Cameroni

I've seen the full video. Rivers is very short on serioius legal analysis. He's big on psychology though, talking about "cognitive dissoance" and "sociopath" tendencies, "biploar disorder". He also lectures on how love works. He basically takes snippets of the testimony and gives his superficial take on it. His "explanation" of the rackeetering issue is almost non-existent. Basically he thinks there clearly was coercion, so it's a slam dunk. Though he did raise one interesting point, the indictment includes "conspiracy" to racketeer, but where are the other conspirators? He's never seen a case where there's only one conspirator on trial. So this tips you off right away that the racketeering charge is made up. Effectively what the prosecution is claiming is that Combs ran a criminal enterprise. But an enterprise has to be for profit. That was the whole origin of the racketeering charge, to catch mobsters profiting of selling alcohol and drugs, or protection rackets. This was clearly not what Combs was doing. He was not running a criminal enterprise to profit. The very definition of racketeering is this: "Racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the perpetrators set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation (a "racket") to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit." According to the US Justice Department, to convict someone of racketeering, prosecutors must prove five different criteria: A criminal enterprise existed The enterprise affected interstate commerce The defendant was associated with or employed by the enterprise The defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity The defendant participated in at least two acts of racketeering activity https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/26/us/what-is-racketeering-trnd Clearly Combs Enterprises did not collect a profit from the Freak Offs. If anything it was the opposite, they cost Combs money. Nor were the Freak Offs a "criminal enterprise", in reality they were neither an "enterprise" nor were they "criminal". But the greatest problem with the racketeering charge is that it requires that a profit be made. What profit did Combs make with the Freak Offs? The origin of the racketeering charge are things like a "protection racket" where the mob uses coercion to exort money. That's where the coercion part in racketeering comes from. Now, the prosecution can argue that Ventura was coerced, sure. But what profit did Combs collect from the freak offs? Did they affect interstate commerce? Freak offs are NOT a racketeering activity. These are clearly trumped up charges as far as racketeering goes. Nevertheless Combs may still be convicted for them, because he may well be done for "arson" because he burned Kid Cudi's car, due to Ventura's infidelity. Combs also distributed narcotics to people, apparently. If you look at the indictment, which is here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/media/1368556/dl the criminal enterprises the prosecution alleges are "sex trafficking, forced labor, interstate transportation for purposes of prostitution, coercion and enticement to engage in prostitution, narcotics offenses, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice." But in reality Combs did not do any of these as a criminal enterprise to collect money. Combs was not a pimp who offered prostitutes to clients. There were no paying customers .At all. So there was no sex trafficking,. Forced labor may refer to that singer who claims she was not paid properly and locked up and assaulted.. Interstate transportation, yes that will stick obviously. The narcotics offenses may stick, again not because Diddy was a drug dealer, but because he distributed narcotics freely to participants in the freak offs. The arson thing, again it may stick because of the Kid Cudi car burning. Kidnapping is a joke. But you can clearly see these are not criminal enterprises where Combs derived a profit. Quite the opposite. It all cost him money. Nevertheless, he will be put away for a long time. I suspect more than 10 years. Why he did not take the plea deal, only he will know.

It's just plain wrong. Russia does not control many of these pro-Russian militias. That's why the Minsk accords failed as well, the pro-Russian forces in Ukraine could not be persuaded to adhere to what Russia agreed. Russia does not control these groups.

He was offered a plea deal. I have no idea why he decided to go to trial. He has no chance. He is completely cooked. Even though it's no a domestic violence trial, the prosecution kept showing the hotel video and bringing it up. Nobody could possibly like him, after seeing that video and decide dispassionately on the case. His main star witness is a heavily pregnant woman. Whom he beat. Who testified he liked to urinate in her mouth together with male prostitutes. All this will completely obscure the fact that he did not engage in trafficking, kidnapping or anything of the sort. The government wants to paint his company as a criminal enterprise with the purpose of trafficking men and women. It's completely ludicrous. He faces 50 civil lawsuits in addition to this criminal trial. But rackerteering? You have got to be joking. That was meant for mafia business. How can they claim he had a business that engaged in trafficking and forced labour? What was the business? Watching his gf get banged by prostitutes? It's ludicrous. It really is.

It still does. If I hadn't left that mini-bar deposit receipt lying around in the hotel suite. If the 7/11 girl had not been a snooper.. Perhaps 7/11 girl and I could be making the beautiful love right now. So sad. She was such a special girl. Good at sex and kissing too. Very regrettable. I see her every day on ThaiFriendly. That's a bit of a consolation, that feeling when you search 18-25 years and a few girls come up you've already known intimately. Priceless.

Yes, Chiang Mai.

Quite right. Hitler of course made the decision based on fantastically false force estimates by Fremde Heere Ost, the German intelligence service. Hitler said on record after the fighting was in full flow, if he had known the true extent of Russian forces he never would have started the war with Russia. So it was the German intelligence service that caused the disaster, by providing totally false figures. The Germans were always terrible at secret service work.

Thanks guys, so a bit of domestic and various other nations like US, Canada, and Australia. Just like them, Germany would have to source uranium from third parties. I don't think East Germany has enough either.

It did. For years Uncle Joe pleaded for the US and the UK to open a second front to assist Russia's fight with Germany. But only when they were absolutely sure that Germany was close to defeat in 1944 did the Americans and British help the Russians out and open a second front. Shameful cowardice really. They should hold an easter egg parade, because like easter eggs, the Americans and British were hiding from the German homeland for most of the war.

I see the UK got US uranium, France from Madagascar and their nuclear power residue. Merz selling a strong army to the people of Germany as sufficient protection is a joke surely. How would Germany prevail against nuclear power being nuclear naked herself?

It's a complete ostrich head in the sand tactic by Merz, they are just ruling out nuclear weapons. Germany of course has renounced nuclear weapons Japan style, but even if that is reversed, the small amounts of Uranium in the former East Germany would probably not suffice. Despite having ample technical expertise to build nuclear weapons Germany would still need outside support to build a nuclear arsenal. How do the UK and France do it, where do they get their uranium?

Even in Thailand I would consider 550 baht for a meal for two and a two drinks a cheap price. That's 6 GBP per person, so 2 for the beer and 4 for the meal. That's a fairly cheap price for meal and drinks. You can easily bring the dinner cost for two to 1000 or 2000 baht for a quality meal in Thailand. 240 Baht for a short trip is about right, which is of course incredibly cheap by UK, German or US taxi prices.

550 baht for a meal for two and two drinks is too expensive?

That's my experience how they die in the West too. My grandmother just died aged 94. The hospital divesteritself off of her, and just sent her home, as my mother was willing to take care of her and give her morphine. It was still a horrendous death in agony according to my mother's eye witness account. Even with fantastic health insurance and additional money hospitals eventually give up on those who cannot be saved.

Good point. Whilst Rommel greatly admired Australian soldiers it should also be noted that Australia lost 40,000 men roughly, almost four times Belgian military losses. That's still a very small number even compared with the UK and US, which was too small to be considered by the makers of that data.

I don't thnk so. The oil embargo on Japan was a calculated blow to Japan aimed to provoke it to go to war. The US must have known that a Japan starved off oil would have to resort to war.

No, actually the boom period that followed 1945 benefitted all Western countries greatly, not just the US. The UK, Germany, France, Japan, all benefitted from the post war boom tremendously. It lasted for over two decades. Everybody got richer after WWII. It's just the UK was spending the riches of India for pomp and ceremony, but it was never that rich. As was evident after it gave up India.

Yah, even if that market value is exaggerated it's still at least around 3.5 trillion which is still a "weapon of financial mass destruction" as Warren Buffet called Derivatives. I actually worked on repackaged Derivatives, CDOs, as a securitization lawyer and none of us understood what underpinned the deals. I vividly remember the lead lawyer on the deal at a major law firm, screaming down the phone at the investment bank client "No I don't understand it! Explain it to me again!". Obviously he never understood it, since those epxlaining it to him clearly didn't understand it.

Quite so, and it was the Russians who were on the ground and won the war. For several years Russia begged the US, and the UK, to open a second front to help defeat Germany. For years the US and UK cowardly refused, letting Russia bleed herself out and losing 20 million men. Only when Germany was clearly on the road to certain defeat did the Americans and British dare to open that second front in Normandy. Years after Russia asked them to. If you want to know who contributed the most to win WWII you just have to look at the casualty figures.

Thanks, I used the term sub-prime, because the 2008 crisis is generally called the "Sub-prime mortgage crisis" It's important not to confuse the AAA ratings by the credit agencies with the Alt-A and other credit score ratings by FICO. A-minus is traditionally defined as mortgage borrowers with a FICO score of below 660 while Alt-A is traditionally defined as loans lacking full documentation or with alternative documentation of ability to repay . This not the same as a A rating by the credit agencies. it may well have been the case that the probability of mortgages going into default was high, even among non-sub-prime, however, what happened was that there were innumerable securitisations by banks which packaged these assets, including sub-prime loans into Cayman Islands vehicles that had no liabilities. By virtue of these vehicles having no liabilities at all the rating agencies gave them stellar credit ratings, usually AAA, because they only had assets. This was very clearly a grave mistake. Because eventually when sub-prime borrowers defaulted the market started to lose confidence in these securities, issued by the Cayman vehicles, because they were backed solely by these assets, ie mortgages and also sub-prime mortgages, which potentially would be worthless when people stopped repaying them. This was never factored into the risk analysis by Moody's, Fitch and S&P, who gave out AAA ratings like confetti solely based on the fact that these Cayman vehicles had no liabilities. The rating agencies did not do their job and analyze what would happen if the mortgages don't get repaid. Of course banks were to blame too because they gave mortgages to people who shouldn't have gotten one as they had no means to repay. Politicians like Bill Clinton were to blame too, because he pushed legislation that forced banks to give mortgages to people who cannot repay them, due to ideological reasons.

Casandra Ventura has not spared the most graphic detail in her testimony, talking about the Freak Offs: "Combs, she continued, or one of the male escorts hired to have sex with her, sometimes "would urinate on me" during these Freak Offs. Ventura testified she was “choking” because there was “too much urine in my mouth,” sometimes from both Combs and the escort participating at the same time. https://people.com/cassie-claims-diddy-forced-sex-period-11734172 Imagine her husband Alex Fine seeing his baby mama on the stand testifying how she was drinking urine from Combs and other men. I guess he won't mind that much, since Ventura brings in 30 million USD. Hard work though, clearly.

So Merz has expressly ruled out Germany obtaining nuclear weapons. https://www.dw.com/en/germany-debates-issue-of-nuclear-weapons/a-71924424 If Germans win on the battlefield against Russian conventional forces, then Germany will be nuked. How is this a sensible policy?

How odd that an older female judge goes this much out of her way to save a violent wife beater. Sexual attraction?

That's a good point, the rating agencies were highly complicit and instrumental in causing the sub-prime mortgage crisis because they peppered Cayman Islands vehicles that were newly created just to hold mortgage backed securities with AAA ratings. Nothing to do with the fact that the investment banks paid the rating agencies' humongous fees, I'm sure. Worked out great for the world economy in 2008.

Unless Germany develops her own nuclear weapons what good will it do?

Moody's also changed its outlook for the U.S. from negative to stable. Presumably because Trump is now in charge?