Been busy doing statistical analysis of something cautioned against via cliché, so this sausage platter has not received an awful lot of care. As if anyone could tell from contemporary news cycles…
- Legal lore has it that a moderately competent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. A chain-store sub sandwich, however, requires more. It's possible that:
- …smoked turkey and roast beef have qualified immunity, because there's no established statutory or judicial provision subjecting them to indictment for their discretionary condiments
- …the US Attorney in question does not qualify as "moderately competent," so the legal lore doesn't apply
- …this grand jury had exactly as much confidence in the rule of law as the US Attorney in question has expressed for the past few years on Faux News
- …changes in culture have made the legal lore incorrect — ham sandwiches are generally beyond a contemporary grand jury's experience, due to the increasing prevalence of wraps and fancy variants like panini
- …this grand jury did not find probable cause that the accused was doing anything other than providing free food to law-enforcement professionals
- …the accused's intent was to return nonconforming merchandise to the sandwich store (that is just out of the picture in the photo in the linked article), and even this grand jury couldn't find probable cause otherwise
- …someone on this grand jury was him/herself an immigrant, or perhaps the child of one, and persuasively whispered "Jim Crow" (or "Bull Connor"?) in the jury room
- …the accused is or is related to a veteran and this grand jury had had enough
- …this was a hammer in search of a nail, unable to find K Street on a map (further impaired by general reliance on dubious "GPS turn-by-turn directions")
- At least Denmark understands that books need to be just a little bit cheaper without further reducing authors' compensation while enriching noncreative distributors — like streaming has done for composers/songwriters/performers — without the corollary.
- Every so often, it's worthwhile reminding enthusiastic bookbanners that they need to, at minimum, carefully and closely read what they wish banned for themselves. Even when it's a notorious "forgery" (better description would be "propaganda sponsored by the Security Detachment of the Ministry of Internal Affairs"). Of course, actually reading goes very much against the mindset of the enthusiastic bookbanner, so perhaps I'm asking too much. I'd definitely be asking too much of the educational hierarchy in Oklahoma.
- We could just worry about government lies from the perspective of a government official. We'll just carefully forget to consider that (a) those lessons came at the hands of the party that individual is now representing, (b) that the lies were in the service of much the same policy imperatives that individual has supported (and continues to do so), (c) that individual didn't live through Vietnam and Watergate, so he has no concept of gambling occurring in Rick's casino, (d) that those clamoring to get into government (whether officeholders or challengers) don't have a better track record — including that individual, (e) that contemporaneous models for multiple-choice exams disfavor more than four choices.