What’s your point?

Part of me wants to give kudos for the sole fact that this guy owned up to it and before it came out in a wikileaks-like news cycle, but then he shatters all good will with how condescending he is as he mansplains how “easily offended” people are now vs 10 years ago.

Ya, WTF is she searching his phone/interwebs history for. This was not an accidental “oh, what’s this?” moment. Not when she clearly analyzed that he had the same site 4x or more times in his history and then felt the need to confront him about it.

TL;DR: Yes, if you like PVE content, pick it up.

Ok ok, follow me for a second.

How about actually voting to impeach due to brazen public admissions of guilt? Including this overt attempt at obstruction of justice.

Lulz, not when international relations with allies are involved. And it is a well known tactic to ensure there are “no receipts” from the shake down.

A lot of people are finding out the hard way right now that our gov’t has been run on the honor system of those in power behaving as if their decisions affect the lives of millions, and by extension billions, of people.

Fuck this judge on point 1, there is no way in HELL these jurors should consider the castle doctrine in this case, unless it is to further absolve Jean posthumously of even the possibility of wrong doing whatsoever. In fact, they should consider it in his defense. She busted into HIS house. Breaking and entering,…

I know it seems that way, but that is not how our legal system works. The prosecution pushes narratives that would have outcomes of a guilty verdict and maximum allowable sentencing while the defense pushes narratives that would have outcomes of not-guilty verdicts and minimum allowable sentencing.

Ah, so she is responsible not only for her actions, but the actions of everyone she’s ever been in contact with and her entire family tree.

I know this is an emotional case, but to outright dismiss this person’s emotional response to killing someone is pretty cras. I mean, yes she is guilty and she is outright admitting it, but that does not mean she intended to kill this man or did it out of some kind of racial hostility, nor does it mean she can’t be…

Meh, he took a shot at a kink and missed. (Or did he? I didn’t see a clear no, just a playful correction of a word to one in her lyrics in a song about from what I can tell clapping your booty to fresh beats, unless I missed something? Which is totally possible)

I already have the transcript here (redacted in sharpee of course for nat’l security reasons):

Did I say that? Nope. I said Hart shares the blame and is legally culpable. He should have never let an unproven driver have the keys. Period. Especially knowing that he added 300 more hp than the car was designed to handle and with 50 year old safety equipment.

His wheels spun out, lost traction, and the car rolled into a ditch... but speed\horsepower wasn’t a factor? GTFO of here with that drivel.

So... adding 300 hp doesn’t make it any less safe? Despite the fact that it was almost immediately totaled and the power of the vehicle was the biggest contributing factor?

Hart is negligent. He let another driver operate his 700 hp steel torpedo without qualifying said driver and without some safety equipment, the story points out, experts say is necessary for a vehicle with that much power. Is he completely responsible? No, but it was his car. When he handed the keys over, he accepted…

Again, Hart handed the keys over. He accepted that there was a possibility this person would wreck his 700 hp beast. He also accepted that if said person were to crash he’d be stuck with the damages (at this point his pal is an uninsured driver btw). That is how personal responsibility works. That is why tracks…

Hart handed the keys to a 700HP steel torpedo to someone that did not have the skills to handle it. He is partly responsible. Period. Just like I don’t hand my 8 year old son a running chainsaw. It is irresponsible and if something were to happen I would be held accountable. So should Hart.