JD Vance, a Yale Law School graduate, sparked controversy over immigration commentary, specifically misunderstanding timelines and legal concepts surrounding deportation. A Politico report prompted Vance's tweets, in which he erroneously suggested that undocumented individuals were being wrongfully assessed under the Biden administration. The article critiques his grasp on legal realities, emphasizing that he conflated assertions and convictions while overlooking proper legal processes. This is framed within a broader observation of conservative figures' grasp on factual timelines and legal standards, hinting at a disturbing trend in political discourse.
What is it with conservative commentary and an inability to grasp linear time? Donald Trump was, in fact, the president in 2019. Jonathan Turley pulls this one a lot, while he scrounges around to concoct a Charlie Kelly in the Mailroom style basis for prosecuting Joe Biden based on emails from years when he wasn't in public office.
In fact, the person in question was never convicted and the 'evidence' behind the bond order could not and would not stand up in any effort to convict him of anything.
Shouldn't a Yale Law School graduate understand the difference between convictions and random assertions from confidential informants? In fairness, Yale Law doesn't really do that as much as it teaches you what Descartes might have thought about the Dormant Commerce Clause.
But the chef's-fucking-kiss on this is that Vance sent his 'analysis' at 8:48 a.m. yesterday. By 1:55 p.m. …
Collection
[
|
...
]