Stand. Been there all day. Nearing the end of just his first day of testimony. Michael cohen revealing what it was like to work for donald trump and made sure the boss looked good in the public eye. Work that trump would praise him for when he did that. Cohen testified that it would make him feel, quote, like i was on top of the world. Cohen was a guard dog protecting his boss at all costs. Trumps former pit bull today corroborated all of the interactions this jury has heard about over the past few weeks. That includes the allimportant meeting at trump tower in 2015. Thats the one with david pecker of the National Enquirer and donald trump where the catchandkill scheme was originally hatched. Michael cohen testified to conversations about keeping the story of Donald Trumps affair with playboy model Karen Mcdougal quiet. He testified to how he arranged with pecker the 150,000 Payment Mcdougal to bury the story. The jury then heard the only Conversation Cohen had with trump that he taped
All the directvidence confirms it used polical data, not racial data to identify republicans and democrats. The panel declared district one a racial gerrymander only by adopting an erroneous racia policy theory. First they failed to enforce th alternative map required. In a case like this oy such an ternative. Second it hyper entangled rac and politics and makes no sense. Thean believe they needed a raci target in Charleston County to achieve its political goal nationwide because 17 racial tge says nothing about vor turnout, says nothing whatsoever about the prodominant majority votes for the predominantly white Charleston County and i irreconcilable th district ones recent history. Moreover the panel agreeing the General Assembly made 34reu8 changes oer parts of district one without using a racial target. E yen assembly has had no reason to and did n use a racial target. Used political day to da to pursue its political goals. If left uncorrected this wl undermine the Courts Holding th
All the direct evidence conrms it used Political Data, not racial data to identify republicans and mocrats. The panel declared district one a racial gerrymander only by adopngn erroneous racial policy theory. Fit ey failed to enforce the alternative map required. In a case like this only such an alternative. Second iter entangled race and politics and makes no sense. The panel believe they needed a racialarget in Charleston County to achieve its political goal nationwide because 17 racial target says nothing about voter turnout, says nothing atsoever about the prodominant majority votesorhe predominantly white Charleston County a is irreconcilable with district ones recent history. Moreover t panel agreeing the General Assembly made 3eu changes in other parts of district one without using racial target. The yen assembly has had n reason to and did not use a racial target. It used political d data to pursue it political goals. Ifeft uncorrected this will undermine th Courts Holding that
Would like to purchase it for the celebration of our marriage. The colorado law would prohibit that but you claim that you are entitled to an exception . Absolutely not. The compelled speech doctrine is triggered by compelled speech and in the context of a premade cake, that is not compelled speech. Mr. Phillips is happy to sell anything in his store. Didnt he express himself when he made it . Yes. He did express himself when he made it. The purpose for which he expressed it is important to the compelled speech doctrine and how it applies. Can i get the answer . If you agree, why can he not refuse to sell the cake in the window according to the hypothetical . It has already been placed in the stream of commerce. His speech has been completed. He intended to speak through the cake with the purpose of whatever it was when he created it. When he has a different purpose and is expressing a message through the cake, it would render a different result. Didnt he refused to sell cupcakes that
May it please the court. The warrant requirement for the home cannot be overthrown by the automobile exception. Under the commonwealths argument, on probable cause alone, an officer may search a vehicle anywhere that he finds it and may go anywhere that he needs to in order to access that vehicle. That rule cannot survive foundational for the amendment Fourth Amendment principles. This is presumptively unreasonable as this court recognizes. The more we ask this court to adopt is the automobile exception does not apply to a vehicle found in the home. The police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle is stolen. They even get a warrant. To inspect the vehicle. Is parked in the port. Warrant to go get the car for which they have a warrant . The war would specify the place to be searched for the car, so commonly, a word would say, for instance, the dwelling and curtilage to look for this motorcycle. So the warrant that authorizes the search of the motorcycle would, by its terms, au