Avatar

Things are looking good!

@thantos1991 / thantos1991.tumblr.com

http://paypal.me/kli1991 https://www.twitch.tv/thantos1991 Switch: SW-6950-1244-9903

So since this is Tumblr and people here have zero reading comprehension, just in case this breaks containment I want it to be clear this is not me supporting Trump or making excuses, it’s just a “huh. Wonder what would happen if, in general?” thought that came up when I got further details on the FBI raid.

So let’s say we’re talking about a President who ISN’T a giant steaming pile of santorum. Just a dude. (Or lady.) Doing the job, as you do.

And this President is writing a letter to, I dunno, the PM of England. The head of the UN. Somebody important where this document is going to need to be very precise.

And they write like three lines, and then go “ugh, I don’t like how any of this sounds, Imma start over.”

Under the federal records act, are they allowed to just…toss the “none of this sounds like I wanted it to, let’s try that again” incomplete letter and start over? Or do they have to like scrawl “needed more coffee, having a do-over” on it and save it for the archives?

While we’re on the question, what if the president is a doodler? Like say they’re on a pretty standard phone call and don’t really need to take notes per se but they do need to occupy their hands, does the entire page of anime eyes and circles go into the national archives? Is that even considered documentation? Does the President have to be careful to not absentmindedly practice nude drawing in the Oval Office?

Yes. Yes it does. You can thank Nixon. Everything the President does, touches, or writes during his time in office is considered public property specifically to keep things like, "Oh, those are my private personal records!" from being a defense option to hide conspiracy and the like. Now, the records can be sealed or classified--and probably would have--but those hypothetical first drafts (assuming this president had the option of drafting their own letters?) would be invaluable to future historians.

Now, that being said, the Presidential Records Act does allow for the incumbent president to have a talk with the Archivist of the United States on "Do we have to keep that first draft/nudes/googly eyes?" on the grounds that they do not have "administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value" and they can then be tossed. But the Archivist has final say on that and gets to see it first.

This is also why it was such a huge deal that one 6th of the American people voted in a literal professional conman who has never done a straight, honest business deal in his entire life and gave him the most powerful seat in the nation.

BECAUSE that man is so corrupt and fucking people over via business dealings is so deeply ingrained in his soul (and he has learned that destroying a paper trail is the best way to stay out of prison) that he was shredding every single document that came across his desk. BASICALLY EVERYTHING HE LOOKED AT OR PRETENDED TO READ, he was ripping into little pieces like a fucking dog destroying a kid's homework.

So the Archives had to spend god knows how much time carefully taping/piecing each shredded document back together so that it could be preserved in accordance with the records act.

Fun fact: the fact that he did this? Even once? A federal crime. V illegal. He did it multiple times a day, every single day, for YEARS.

This also begs the question of what happens if a president rips something up on accident. Like when I go through my mail, anything I don’t need gets torn in half, because if the cats decide to play in the recycling I want to know it’s already been read. I am ABSOLUTELY the person who’d do it at least once out of reflex. Like I can literally see it now, I’d get some redundant briefing and go “well, that told me absolutely nothing I didn’t already know” and then RIIIIIIP and then “FUCK!”

I mean, I do only go once down the middle and I’d immediately be apologizing buckets to the archivists, so I feel like probably I’d be okay? But there’s got to be at least one other person out there who’d do this.

(I’m sorry, there are hypotheticals now. That’s where I live and breathe.)

….this also makes me wonder if the president gets junk mail. Like can you imagine going through the mail and there’s just like one of those SuperSavr coupon packs addressed to “Current Resident”? Like what do you do, walk upstairs and give it to the First Lady like “ma’am you can get $10 off your next oil change”?

(Okay now I’m just in a goofy mood, but—DOES the White House get junk mail?)

I bet the answer is technically yes but practically no. All mail addressed to 1600 Pennsylvania gets screened, I sincerely doubt that address is on zero mass mailing lists, and I sincerely doubt the mass mailings make it past the screeners.

yeah that's for sure a 'they have people for that' issue

Avatar

This is, indirectly, what the Clinton's "but her emails" controversy was about.

The Presidential Records Act does not apply to others within the president's administration, such as cabinet members like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, unless they are communicating with the president. But there are federal administrative rules about preserving government records, especially if one chooses to retain one's current email account (as Donald Trump did his Twitter account) rather than setting up a new government one for that office.

Clinton, like her predecessor Secretary of State Colin Powell and many in the Bush administration, chose to continue with her personal email account. The FBI found that out of 62,000+ emails, Clinton had failed to mark and record a couple thousand as work-related. this meant that, while she had made an effort to make sure government-related correspondence was archived by the State Department, some had been missed. When she left office, she deleted work-related correspondence for which she no longer had authorization from her personal email boxes. The FBI determined that this had not been done "in an effort to conceal," but would she be as careless as president?

No one ever seemed to ask this question about Trump or the people he would appoint as cabinet members and high-ranking officials.  In retrospect, the answer seems obvious.

Many in Donald Trump's administration used personal email accounts for state business including CIA head Pompeio whom Trump later appointed as his Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Ambassador to the UN, the Secretary of Education, and Jared and Ivanka Trump, who unlike Hillary made no effort to forward work-related emails to official government mailboxes to ensure preservation. Also, many in the Trump administration including Jared and Ivanka used insecure third party platforms like WhatsApp.

The other branch of the "but her emails" controversy was that the Clintons, like many of us who entered the Internet in the 90s, maintained emails and files on a private server inside their own house rather than trusting it to some third party host. Platforms like Gmail didn't yet exist, and tech-savvy early adopters certainly weren't going to trust AOL. In the 90s and early 2000s, this would have been seen as sound cybersecurity: store your data on a machine you physically own, controlling all access to it with security software you or your office's tech wiz/security guru installed.

But of course, times change, and the Clintons didn't. She should have set up a Secretary of State government email address, although this was not required, although this was not required. I suspect the problem was that the government email system's bespoke interface was far more clunky and aggravating (Hillary Clinton mentioned convenience). Also, for us older folks at least, switching accounts is a PiTA.

The FBI investigated Clinton's emails and server twice, the second time two weeks before the 2016 election which had an ENORMOUS impact on voter sentiment, since it had the whiff of something criminal.

The Clintons turned over their private server to comply with this investigation. Both times the conclusion was that Hillary Clinton had failed to archive some work-related emails "not in an effort to conceal" anything, and that she had been careless about security by trusting her private server was unhackable.

Although at least, unlike Trump's UN Ambassador Nicki Haley, Clinton avoided discussing classified information. But still, 93 times. other people's emails to her included classified information.

$$!I have a strong suspicion that Trump neither used his official government address for all presidential communications, nor did he take care to archive all of his emails before deleting them (Which, because of the Presidential Records Act, he was legally not allowed to do.) He certainly used his personal Twitter account to issue official statements, up to and including firing cabinet members, and we saw him delete many such tweets illegally.

Sources:

If you had shown me this site in 2005 I would have asked you if had checked your virus software lately, because this looks like a bad one. I would have clicked away so fast it would give you whiplash. Looking at these sites now, I have to convince myself that they aren't virus laden sites and fight against the pavlovian urge to just navigate away.

eclecticmasterpiece

I navigate away anyways because fuck them, there's usually a better site (though they are dwindling quickly). I still can't get over how the internet "as intended" today looks like a malware ridden fever dream from 20 years ago. This is every story I've ever read about an empire that used to be great and has now fallen into turmoil.

Beloveds, there is a wonderful website that gets rid of all that crap<3

OOOOH.

Anonymous asked:

Once I had my party start a rat farm.

To put it short: Lvl 1 party, simple Ratutorial (aka a stereotypical beginning of any new group's first campaign I DM), giant rats in the basement, oh dear adventurers please slay them.

They go downstairs, slay 3 rats out of the 7 rats encounter (balanced considering the party).

Then the bard has an idea. "What if we farmed them?"

I asked him to elaborate. Long story short, the bard and the rogue both started a rat-farming business, since in-setting, selling rat heads was a good way of income motivated by the government to help with the city's sewage systems' rat infestations and the spread of diseases.

They both went to prison two sessions later after being exposed of this crime. And the lord's treasurers had to come up with new laws to prevent such thing from happening again.

It was the most interesting start for a campaign because the players got around 500gp (an incredible amount of money by the standards of our setting) in two sessions just by grinding severed rat heads.

TL:DR Players derail the campaign before it starts by capturing a bunch of rats, breeding them, and selling their heads to the government because of a government-driven act of preventing plagues by dealing with rat infestations using citizen forces.

Anon this is incredible

Avatar

Very Ankh-Morpork of them...

Avatar

Hey, AO3 folks (and fanfic writers elsewhere)... if you see this offer, RUN AWAY FROM IT. IT’S POISON.

Please read this twitter thread and then stay FAR AWAY from the people being described…

The tl:dr; version: These people want you to “file the serial numbers off” your fanfic and publish it with them.

The catch: If the IP owners ever come after you, you’re on your own… and you have to pay the publisher damages! (Not to mention the IP owner…)

Also: their advances are CRAP. Also: Your advance (such as it is) is obtained by crowdfunding. WTF!!!

So:

AVOID AVOID AVOID. Dear sweet THOTH on his e-scooter, stay away from these people.

ETA: Victoria Strauss of Writer Beware has looked at the contract and declared it “completely incoherent and inadequate”.  

So, honestly… AVOID.

Yiikes

@thebibliosphere Worth boosting?

Yep. I saw it on Twitter yesterday and the contract is genuinely bonkers. Avoid at all costs.

Y’know what? Fuck you. *Plays an acoustic guitar version of your leitmotif to show you still have tenderness and care in your heart, and compassion for others*

yeah? well fuck YOU *plays a music box version of your leitmotif to show that this is your home and its comfortable and nostalgic here*

No, piss off! *plays your leitmotif with immense reverb and a toned-down synth sound to show that nostalgia can also be about loss of what never truly was, a reflection of a reflection and a false memory of a false memory*

ok, boomer. *plays your leitmotif using discordant synth bass to display your spiral into villainy after you discover that your memories were a fabricated illusion that were created just to keep you complacent, and how that information is destroying you*

How many times do I have to teach you this lesson, old man? *plays your leitmotif in harmony with my own, intensity of both changing as our climactic battle’s balance shifts back and forth, eventually leaving only one with long, low pauses to musically represent our mutual struggle to overtake the other, yet not being able to exist in full without them.*

oh, you’re going to regret that! *plays your leitmotif on piano in short, soft notes to show that you’re being worn down, and that your energy is at a low, but with a steadily rising bassline that foreshadows your upcoming second form*

This is fun! *plays a energetic rock version of the main theme to show its the season finale*

Yoda "Escapes"

Yeah, hi. I have serious questions about Yoda's freedom of movement. Is, like, the rest of the Jedi council holding him hostage? I know for a fact that like, uh, 20ish years down the line Luke finds him in a swamp. Has his dream home from the start been a swamp (mood) and he's only capable of making it happen because all the Jedi are murdered. "Hiding." Uh huh.

Ah ok. Yep. That checks out.

Though. The swamp is still probably his dream home and being a Jedi probably keeps him temple bound most the time.

Ok hold up. So Yoda learns very last few episodes of season 6 out of 7 of the 2008 clone wars animated Disney series that he must learn to preserve his consciousness so that even after death he can preserve the Jedi order.

Thing is, I already know that most of the Jedi don't survive the next like 8 hours of Star wars media, in inuniverse order, but Yoda does. So it's a very much an alive Yoda that trains Luke. I'm pretty sure Yoda dies in like the original movies though. Don't quote me, but i remember force ghost Yoda happening.

But it's implied that it's force ghost Yoda that will bring the order back which means he needs to have a need to after his death. Now I have actually seen enough of the prequels to know that Kyle Ren like kills all the Jedi yet again. So this COULD all be building to force ghost Yoda to restoring the jedi after THAT massacre. Is that what happens in the movies I refused to watch? Please? Or was it force ghost yoda that was training the younglings Kyle murdered? Though actually I think the term here is assassinations because it was politically motivated. There is no age restriction on assassinations being classified as assassinations.

Or maybe that's what happens in the Mandalorian? Ghost Yoda trains Baby Yoda?

You're thinking to far in the future with the force ghost.

It takes specialized training to become a force ghost as well as see or hear them. That's why you don't see force ghosts of previous masters just chilling about the temple.

Yoda being told that he needs to learn this to preserve the Jedi can be seen as 'hey this force ability is almost forgotten, make sure you learn it so that it doesn't'

Sure it does foreshadow can it really foreshadow something that's already happened? Yoda coming back as a ghost in the 5? 6? I forget which one (you're right he does show up as a ghost again), but I see it as the force being like 'hey don't forget this one ability Jedi have!'

Could he be helpful to Luke rebuilding the order? probably

Could he be helpful if Kyle goes on a murder? probably

Would that require me to actually see 8 and 9? yes but not gonna happen

Man this franchise could be something Great! But alas, they gave us Kyle instead. And won't even bring back force ghost yoda to pick up the pieces of Kyle and his teenage angst turned fascism.

If anyone deserves to be force ghost haunted, it's fucking Kyle. Yoda would make a hell of a poltergeist.

My 14yo is losing patience with my star wars storyline takes. I lost him immediately when i suggested some clones could be force sensitive (and likely some are) and was ready to argue Rex feasibly could be. Kid just doesn't understand the concept of a head canon.

I consider everything that Disney has made, concerning Star Wars, as bad fanfiction ignoring the VAST amounts of published lore

Hey ignoring that bedtime is roughly 4am, it's now 6:30 and the sun is rising. Not the first sunrise I've seen recently. Won't be the last.

But.

Usually the birds sing in the rising sun. They start singing maybe 30 minutes before the sun starts peeking over the horizon and are really going by this point. In fact bird song is how my time blind ass knows opps I'm up too late, time to go to bed. But I'm just... I'm not hearing birds. Not even the mated pair of morning doves in the tree outside my window. And this isn't the first time in the last month I've noted this.

Just how hard did that avian flu hit? Or has migration stared like as of a month ago? Surely not. But it's eerily silent out there. I turned off my fan to be sure.

I'm in Ohio for reference.

I'd blame the local feral cat population. But I've been in this house 8 years now, there have always been cats, and it's creepy just how lacking in bird song it is out there.

Is there someone i should be sharing this observation with? Or is this a known thing tat is happening because of that flu or something? Seriously i know jack about birds othervthan there are usually a good half dozen or more voices singing in the trees out back by this point in the morning.

dracofidus-deactivated20200523
Anonymous asked:

Hey, dumb American question here. Every UK person I have ever met hates Margaret Thatcher. Why? What terrible thing did she do to piss off that many people for so long?

Where do I fucking start?

So, Thatcher was the bane of the working classes, and much of what she did still has repercussions to this day. So, in no particular order, just in the order I remember them, here are some things she did that pissed us off - 

•In 1989 she introduced this thing called the “Community Charge” but which everyone calls the “Poll Tax” which replaced an older system in which your tax payment was based on the rental value of your home. This new tax meant that people living in one bedroom flats would pay the same as a billionaire living in a mansion. Obviously, the rich loved it, everyone else… not so much. So there were riots (video of news about the riots) - There were lots of riots in the Thatcher years, and they were all notable for the extreme levels of police brutality.

(photo, poll tax protest in Trafalgar Square, 1990)

•Then there was her war on industry. There was a lot of inflation when she came to power, so she instituted anti-inflationary measures. All well and good… except not the way she did it. She closed many government controlled industries, most famously steel and coal. The amount spent on public industries dropped by 38% under Thatcher. The coal miners went on strike, for almost a year, but in the end, the pits were still closed, and 64,000 people lost their jobs. Unemployment rates soared in industrial areas, and inequality between these (generally northern or welsh) areas and the rest of the UK is still there. During the strike there were numerous violent clashes with the police at picket lines which were widely televised. As a memoir from one miner attests: “I saw a police officer with a fire extinguisher in his hand, bashing a lad in the back. I tried to get closer to note down the officer’s number but they were wearing black boilersuits with no numbers. The next thing I knew, a police officer struck me from behind. I was coming in and out of consciousness as I was dragged across the road into an alleyway. They blocked off the alley and beat another lad and me with sticks until I was unconscious.” (I can’t post the whole thing it’s too long, but read it in the Guardian) Images such as this swept the country, turning many people against Thatcher -

And after it was all over people felt Thatcher had lied, saying she wanted to close only 20 pits, when in the end, 75 were closed down.

• Inequality soared whilst she was prime minister. There is a thing called the gini coefficient, it is the most common method of measuring inequality. Under gini, a score of one would be a completely unequal society; zero would be completely equal. Britain’s gini score went up from 0.253 to 0.339 by the time Thatcher resigned.

•During her time as prime minister the notorious ‘Section 28′ was published. It stated: A local authority shall not (a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality; (b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. - Section 28 wasn’t repealed until 2003.

• She introduced the Right To Buy scheme, which allowed people to buy their council houses for a very low price, which, at first glance, seems like a great idea, allowing people who normally wouldn’t be able to afford their own home to have one - however, loads of people have entered the scheme and now we have far too little social housing, meaning there has been a sharp rise in homelessness.

• The Battle of the Beanfield was a clash between hippies and police near Stonehenge in 1985. 1300 police officers converged on a convoy of 600 new age travellers who were heading to Stonehenge to set up a free festival in violation of a high court order. Again, there was an insane amount of police brutality, and 16 travellers were hospitalised, 573 people were arrested (one of the biggest mass arrests in UK history) - “Pregnant women were clubbed with truncheons, as were those holding babies. The journalist Nick Davies, then working for The Observer, saw the violence. ‘They were like flies around rotten meat,’ he wrote, ‘and there was no question of trying to make a lawful arrest. They crawled all over, truncheons flailing, hitting anybody they could reach. It was extremely violent and very sickening.’” (source) - Once everyone was arrested, the empty vehicles, which were in many cases the only homes the travellers had “were then systematically smashed to pieces and several were set on fire. Seven healthy dogs belonging to the Travellers were put down by officers from the RSPCA.” (source same as above)

Most of the charges were dismissed in court after Lord Cardigan, who had tagged along with them to see what would happen, testified on behalf of the travellers against the police. 

•Her removal of Irish dissidents right to be placed in a category that essentially made them political prisoners instead of merely criminals led to a hunger strike that ended in 10 deaths, including that of Bobby Sands, who was elected from his prison cell, reflecting the immense national, and international support for Irish nationalists. Thatchers lack of sympathy, or even empathy led to her becoming even more of a hate figure.

• She presided over a rapid deregulation of the banks, which ultimately led to much of the problems during britains 2007-2012 financial crash many years later.

• She took free milk from school children, which, though not as serious as anything else listed here, directly affected every child in the UK and was very unpopular, leading her to get the nickname “Maggie Thatcher, Milk Snatcher”, which is still used today.

• Oh… and she supported Apartheid and called Mandela a terrorist.

This is nowhere near everything she’s done that pisses people off, but I hope it goes some way to explaining why when she died “ding dong the witch is dead” became number one in the UK charts, people partied in the streets, and people protested her (State funded) funeral. She is a decisive figure, some people in the UK do actually love her. I do not. She decimated the UK’s industrial heartland, she caused mass unemployment and the destruction of much of working class culture, she was cavalier in her financial policies and increased inequality by staggering levels, she approved serious police brutality and attempted to destroy the culture of unions in this country.  I fundamentally disagree with all she stood for and it angers me that her mistakes are still affecting this country and the people who live in it. And I am VERY angry that the current government are spending £50 million on a museum about her.

Avatar

Regarding selling off social housing, it was specifically that the income that local authorities generated from doing so was not allowed to be reinvested in acquiring new social housing. And no extra budget was allocated to cover building new social housing. The aim was clearly to create a social housing shortage as a twisted way of “motivating” people to stop being poor.

Avatar
twenty-three-stars

Great post. I hate seeing US feminists praising Thatcher, and I’ve seen it a lot.

Avatar
jorangermusic

Let’s not forget how she made repeated attempts to get Britain’s most prolific sex offender Jimmy Savile a knighthood, gave him free rein to do whatever the hell he liked at Stoke Mandeville hospital (including running it into the ground, making himself indispensable there, and oh yeah, abusing scores of patients), as well has having a close friendship with him. This is all in spite of the fact that rumours about him were going around even back then, and on a related note, she actually knew of the abuse accusations against many of her ministers and let them go free despite this.

A feminist? Pah! She actually said, “The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison.” (and if for some reason you don’t trust that article, just google that quote). She also said that “the battle for women’s rights has largely been won. I owe nothing to women’s lib”, and whilst being PM for 11 years, she only ever appointed one woman, Baroness Young. As this article says, she basically “refused to accept that the majority of women do not have the privilege she had, in other words a rich partner, and lots of childcare provision.” In terms of feminism, she hated any woman who wasn’t financially well off, able-bodied, cishet, white, neurotypical (as you can see in this article), and basically, like her. Great feminism.

She also played a huge part in making Rupert Murdoch the hugely powerful man he is today (and consequently, making the British press so unreliable, ridiculous, and downright dangerous), and it seems she also used this connection to help giver herself more “sunshine headlines” (read: favourable).

I could go on but I feel like I’ve been at this for a while. OP has done a great job in summarising most of the main reasons she’s so hated. I’ve added a number of other important ones here too, but to be honest, just look at any reasonably credible article about her. If it seems positive, then google the topics at hand, and I guarantee there will be the flip side, often explained with a more socially conscious approach.

If you want proof of the bigoted, unrepresentative establishment’s continuing hold on Britain and our politics, just take a look at Thatcher, and take a look at those who praise her to the skies.

Avatar
deathproofmedb

This is a great post, all I really want to add is that Section 28 (which was a hateful enough piece of legislation anyway) was introduced during the AIDS crisis, & homophobia was very much on the rise at the time.

It’s also worth looking up the controversy surrounding the sinking of the General Belgrano, which killed 323 people. during the Falklands War (Thatcher’s response on hearing of it was “Just rejoice at that news”)

she supported pinochet both politically and personally and i hope she burns for 10,000 screaming years of agony

Avatar
madbanshee

My favourite piece of London graffiti (since been removed, I believe) was on the line coming up from south London to London Bridge station:

“The witch is dead but the spell remains.”

It’s tragically true in the UK.

Elvis Costello said it well - she was a monster and I’d happily piss on her grave.

OP talks about a lot of disparate things but doesn’t really tie them together. Thatcher did hundreds of awful things and this doesn’t talk about the horrific things she did in Northern Ireland enough (we are talking children being killed with rubber bullets).

However, the real reason people hate Thatcher is because she tried to break working class class consciousness in the UK, and arguably destroyed the UK’s social democratic ‘Post war consensus’.

The destruction of nationalised industries, selling off of council housing, breaking the power of the unions - all of this aimed to break the idea of a working class which were ‘looked after’ by the state.

And the thing is she succeeded-she dragged Britain drastically to the right, and everything that has come after, from the Iraq war to austerity to asylum seekers dying in the back of lorries to Boris fucking Johnson can be blamed on that.

Thatcher broke this country and we never recovered and that’s why we hate her.

“For three million they could give everyone in Scotland a shovel and we would dig a hole so deep we could hand her over to Satan personally.”

Excellent recap of why I hate Margaret Thatcher.

Do-do you think one of Jones's attorneys "accidentally" sent those out on purpose bc of how much they fucking despise the man and wanna see him burn

Avatar

We are entering CT Parallel Speculation Mode:

Occam's Razor: "Alex's current lawyer is the 12th in this case. Every last one of them has been an incompetent idiot, brazen sycophant, or both who shot themselves in the foot. There is no reason to consider this any different. Best not to assume intent where incompetence is sufficient."

Expert Counsel: "Legal experts talking about the case have pointed out that the lawyer has repeatedly made 'first year lawyer" mistakes, likely in an explicit and obvious effort to trigger a mistrial. The judge has noticed this, and chastized him for it. There is a possibility that the lawyer is trying to get Jones to fire him, and that this is a gamble that has not payed off."

Unorthodox Speculation: "Legally speaking, this is a special case. Knowing Alex, his refusal to cooperate with the legal process likely also extends to his own attorney. Given that he has systematically denied himself all possible recourse, I can see a lawyer getting frustrated, covering his own ass, and kamikazeing the case to make it end sooner."

Occultist Brain: "Alex is a showman. He knows he's fucked, and I would not put it past him to weaponize his own incompetence in spectacular form for some pathetic attempt to turn his case into a hot button culture war issue. You saw shades of this in his interview with Steve Bannon. He's using his own fuckup to get the case on Tucker Carlson. This would however require a degree of forethought that is uncommon, but not unheard of for Alex. Additionally, Tucker fucking hates Alex, and thinks he's an embarrassment. Alex knows this. This would be a desperate hail Mary on Alex's part."

Avatar
Avatar

well, if it was the deliberate attempt at getting a mistrial, it didnt work lmao.