted, and the eight who were convinced that she was not guilty were doing their best to convince the other four that she was not guilty.

At the very end, it was him and another juror. She was also voting guilty. At the last minute, she caved. He said he knew she was guilty based on the EVIDENCE.

He was open about what he believed and what he said. He said the other jurors are telling half-truths or just outright lies.

He’s never been convicted of a crime. His past should not matter. He said that the entire time, his ex-wife was just trying to get status and citizenship to live in the U.S.

Michael said that the report on him that went viral, where they said they spoke with his family members, did not report exactly what was actually said. He said that the family members they spoke to were likely family members of his ex-wife, and he does not even speak with them. Therefore, they cannot know what actually happened in the jury room. Who DID NBC Boston speak with? According to Michael, it was not one of his own family members.

Michael stated that he believes he’s being targeted because he is a Republican - a Black Republican with conservative values. He believes that he was on a juror panel with a large number of Democratic voters. And he knows exactly what’s happening right now, and I think that you all do as well.

A Black Republican stood his ground. It is not surprising that he is now being dragged through the mud.

This is a very bad precedent for people who will serve on a jury in the future for a national case. No one wants to do this when, based on their decision that they say is based on the evidence, they are crucified online for their political beliefs. You have all seen it. You have seen the threats that I get on a daily basis. I cannot imagine what this man is going through.

But for now, I stand with the Black conservative Republican juror.

Link in comments👇

[Bridget Ayers @BridgetAyers]

The Tainting of the Next Lindsay Clancy Jury - Vote Guilty, Lose Your Privacy & Reputation

Perhaps we need to start talking about gag orders after mistrials until a decision about retrial has been made. Because what is happening in the Lindsay Clancy case is insane.

We have a defense attorney making inflammatory accusations about the lone holdout juror.

We have jurors going to the media and presenting their interpretations of what happened in deliberations almost as established legal fact.

And now we have media outlets digging into the holdout juror’s private history, reporting dismissed allegations and financial problems, doxxing him, and attempting to contact him at his home.

How does that not affect the next jury pool? More importantly, what message does it send to future jurors?

Serve on a high-profile case. Vote your conscience. Disagree with other jurors. And if your vote produces a mistrial, your private life will be broadcast to the world.

That creates a chilling effect. A future juror may think twice about standing alone if doing so could mean reporters at the door, relatives being interviewed, old court records resurfacing, and accusations being dissected online.

That is dangerous for the jury system. The vetting of jurors belongs in voir dire. Criminal history, conflicts, pending matters, bias, questionnaire answers, those are issues for the judge and attorneys to examine. If something material was concealed or the vetting process failed, the court has mechanisms to deal with it.

That is very different from trying a juror in the court of public opinion because people dislike his vote.

And meanwhile, potential jurors in Plymouth County and surrounding areas are being exposed to a very specific narrative; that the person who voted to convict Lindsay Clancy was arrogant, narcissistic, unreasonable, lawless, or somehow morally defective.

Think about what that does before a retrial even begins. A prospective juror now knows exactly what happened to the last person who stood alone and voted guilty.

I thought the biggest threat coming out of this trial was the precedent it could set for future mental-illness defenses.

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe the bigger threat is what every future juror is learning from what happened afterward.

Vote with the majority and go home. Stand alone, vote your conscience, and risk having your character, your past, your finances, your family and your reputation put on trial next.

[Matt Van Swol @mattvanswol]

🚨#BREAKING: A TV station is now digging through the PRIVATE LIFE of the lone, Black male HOLDOUT JUROR from the Lindsay Clancy trial... publicizing his divorce, his family disputes, even his eviction...

...because he refused to acquit Lindsay Clancy!!!!

Yes, they are TEARING HIS PRIVATE LIFE APART for this, but have done ZERO investigating on the private lives of the OTHER jurors.

One man, after a week of deliberation, would not sign off on a verdict he didn't believe in and that (by the way) is the WHOLE POINT of a jury.

We literally instruct jurors: do not cave.

Who is ever going to hold out EVER AGAIN???!!!!

Who's going to risk being the one honest "no" when they know the punishment is having their entire life ripped open on the news?!!!!

They are literally attempting to DESTROY the jury system with fear.

A verdict you disagree with is not a crime and a citizen who does his duty should not have his life destroyed for it.

This is absolutely insane.

[gab @owndeceiver]

Kelly Clarkson proving that she is the ONLY mainstream singer who can sing Golden on the original key live 😭

[Mike Gardner @mikegardner_wb]

Bang to rights.

This clip is so devastating, not just for Wes Streeting, but for Healey and Burnham too.

There’s simply no way for them to spin their way out of it.

Someone was lying about Labour’s willingness to fund defence spending properly weren’t they?

[Jimmy Rushton @JimmySecUK]

That’s because Healey’s resignation was never about defence spending, as pretty much everyone knows. It was a way to fatally damage Starmer and help Andy Burnham become Prime Minister.

Burnham then made him Chancellor as part of this quid pro quo.

[Andrew Fox @Mr_Andrew_Fox]

Reminder that John Healey resigned from the MOD over this exact issue. Forever a stain on his character if he rows back now.

[James Cleverly🇬🇧 @JamesCleverly]

John Healey resigned over Starmer’s refusal to properly fund defence.

We said he was an honourable man and at a time of European war and global uncertainty a step change in defence spending was needed.

Now it is Healey refusing to properly fund defence.

Unforgivable.

[UEFA @UEFA]

UEFA welcomes FIFA’s withdrawal of plans to sell a stake in the World CuUEFA welcomes FIFA’s withdrawal of plans to sell a stake in the World CuUEFA welcomes FIFA’s withdrawal of plans to sell a stake in the World CuUEFA welcomes FIFA’s withdrawal of plans to sell a stake in the World Cup

[UEFA @UEFA]

Statement on behalf of UEFA and its 55 National AssociationStatement on behalf of UEFA and its 55 National AssociationStatement on behalf of UEFA and its 55 National AssociationStatement on behalf of UEFA and its 55 National Associations

[Aaron Siri @AaronSiriSG]

Four mistakes Fauci made when pleading the 5th today:

1. Once a witness opens the door to a topic, the witness cannot then plead the 5th with regard to that topic. And Fauci’s opening statement opened many doors widely, including when he claimed he had a “decades-long record of cooperating with Congress” including “during and after the Covid pandemic” when he “appeared multiple times for hearings in the Senate and the House.” That puts the question of whether he properly cooperated when responding to questions, including prior questions from Senator Paul, in all of those hearings directly at issue. Here are a few of his statements through which he opened the door broadly:

•“I served at the NIH for over 54 years, 38 of those as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.”
•“Over that period, I proved that I believe in and respect the value of legitimate congressional oversight. In fact, I testified before and/or briefed Senate and House committees well over 200 times over those 38 years.”
•“During and after the Covid pandemic, I have appeared multiple times for hearings in the Senate and the House, usually under oath, and sat for several days-long, transcribed sworn interviews answering questions about the very issues that are now the subject of this hearing.”
•“However, Given Senator Paul’s obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me, and recently, his publicly releasing my unredacted personal diary, aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me, the only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something – anything – that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, ‘behind bars.’ Any reasonable person who has followed his unhinged obsession with me would readily come to the same conclusion.”
•“Therefore, although it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government and my decades-long record of cooperating with Congress, under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the 5th amendment of the constitution to refrain from answering your questions.”

2. The 5th amendment can only be used when answering a question which would present real and appreciable danger. Thus, his use of the 5th during the hearing for questions that clearly don’t meet this standard, including about the color of his tie and what day of the week it is, reflects on its improper use during the hearing overall.

3. Since invoking the 5th is question specific, announcing before even hearing the questions that he would “refrain from answering [the committee’s] questions” under the 5th was itself improper.

4. Finally, ignoring the broad presidential pardon he received, as if it doesn’t exist, including for questions that would clearly fall within the parameters of that incredibly broad pardon, was a misstep that may come back to bite him later.
@SenRandPaul @SenRonJohnson @HawleyMO @berniemoreno @SenatorLankford

[Hugh 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 @HughEdw31897368]

Burnham tells Kuenssberg there won’t be an early General Election as he’s working on the govt manifesto. That would be the manifesto where 70% has been delivered in two years by KS. And he wants three years to deliver the rest. What a charlatan.
#bbclaurak

[Just me - Thomas @TomSoede]

My Open Letter to Andy Burnham

@andyburnham and the rest of the devious 370 MP's !

You became Prime Minister without seeking a fresh mandate from the country.

That does not automatically make your leadership illegitimate, but it places a greater responsibility on you to lead with humility, honesty and respect for the government you inherited.

The very least I expect, if you want my continued support, is for you to state clearly what Keir Starmer achieved - and then explain honestly what you are adding to what he had already begun.

Not replacing it.
Not rewriting it.

And certainly not claiming it as your own.

For two years, Keir and his government gave their blood, sweat and tears trying to repair a country damaged by fourteen years of Conservative government.

They carried the political cost.
They made the difficult decisions.
They took the criticism.
They laid the foundations.

Those two years of blood, sweat and tears cannot simply be erased because there is now a new man standing at the lectern.

You cannot walk into Downing Street after the hardest work has been done, cut the ribbon and take the applause.

That is not what a leader does.

A real leader acknowledges the people who came before him. A real leader tells the truth about what he inherited, what was already working and what he intends to add.

So be honest with Labour members and with the country.

Tell us what Keir delivered.
Tell us what you are keeping.
Tell us what you are changing.

Then tell us what you - not somebody else - will be responsible for delivering.

If you fail to do that, I do not think the Labour Party will ever fully forgive you and will certaintely loose the next election.

You may have inherited the office, Andy.

But you have not inherited the right to claim someone else’s blood, sweat and tears as your own.

Follow the story. I’ll find the turning point.

[Binky @TheOnlyGuru]

May be me being awful, but I’m sick of the sight of him.

Self-congratulatory prat.