Auburnfan91

He's already handled multiple cases related to Trump associates and is allowing this nonsense of an indictment to continue. Maybe he'll dismiss it and show he's not as biased as people think but I'm not holding my breath.

It will for sure get dismissed on appeal if the judge(who dislikes Trump) doesn't dismiss it first. The feds failed to pursue a misdemeanor because they didn't see anything there. The FEC could have fined Trump like they did Hillary for violating campaign finance laws, but they didn't because in their view it didn't happen. The only reason it's gotten this far is because of the political makeup of those pursuing this and the jurisdiction it's in.

Trump Indictment Is a Perversion of Campaign-Finance Law If a candidate has to pay for his own clothes, surely hush money is likewise a personal expense. By Bradley A. Smith March 31, 2023 6:13 pm ET In choosing to convene a grand jury to pursue the Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels affair, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg faced two big problems—one political, one legal. The indictment of Mr. Trump will address the first, likely at the expense of the second. To recap how we got here: Ms. Daniels, a pornographic film performer, alleges she had a fling with Mr. Trump in 2006, nearly a decade before he entered the Republican primary for president. Once Mr. Trump became a candidate, Ms. Daniels began demanding money in exchange for her silence. Mr. Trump obliged, and his company, the Trump Organization, sent $130,000 to Ms. Daniels through Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. The expense was apparently recorded on the company books as “legal fees,” which the indictment is expected to allege was a falsification of business records. Mr. Bragg’s political problem is that this charge is chump change, merely a misdemeanor under New York law. To ratchet it up to a felony indictment, the district attorney has to show, among other things, that the falsification was designed to conceal another crime. That crime is believed to be a campaign-finance violation—an illegal corporate contribution by the Trump Organization to the Trump presidential campaign—which the false business reporting was meant to conceal. Here’s where Mr. Bragg’s legal problem comes in: Was the hush money a campaign contribution? The governing statute, the Federal Election Campaign Act, provides that a contribution is any donation made “for the purpose of influencing any campaign for federal office.” The Trump Organization, says Mr. Bragg, paid Ms. Daniels to prevent revelations that would have hurt Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign. Thus the payments were “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election—and, since corporate contributions to a campaign for federal office are illegal, the case is closed. Not so fast. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that because campaign-finance laws infringe on core First Amendment activity, they can’t be dependent on vague, subjective interpretations. Accordingly, the clause “for the purpose of influencing any federal election” is an objective standard. As another section of the statute states, an obligation isn’t a campaign expenditure if it exists “irrespective” of the campaign. In other words, campaign funds pay for campaigning—the campaign manager’s salary, ads, campaign travel, venues for rallies, polling and so on. They don’t pay for personal expenses not created by the act of campaigning, even if the candidate intends for them to benefit the campaign. The statute’s objective nature is demonstrated by a noninclusive list of things that campaign funds may not be spent on no matter how much they might benefit—or be intended to benefit—a campaign. For example, if a candidate wants to look good in a debate and purchases a $4,000 suit he would never have bought if he weren’t running for office—that is to say, he buys it with the subjective intent to influence an election—it still can’t be purchased with campaign funds, because he would have to buy clothing anyway. A country-club membership can’t be purchased with campaign funds, no matter how much the candidate intends for it to benefit his campaign by giving him a place to schmooze donors. Candidates with substantial business interests, such as Mr. Trump, will frequently find themselves facing lawsuits—some merited, some not. If such a candidate were to instruct his company’s legal counsel to settle them, the settlement payments would, subjectively, be made “to influence an election.” Legally, however, such payments couldn’t be made with campaign funds and would have to be made by the company or the candidate personally, because the underlying obligation wasn’t created by the act of campaigning. These restrictions on converting campaign funds to “personal use” may be the one meritorious part of our complex, often destructive system of campaign-finance regulation. They define the difference between bribes—donations for the candidate’s personal benefit—and campaign contributions. Who really thinks that a candidate can—let alone must—use campaign funds to pay hush money for past affairs, and who knows what else? But that’s what Mr. Bragg’s theory would require. In other words, the “crime” that Mr. Bragg claims is being covered up isn’t a crime at all. Worse still, one is left with the distinct impression that if Mr. Trump had used campaign funds to pay Ms. Daniels, Mr. Bragg would be alleging that the underlying crime the business records were intended to cover up was the illegal conversion of campaign funds to personal use. This is a classic Catch-22 that undermines the rule of law. Mr. Trump has a remarkable ability to make both his ardent supporters and his ardent critics abandon long-held principles for short-term satisfaction. If Mr. Bragg is somehow able to make these charges stick, it will betray fundamental tenets of campaign-finance law and those who believe in the rule of law. Mr. Smith is chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and a law professor at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. He served as chairman of the Federal Election Commission in 2004. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-indictment-is-a-perversion-of-campaign-finance-law-alvin-bragg-hush-money-business-records-daniels-bdb5942c?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

DeSantis has been too busy dry running a presidential campaign disguised as a 'book tour' to be focused on Disney.

To further expand on my point about the mental health crisis in this country, we need to be honest about the data with gun deaths and gun violence and not present selective conclusions. Gun violence in the U.S. is always a focal point in the wake of a mass shooting but when you dive into the statistics its not an entirely accurate picture. While mass shootings get all the headlines and attention they still don't make up a majority of the gun deaths statistics. Suicides account for more than half of all gun deaths in the United States. https://www.bradyunited.org/fact-sheets/gun-suicide-across-the-states Brady United advocates for gun control, it's not a right wing group. The statistics they use come straight from the CDC. While Brady United advocates for fewer guns, the data shows that mental health is an overriding factor in gun deaths regardless of whether your position on guns. Getting a handle on the mental health crisis would not only help lower the number of suicides but would also help prevent more gun violence like mass shootings.

We have a mental health crisis. Until the country decides to seriously deal with unstable people we're going to continue to see more people commit horrific crimes and violence. Banning guns isn't going to fix our mental health crisis. I believe a good start would be to create more psychiatric hospitals and insane asylums. We had far fewer mass shootings 50+ years ago because we had facilities to place people in.

Because it ties into a likely motive for the shooting. The trans person had a manifesto and detailed map to attack the school. This wasn't random. The Nashville Police Chief suggested that there's a belief that the shooter resented having to attend the school.

Freddie deBoer Mar 19, 2023 What follows is a piece that I was commissioned to write for an education publication called The Grade. On submission they declared that the piece was, quote, “too hot” for publication. As I said to them, that response demonstrates the piece’s thesis perfectly. There’s a bias that runs throughout our educational discourse, coming from our media, academia, and the think tanks and foundations that have such sway in education policy. It’s a bias that exists both because of a natural human desire to see every child succeed and because the structural incentives in the field make rejecting that bias professionally risky. The bias I’m talking about is optimism bias, the insistence that all problems in education are solvable and that we can fix them if only we want to badly enough. At least a half-century of research, spending, policy experimentation, and dogged effort has utterly failed to close the gaps that so vex our political class. But still we hear the same old song about how we could close those gaps tomorrow if we really wanted to, an attitude that has distorted education policy and analysis for decades. My first book, The Cult of Smart, was a commercial failure. It was released during the height of the pandemic and thus my ability to promote it was limited, but by any measure the market rejected it. It’s tough to produce a labor of love like that and find that few people were interested in it. But there was a silver lining: since publication in 2020 I’ve heard from dozens and dozens of teachers, thanking me for putting their thoughts to print. These educators come from public, private, and charter schools, from schools with affluent study bodies and schools that are mired in poverty, from big city school districts and from low-population regional rural schools. And again and again, these teachers shared the same perspective: they agreed with the book’s overall argument, and often had thought similar things themselves for years, but felt they could not express them publicly for fear of professional consequences. The essential argument of the book is that overwhelming empirical evidence shows that students sort themselves into academic ability bands in the performance spectrum early in life, with remarkable consistency; that the most natural and simplest explanation for this tendency is that there is such a thing as individual academic potential; and that the most likely source of this individual academic potential is [edit] likely influenced by genes. When we look at academic performance, what we see again and again is that students perform at a given level relative to peers early in schooling and maintain that level throughout formal education. (I make that case at considerable length here.) A vast number of interventions thought to influence relative performance have been revealed to make no difference in rigorous research, including truly dramatic changes to schooling and environment. Meta-analyses and literature reviews that assess the strength of many different educational interventions find effect sizes in the range of .01 to .3 standard deviations, small by any standards and subject to all sorts of questions about research quality and randomization. Even the most optimistic reading of the research literature suggests that almost nothing moves the needle in academic outcomes. Almost nothing we try works. This implies that common sense is correct and that individual students have their own natural or intrinsic level of academic potential, which we have no reason to believe we can dramatically change. I believe that we can change large group disparities in education (such as the racial achievement gap) by addressing major socioeconomic inequalities through government policy. But even after we eliminate racial or gender gaps, there will be wide differences between individual students, regardless of pedagogy or policy. When Black students as a group score at parity with white students, there will still be large gaps within the population of Black students or white or any other group you can name, and we have no reliable interventions to make the weakest perform like the strongest. My book’s argument is attractive to teachers because they’ve lived under an educational ideology that insists that every student is a budding genius whose potential waits to be unlocked by a dedicated teacher – and which holds teachers to that unachievable standard. From the right, they’re subject to “no excuses” culture, the constant insistence from the education reform movement that student failures are the result of lazy and feckless teachers; from the left, they’re subject to a misguided egalitarianism that mistakes the fact that every child is important and deserves to be nurtured for the idea that every child has perfectly equal potential. The result is a system that presses teachers to deliver learning outcomes in their classrooms that they can’t possibly achieve. But many of them feel that they can’t push back, for fear of professional consequences. If they speak frankly about the fact that different students have different levels of individual potential, they’ll likely be accused of shirking their duty. These teachers, in other words, live with the change that’s well-summarized by this old cartoon: the odd way that the expectation that students are responsible for their own grades became an expectation that teachers are responsible for those grades. And this evolution in cultural thinking about education comes straightforwardly from optimism bias. If teachers are to blame, then we can imagine a policy fix that will solve our problems. You can replace a teacher, after all. If we recognize that there is a natural (and roughly normal) distribution of academic ability throughout the population, and that teachers are therefore frequently blamed for conditions beyond their control… what sunny, simplistic story of redemption are we going to tell? (You’ll notice that parents are very rarely indicted in these discussions, and for a simple reason: there is no policy fix to bad parenting, and thus no optimistic story about how we’ll rise above and make every child a genius. If all you have is a policy hammer, all you can see are policy nails.) The optimism bias in education circles has several orthodoxies. 1. Every student is capable of academic flourishing, and every time a student does not flourish, it must be the result of some sort of error or injustice. 2. There is no such thing as an unachievable academic standard for any student. 3. Arguments that these expectations are unrealistic and create perverse incentives are to be dismissed alternatively as excuse-making or as evidence of bigotry. 4. Proposed interventions that might increase student performance are assumed to be effective no matter how many times they fail to demonstrate gains in research. 5. Anyone who disagrees with this doctrine hates children, supports inequality, and doesn’t care about poor people. For what it’s worth, I can refute the last point easily. My own perspective is that, precisely because everyone has a different level of academic potential and this level is not chosen or under the control of the individual, we should concentrate our efforts on building a far more redistributive social safety net rather than continuing to bash our heads against the wall in the classroom. Look at how remarkably effective Social Security is at bringing senior citizens out of poverty. Why hang our hopes on eradicating poverty and racial inequality on the entirely unproven mechanism of education when we could just give people money? But the notion that education is the cure to our economic problems – an idea that’s been explicitly stated by every president of my lifetime – has been a defining assumption of American politics for a long time. Some people want to protect the free market and keep taxes low; some simply don’t believe we’ll ever summon the political will for mass redistribution. Either way, they cling to the idea that only education can save us. And once you’ve decided that, you have to enforce optimism because you can’t countenance the idea that schools and educators have limits. Until the last half-decade or so, the dominant discourse in education had been the neoliberal “reform” movement, which identifies untalented and apathetic teachers as the source of academic gaps and charter schools and private school vouchers as the solution. This entire movement floats on optimism bias; the basic premises of its adherents are dependent on the idea that educational problems have technocratic fixes and all we need is people smart and tough enough to implement them. Unfortunately, they didn’t work; the teacher merit pay research is a mess, private school vouchers have a deeply discouraging research record, and whatever positive results charter schools have seen are very small compared to the hype and questionable thanks to non-random distribution. It's hard to think of a better example of optimism bias than the fact that people still talk about an educational miracle in New Orleans, thanks to a switch to an all-charter system, when those charter schools are absolutely riddled with failure. Optimism bias makes the enthusiasm for particular interventions immune to evidence. A perfect example is pre-K. Pre-K programs have been sold as our salvation going back as far as the 1960s. It’s still perfectly common to hear politicians talk about funding pre-K as a simple solution to racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps. What they leave out is that pre-K doesn’t work; over the course of the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, results of pre-K research got more and more discouraging. Just last year, a very large, randomized, longitudinal study found that the children assigned to the pre-K condition actually performed worse than those who didn’t. A similar dynamic can be found in class size research, where early promising results have given way to years of conflicting results and underwhelming findings. But it doesn’t matter how many decades of research demonstrate that pre-K or class size reductions are a dead end. Optimism bias means that you never have to say that you’re wrong and that anyone who disagrees with you just doesn’t care about kids. Let’s take a look at the education culture warrior solution du jour, the influence of educational spending on educational outcomes. This is the hot intervention of the moment. There always is one, a popular idea for how to “fix” our schools that becomes the fashion. (Usually they fall out of fashion as proposed interventions stubbornly fail to close gaps, as has happened with teacher evaluation reforms.) For many years, it was broadly understood that past a certain minimal level of funding, school spending had little influence on student outcomes. This attitude wasn’t hard to understand: richer countries, states, school districts, and schools simply didn’t reliably outperform poorer. There is no observable relationship of that type. Regressing per-pupil spending on outcome metrics like SAT and NAEP and PISA scores consistently found no relationship. Research confirmed these obvious dynamics. Though you sometimes hear absurd complaints that the United States has “defunded” education, we’ve in fact spent profligately, trying again and again to fix our problems with cash, to no avail. For a long time, reformers talked about needing to do more than spend money. But more recent studies have argued that there is in fact a relationship. Demonstrating the optimism bias in its purest form, many education pundits and reporters raced to declare the issue settled. For example, ChalkBeat’s Matt Barnum has produced years of relentlessly optimistic coverage of these studies, never stopping to ask whether we should temper our enthusiasm due to the decades-long dynamic where hype for a proposed intervention gradually dies out over time as more pessimistic results are publicized. He reports that the question is “essentially settled,” which is rhetoric I’ve heard about education before. As others have pointed out, there’s basic questions of research methodology at play when it comes to these studies, which tend to use quasi-experimental designs with dubious randomization and frequently amount to a lot of statistical gymnastics to find the desired outcome. I’ll set the methodological concerns aside for others for now. There’s still a difficult question for these researchers to answer: if increasing educational funding improves educational outcomes… why hasn’t increased educational funding improved educational outcomes? We’ve thrown vast fortunes of money at our public school system over the course of many decades, with public K-12 education spending increasing from 2.3% of GDP in 1950 to 5.5% of GDP in 2015. We have quite famously not seen dramatic improvements in educational results in that timeframe. Why not, if school funding is dispositive? Utah typically ranks at or near the very bottom in per-pupil student educational spending, New York at or near the very top, and yet in NAEP scores New York barely outperforms Utah. What explains this phenomenon? Barnum offers a lot of optimistic handwaving but no clear answers. The United States spends six and a half times per pupil what Vietnam spends, and yet Vietnam performs almost as well as the United States on international educational comparisons. What can explain this dynamic? What headwinds could the United States be facing that would account for essentially equal outcomes at 6.5x the costs? Ed reformers love to trot out poverty as the determiner of all educational data, but Vietnam’s internationally-normed poverty rate is 22.2%, while the figure is 1.7% for the United States. Why isn’t the American advantage in the supposedly-crucial funding metrics helping us to beat a vastly poorer country? And this lack of a relationship between expenditures and performance is found all over the international data. The United Kingdom spends a third again per-student what South Korea does and gets far worse results. You can’t just dismiss these consistent findings. To the extent that they answer these questions at all, those who insist that educational outcomes are a function of school expenditures suggest that the answer is all about how the money is spent. The authors of one such study have argued exactly that. But this isn’t an answer at all: why would Vietnam, with far fewer resources, a much smaller academic sector, and a much poorer government have spent so incredibly shrewdly while the United States spends unwisely? What’s the special sauce that Utah enjoys in their spending patterns that New York has (for some bizarre reason) refused to adopt? “You have to spend the money wisely” is quickly becoming a cliché regarding this topic. But there’s no systematic, empirically-verified explanation of what spending “wisely” means; if there was, states would be doing it. And for the record, there has been no sudden improvement in learning metrics in the decade or so that this new research on expenditures and performance first started appearing. This has all had the unfortunate effect of deepening ignorance about American school spending. We know, for example, that majority-Black and Hispanic schools receive significantly more per-pupil funding than majority-white schools. This fact is so contrary to basic liberal assumptions that they often react angrily to hearing it. But this reality shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, we’ve been shoveling money at the racial achievement gap for 40 years, to no avail. Part of the problem here is an assumption that public education is dominantly funded by local expenditure, which hasn’t been true for some time. In fact, state funding is at or near parity with local spending in the United States, and state funding is heavily tilted towards areas of perceived need (that is, failing schools or districts). Federal funding, including but hardly limited to Title I funding, is also dominantly directed towards poor or high-minority schools. The rising tide of think tank and foundation money that finds its way into public K-12 school is very hard to track, but we can safely assume that almost all of it is earmarked for the poorest students. We’ve been trying to spend our way our of this problem since before I was born! And yet people who should know better pretend not to understand this reality and repeat the complaint about local funding of public schools, despite the fact that that story is not true. Why does optimism dominate education discourse? Consider the incentives. Almost everyone within the space has direct professional reasons to be relentlessly positive. This is most obvious in the think tank world, where consistently pessimistic voices are quite rare; nonprofit institutions are funded by do-gooders who want to believe that they’re getting something for their money, and donors don’t want to hear bad news. The dynamic for academic researchers is similar, where positive results get published much more often then those that find no effect and where the political biases of academia make pessimism professionally fraught. And people who get into education journalism tend to be idealists who pursued the career path because they were attracted to pleasant and simplistic narratives of poor kids rising up from the ghettos and going to Harvard. Undergirding all of this is the social pressure that stems from the fact that no one wants to deny the potential of any kids to flourish. (You might say that most people want to ensure that no child is left behind.) But someone has to be the bad guy. Someone has to be there to say that the empire has no clothes. Someone has to defend teachers and schools by pointing out that they simply don’t control outcomes in the way they’re usually assumed to. And someone has to point out that the history of modern American education gives us every reason to be pessimistic, as time after time, hype has given way to sad reality. In his State of the Union address in 2011, Barack Obama named the Bruce Randolph school in Colorado as an example of the positive power of education reform and the school choice movement. Later investigation revealed that Bruce Randolph students were meeting state standards at a rate of 15% in English and 14% in math. That was apparently an example of education reform so incredible that Obama thought it was worth mentioning in the most important annual speech in American politics. His rhetoric was deeply deceptive, but hey - he was telling the people what they wanted to hear. The only place where education does not suffer from optimism bias is reality. https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/education-commentary-is-dominated This is a really good article. It addresses the need to change the approach to fixing the education system. Easier said than done, especially when real solutions require more than placing everything in teachers laps to fix things.

It's been confirmed that we'll be playing on Thursday, March 16 but they haven't announce the game time yet.

Yep. It's true 2015: 3-1, lose to Kentucky in the Semifinals 2016: 0-1, lose to Tennessee 2017: 0-1, lose to Missouri in OT 2018: 0-1, lose to Alabama 2019: 4-0, SEC Tournament Champions 2020: SEC Tournament cancelled because of Covid 2021: Ineligible, self-imposed postseason ban 2022: 0-1, lose to Texas A&M 2023: 0-1, lose to Arkansas

Linkin Park was never my favorite band but I did like some of their music. Specifically their first 2 albums were awesome but then on their 3rd album they started to change their sound and I didn't listen to them as much after that. Sadly as many may know lead singer Chester Bennington killed himself in 2017. So since then there hasn't been anymore new music from Linkin Park. With that said, this year is the 20th anniversary of their Meteora album, which was their 2nd album. On February 10, Linkin Park released a 'new' song which is a previously unreleased song that was recorded back in 2002 during their studio sessions for Meteora. The song is called 'Lost'. 'Lost' is really good and honestly would have been a hit single had it been included and released on the original Meteora album in 2003.

Auburn Black Student Union produces list of racial slurs for white people — Discovered on GroupMe text chat allegedly associated with organization Will Blakely | 02.09.23 A whistleblower in the Auburn University Black Student Union (BSU) claims to have retrieved a Google Doc from a group message associated with the organization, which lists over 250 racial slurs for white people, including “failed abortions,” “diseased neanderthals” and more. The whistleblower sent the document and screenshots of the group message on the popular group messaging app GroupMe to Auburn student Jaden Heard, who leaked the information to Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a conservative campus organization. TPUSA published a short article about the findings on its website last week. 1819 News spoke to Heard on Thursday morning. Heard said he’s not the whistleblower himself, but rather the whistleblower came to him about the information. The whistleblower chose to remain anonymous. “From my perspective, it looks like they were just joking around, trying to have a laugh,” Heard said. “But I’m also imagining if the roles were reversed … I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt, that they were just trying to joke, but at the same time, it was a university-funded organization, and that’s pretty wild.” The document, titled “Creaker Names,” contained seven pages of a single-column list of racial slurs. 1819 News obtained a copy of the document from Heard. According to Urban Dictionary, “Creaker” is another word for “cracker,” used particularly when referring to an old white man. Some of the names on this list are labeled “favorite” in parenthesis, such as “Sour Cream Citizen,” “bleach demons,” “sugar sardines,” “dandruff demons,” “elbow crust,” “dandruff paper,” “copy and paste,” “skin stealers,” “deformed dna,” “decomposing form of humanity,” “delusional lice,” “bobble head white,” “ashy, but you can’t see it,” “untamed beasts,” “crest 3-D whitening strips” and several more. Heard also obtained screenshots of the group message that a group member shared the Google Doc in the message after saying, “Here’s a google doc of names for the Neanderthals.” Another group member replayed, saying, “Now if any of them try to play we got the names on command.” The group then proceeded to brainstorm more slurs. The whistleblower told TPUSA last week that he got tired of "anti white racism shown in the left." "I have two other black friends who [are no longer members of the BSU] because they bullied them out for having different opinions than what was acceptable," he said. "BSU needs to learn to be more welcoming and inclusive to the white community. The BSU motto is 'unity through education,' and they are currently failing at that." Heard said he was kicked out of a group chat for black freshmen when he was a first-year student. He said he still attends BSU events sometimes but that BSU faculty and student members are hostile toward black conservatives. Heard even claims he's been threatened by members of the BSU. A comment on the TPUSA article claimed that the group message was not associated with the BSU. However, Heard said that the chat contained BSU alumni and members and included members of the BSU executive committee. Further, he claimed that the whistleblower said the chat had either been deleted or he had been kicked out since the Google Doc was leaked. Auburn University issued the following statement to TPUSA last week: On Tuesday afternoon, Auburn University was made aware of a GroupMe chat that used discriminatory language that is allegedly being circulated among some students. The university is committed to providing a working and academic environment that is free from discrimination and harassment and works to foster a nurturing community founded upon the fundamental dignity and worth of all its members. The university prohibits harassment of its students and employees as outlined in our Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment. The university takes these matters very seriously and the alleged behavior does not represent the values of Auburn University. The appropriate administrators are examining the issue and considering appropriate actions. This matter will be treated in the same manner with which any issue of discrimination or harassment is addressed. On Thursday, 1819 News reached out to the Office of Student Involvement, which oversees the BSU. The office declined to comment. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email will.blakely@1819news.com or find him on Twitter and Facebook. https://1819news.com/news/item/groupme-allegedly-associated-with-auburn-black-student-union-produces-list-of-racial-slurs-for-white-people I'll be shocked if Auburn even disciplines the students involved in coming up with the names and making the list. If anything they'll probably expel the student whistleblower for leaking it.

Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell also got removed from committee's, not just Ilhan Omar. Just thought I'd mention that since there's no articles on here about either of them being removed.

I would start Tre Donaldson at PG. Have Wendell Green come off the bench.

Here's an interesting note. After the loss last night, Pearl is now 1-4 against Texas A&M under Buzz Williams. It seems Buzz has Pearl's number.

The whole saga surrounding this is ridiculous. I know UF looks bad in all this but there's two sides to every story. Apparently UF's Gator Collective let Rashada know that the deal was cancelled well before early NSD.

Gonna have to edit this graphic for Biden. It's more than 12 now https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-aides-find-second-batch-classified-documents-new-location-rcna65371

Tulane upset USC 46-45 in the Cotton Bowl today and finished 12-2.

This was a ridiculous roughing the passer penalty on TCU

It also wasn't targeting at the end. Just like the Arkansas-Kansas Liberty Bowl play, the TCU defender hit the Michigan player with the side of his helmet not the crown.

Michigan got several breaks today. They didn't review the ball hitting the ground that gave Michigan a fist down on their last TD drive. Michigan also got away with several PI's today, especially on the interception that set up the 'controversial' call where they ruled Michigan short at the 1 yard line. The Michigan defender hooked the TCU WR in order to bat the ball up for the interception. So sick of hearing people crying about 1 questionable call when Michigan got several others calls to go their way and TCU's DB's got called for PI or holding most of the game while Michigan didn't.

The second bad call the officials made on Arkansas was the targeting penalty on Kansas's 2 pt play in the 2nd overtime. There was clearly helmet to helmet contact but that's doesn't make it targeting. First, the Kansas QB was not defenseless because he was running the ball. Second, by rule targeting on a runner can only happen if a defender uses the crown of the helmet on a tackle/hit. Pause the video below at 0:04 and you can see the Arkansas player hits the Kansas QB with the side of his helmet, not the crown. This should have been overturned. https://www.secsports.com/article/35053406/college-football-hard-define-penalty

The officials absolutely hosed Arkansas late in their bowl game. They ruled Arkansas fumbled the ball in the 4th quarter with less than 3 minutes to go when they were up 38-23. Looked pretty clear the Arkansas player's arm was down when the ball came out.

So the FBI had people within Twitter, specifically Baker who had top secret clearance, in order to share threats of a potential Russian hacking group. On top of that, the FBI paid Twitter for their services in order to carry out their requests to censor things.