Napoleon Linarthatos

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

I'm sorry, but your product sucks. It does not work properly. I was trying to send a message, and it was basically describing what I said, its own interpretation of course, to a third person. Probably there is some super complex way to make it take a dictation the right way, but I don't want to take a course in order to use something that should be simple and intuitive to use.

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

"If you think a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you're crazy. Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights. Every president for life has a bill of rights. The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it literally. It was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!

Of course, they were just words on paper, what our Framers would have called a 'parchment guarantee.' And the reason is that the real constitution of the Soviet Union—think of the word 'constitution;' it does not mean a bill of rights, it means structure. When you say a person has a sound constitution, you mean he has a sound structure. Structure is what our Framers debated that whole summer in Philadelphia, in 1787. They did not talk about a Bill of Rights; that was an afterthought, wasn't it?

That constitution of the Soviet Union did not prevent the centralization of power in one person or in one party. And when that happens, the game is over. The bill of rights becomes what our Framers would call a 'parchment guarantee.' So the real key to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our Government."

Justice Antonin Scalia’s statement from his October 5, 2011, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

@mark_k @elonmusk The most annoying interview ever, you want to say? I mean, they don't let him speak

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

@McCormickJohn “Just after Christmas, a viral video made allegations—some quickly debunked by Minnesota news outlets—of fraud involving daycare centers.”

Debunked how?

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

@RedArkGuy @JavierBlas @AKurmanaev I think Perplexity has it right: "Socialism of the 21st Century,” featuring heavy state control over key sectors like oil while allowing some private enterprise." That's definitely not laissez-faire.

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

@JohnDePetroshow “For whatever reason” = they had no case. Actually, there are indications of a cover up.

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

Is there a more deserving case of a journalist than @DoctorTurtleboy for a Pulitzer Prize?

How often do you see a journalist having such an impact? How often do you have a journalist uncover such a case of institutional corruption and, in the process, save a woman from a wrongful conviction?

If trust in institutions is to be regained – and right now it is at a very low level, and justly so – accountability must be restored, and that requires good journalists who are willing to stand up and question authority

#KarenRead #KarenReadTrial #FreeKarenRead

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

The happiest person today is not Karen Read. It’s the “what if any” prosecutor, paperclips Lally.

#freekarenreed #KarenRead #KarenReadTrial

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

Does anyone else get the lazy boss vibes from Aunt Bev? Her highest priority – other than getting a guilty verdict for Karen Read – was to get the maximum possible number of days off. Especially keen on ending the days early, reliably starting almost all days late. Not eager to state her legal reasoning often, relying most often on an “I said so” type of argument. In the few cases where she bothered to state her reasoning, she misstated either facts or law or both.

Her court was a very unpredictable one. You could not deduce from her the principles by which she was operating. It was an outcome-driven court, and it was so in the most sluggish way possible.

She was too lazy to make decisions within a reasonable time frame, and things would carry on until it was really late in the day or the process.

She had a special inclination for everything that would tickle her sense of authority. She couldn’t say “sustain”; she would go with “I will allow that.” As lazy bosses go, she confused the mannerisms associated with authority with the actual source of authority.

She favored an almost slavish obeisance from the lawyers, as if the respect and authority should not come from competence, impartiality, and diligence, but should just spring forward from the announcement of one’s title as a judge. What a sorry-ass case of a judge.

#KarenReadRetrial #KarenReadTrial #FreeKarenRead #KARENREADISGUILTY

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

Hey Brennan, if your case is so good, why your side was caught lying so many times? Why would you take that risk?

#KarenRead #KarenReadTrial2 #KarenReadRetrial

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

@JohnDePetroshow Perhaps slightly more forgivable than claiming X-rays don’t exist, when they clearly do.

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

It would have be interesting if the prosecution had been able to substantiate any of this. Their case in chief came and went and all you can do is state a number of suppositions and assume and expect everyone to take them as true. That’s not much and especially nothing much in a murder case.

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

Imagine you're tasked with watching the Karen Read trial and reporting to a lawyer about what kind of judge Beverly Cannone is. What could you say?

Is she a stern judge? Well, it depends. The prosecutor in the Karen Read case seems able to do almost anything without facing consequences.

Is Cannone a lax judge? Not when it comes to the defense. She appears very strict, stern, and impatient with defense counsel.

Is she a by-the-book judge? No. Everything appears to be in a state of flux. There is little to no predictability in her rulings—rules and precedent are often interpreted in ways that seem blatantly aimed at achieving specific outcomes.

Given all this, is Cannone perhaps a generally pro-prosecution judge? Surprisingly, no. She has been overturned multiple times during her tenure, often in cases where she made decisions in favor of the defense.

From watching the Karen Read trial, the only clear conclusion is that Judge Cannone appears extremely biased against the defendant, Karen Read. That’s the only consistent observation one can make about her judicial conduct in this case.

#KarenRead #KarenReadTrial #FreeKarenRead

[Andrea Burkhart 🐟🐟🐟🐟🏴‍☠️ @aburkhartlaw]

It's just astonishing to see a judge so tolerant of the overt contempt he's displaying towards the process, the courtroom, and everyone in it. Witness after witness belittled and disrespected and not a single grave concern to be found.

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

Will you be surprised that now the defence is to start its case the judge, who also acts as part-time prosecutor of Karen Read, will be very concerned about time? Might also imply to the jurors that we were so on time till now, but now, oh my!!!!

#KarenRead #KarenReadTrial

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

@JohnDePetroshow Fact free as always John

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

@lisamarieLML Red herring

[Napoleon Linarthatos @nl76]

@brianstelter @kaitlancollins Did you ever mentioned constitutional crisis for this?

[Walter Kirn @walterkirn]

The direct federal payments to the press should end any illusions you might have about the outlets which received them. They operated under a lie while hunting corruption in others.

All should be removed from your reading lists, devices, etc. A smooth sharp cut.

For health.