Leaderboard

It's a cycle.....Ned hasn't had a surplus of talent lately. The Injuns have, and they returned many starters from the year before. Not so long ago Ned was beating the Injuns pretty consistently. And before that it was the other way around. Things change....And they will again. Be careful what you wish for.

This has yet to be proven. The procedures are not laws, so if not followed how are they crimes? If the constitution gives the President the single power to declassify anything with no instructions, why can't he declassify just by taking them home? Trump will take this all the way to the Supreme Court.......The Supreme Court rules on constitutionality.......

Here’s your answer from one of the top constitutional attorneys in the country. Pull your head out of the sand. Read it slowly. Why Donald Trump Cannot Get a Top-Tier Lawyer by Alan M. Dershowitz June 15, 2023 at 5:00 am There are disturbing suggestions that among the reasons lawyers are declining the case is because they fear legal and career reprisals. There is a nefarious group that calls itself The 65 Project that has as its goal to intimidate lawyers into not representing Trump or anyone associated with him. They have threatened to file bar charges against any such lawyers. I wrote an op-ed offering to defend pro bono any lawyers that The 65 Project goes after. So The 65 Project immediately went after me, and contrived a charge based on a case in which I was a constitutional consultant, but designed to send a message to potential Trump lawyers: If you defend Trump or anyone associated with him, we will target you and find something to charge you with. The lawyers to whom I spoke are fully aware of this threat -- and they are taking it seriously.... It may even be worse today.... Good lawyers... generally welcome challenges, especially in high-profile cases. This case is different: the threats to the lawyers are greater than at any time since McCarthyism. Nor is the comparison to McCarthyism a stretch. I recall during the 1950s how civil liberties lawyers, many of whom despised communism, were cancelled, and attacked if they dared to represent people accused of being communists. Our system of justice is based on the John Adams standard: he too was attacked for defending the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre, but his representation of these accused killers now serves as a symbol of the 6th Amendment right to counsel. That symbol has now been endangered.... Trump's lawyers have now alleged that one of the prosecutors has suggested to Stanley Woodward, the lawyer for Waltine Nauta, Trump's co-defendant, that his application for judgeship may be negatively affected if he persists in defending Nauta vigorously rather than encouraging him to cooperate against Trump. If that is true – and I have not seen the evidence to support it – then it represents a direct attack on the 6th Amendment. Whatever one may think of Trump or the charges against him, all Americans must stand united against efforts to intimidate lawyers and chill them from defending unpopular clients pursuant to the 6th Amendment. Bar associations must look into the threats and actions of The 65 Project and of prosecutors who try... to influence the representation of clients by threats to their careers or other means. Hard cases may make bad law but partisan cases endanger constitutional rights. We must do everything to assure that all defendants, including Donald Trump, get the zealous representation to which the Constitution entitled all Americans. There are disturbing suggestions that among the reasons lawyers are declining to represent Former President Donald Trump is because they fear legal and career reprisals. We must do everything to assure that all defendants, including Trump, get the zealous representation to which the Constitution entitled all Americans. Pictured: Trump delivers remarks June 13, 2023 in Bedminster, New Jersey. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Former President Donald Trump has now been arraigned and pleaded not guilty. He was represented by two lawyers, neither of whom he apparently wants to lead his defense at trial. He has been interviewing Florida lawyers, and several top ones have declined. I know, because I have spoken to them. There are disturbing suggestions that among the reasons lawyers are declining the case is because they fear legal and career reprisals. There is a nefarious group that calls itself The 65 Project that has as its goal to intimidate lawyers into not representing Trump or anyone associated with him. They have threatened to file bar charges against any such lawyers. When these threats first emerged, I wrote an op-ed offering to defend pro bono any lawyers that The 65 Project goes after. So The 65 Project immediately went after me, and contrived a charge based on a case in which I was a constitutional consultant, but designed to send a message to potential Trump lawyers: if you defend Trump or anyone associated with him, we will target you and find something to charge you with. The lawyers to whom I spoke are fully aware of this threat -- and they are taking it seriously. There may be other reasons as well for why lawyers are reluctant to defend Trump. He is not the easiest client, and he has turned against some of his previous lawyers, as some of his previous lawyers have turned against him. This will be a difficult case to defend and an unpopular one with many in the legal profession and in general population. Good lawyers, however, generally welcome challenges, especially in high-profile cases. This case is different: the threats to the lawyers are greater than at any time since McCarthyism. Nor is the comparison to McCarthyism a stretch. I recall during the 1950s how civil liberties lawyers, many of whom despised communism, were cancelled, and attacked if they dared to represent people accused of being communists. Even civil liberties organizations stayed away from such cases, for fear that it would affect their fundraising and general standing in the community. It may even be worse today, as I can attest from my own personal experiences, having defended Trump against an unconstitutional impeachment in 2020. I was cancelled by my local library, community center and synagogue. Old friends refused to speak to me and threatened others who did. My wife, who disagreed with my decision to defend Trump, was also ostracized. There were physical threats to my safety. Our system of justice is based on the John Adams standard: he too was attacked for defending the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre, but his representation of these accused killers now serves as a symbol of the 6th Amendment right to counsel. That symbol has now been endangered by The 65 Project and others who are participating in its McCarthyite chilling of lawyers who have been asked to represent Trump and those associated with him. Trump's lawyers have now alleged that one of the prosecutors has suggested to Stanley Woodard, the lawyer for Waltine Nauta, Trump's co-defendant, that his application for judgeship may be negatively affected if he persists in defending Nauta vigorously rather than encouraging him to cooperate against Trump. If that is true – I have not seen the evidence to support it – then it represents a direct attack on the 6th Amendment. Whatever one may think of Trump or the charges against him, all Americans must stand united against efforts to intimidate lawyers and chill them from defending unpopular clients pursuant to the 6th Amendment. Bar associations must look into the threats and actions of The 65 Project and of prosecutors who try, by subtle or other means, to influence the representation of clients by threats to their careers or other means. Hard cases may make bad law, but partisan cases endanger constitutional rights. We must do everything to assure that all defendants, including Donald Trump, get the zealous representation to which the Constitution entitled all Americans.

Dak threw 15 ints in 12 games last year. He must have had bad coaches all the way through high school, college and pro!

The BH coach is underrated. People who contend that BH wins due to, or mostly due to talent alone are wrong. Last year the team was 40-7, and only lost to a very tall Manvel team by a point, after beating them twice before in the season. Its hard to beat any quality team 3X in a row. Law of averages. I want our coach to stay as long as she wants.

So you could take a mule to the right trainer and win the triple crown.

The limit for Rusk is when they meet Carthage.

AP’s new QB will be there next Wednesday. Not as good as Barrier but will be better than anyone on the roster. Still should win district IMO.

Very quick. Almost like she knew what she was doing. And maybe had done it before. I still say the 3rd baseman(woman, person or whatever "they" perfer ✌) was clearing the base when she was pushed making it look like interference.

There's a recent article in the panews where the citizens of Nederland was saying the quite part out loud when it come to outside residents and renters. Do you think this hard stance will eventually effect Nederland ability to compete and keep up with neighbors schools. [Hidden Content]

Rivals has him with 11 offers & no star rating as of yet ESPN has 11 offers & no star rating yet 247 has 11 offers & no star rating yet Needs a very successful super stat junior year to boost those rankings & ratings up to 5 star

That Nederland team is tough…

Nederland- 10 Groves- 5 Port Neches- 10 B.C.- 9 B.C. ELIMINATED

Maybe the kids need to put in the extra work when the coaches aren't around 🤷🏾‍♂️

He is a Republican in Florida and in fact in the heavily democratic area of Miami yet I believe he won by a landslide. I have nothing to base this on and have not read it but I’m guessing that he is trying to get exposure to be the next governor of Florida. Ron DeSantis is about to be term limited and is running for president so Suarez probably has no expectations of winning the presidential primary, but certainly expectations of getting national exposure and moving him up into a good position to take over for the DeSantis.

OLD NEW HJ. TROTTER WEYLER EVEDALE WEYLER ---------- WEST HARDIN SNOE POLLOCK DIBOLL BUNNER --------- HARDIN PAVLISKA HESSLER

Read about this on a plane last week. Immediately thought of Hagar.

Let Spider man speak his mind, he is hammering home his opinion cleanly. Plus it's a good discussion, nothing else going on right now sports wise in Nederland except the 9 yr. old all stars winning district in baseball & the 10's run ruling teams their 1st 2 games

West Hardin - Aaron Pollock (former HJ assistant)

From the ABA... [Hidden Content] government has%2C however%2C prosecuted,through use of executive orders. To summarize, it gives the President a broad range of powers to declassify a lot of documents, but not all. And there's a procedure that has to be followed so that all agencies know which information has been declassified. A president can't just "think it" and a doc is declassified. And I think the argument now is that the documents ARE still classified, but Trump COULD have declassified them (maybe), so "no harm, no foul." That's not a good argument in my opinion. The President himself even admitted that some of the docs he displayed were classified, and that he could no longer declassify them. My understanding is that the Presidential Records Act just details how the records belong to and what's supposed to happen to them after a President leaves office. I think the Espionage Act charges are related to Trump's showing of top secret materials to people who don't have clearances. And you're right... the law was never intended to apply to Presidents because nobody ever envisioned a former President violating the Presidential Records Act by keeping top secret information, then showing it to reporters and other people without clearance for his own personal benefit... money, influence, or just to "clear his name." I guess a better question is this.... if Staff Sergeant Reagan had clearance and then left the service, but held onto classified docs, then showed them to a reporter (or anyone else), then denied to the powers that be that he, in fact, still had those documents, hid them out, then got caught red-handed with boxes of classified documents.... what do you think would happen to Staff Sergeant Reagan? He'd be in federal prison, that's what. And to say, "oh, he was the President and could have declassified them if he wanted to" is just not a defense to all of those violations. I guess I'm saying that there's a difference between hanging onto old menus from the time Stevie Wonder played at a White House Dinner and showing our top secret military operations to a reporter from some right-wing hack website. Do I think that every president left with momentos? Heck, Bill Clinton's staff stole the "Ws" off of white house keyboards on their way out the door as an affront to George W Bush. I halfway expected this to be a big to-do about nothing, except it's not. They're really bad allegations and just dismissing them because of who's spearheading the investigation is not sound thinking. If it turns out that Trump didn't have Top Secret records in his possession after his attorneys certified that all of the top secret materials had been returned to the National Archivist, then he's got nothing to worry about.

And following "back to back" McCowns.