That's not what knowingly means in this context. Knowingly refers to the level of intent required to pursue charges, not whether they knew there was a law against it.
In this case it requires the government to show that the person intended to leave a review and/or testimonials that misrepresent that they are by someone who does not exist.
bUt TrUmP iS bEtTeR fOr ThE eCoNoMy
Unless you are a game developer I would hold off on assuming how much work would be required to do what this proposal asks.
He started with only God Almighty could make him step down...moved to if polls said there was no path to victory...now we are here....it feels like he's warming up to the idea.
The problem is the backboard that was a rational supreme court no longer exists.
I suggest listening to the podcast Strict Scrutiny. They do a fantastic job of breaking down the way the current Supreme Court has just thrown out nearly every well established precedent. And it pretty much is based upon their own individual ideology and not based on any logical interpretation of the constitution.
You pretty much learn this, but then you find your way into camp A that attempts to hold up this system, or Camp B where you attempt to use this system to destroy itself....Camp B is struggling right now.
I spent 3 years and half a million dollars getting a law degree...and it make me feel good to know that everything I learned there doesn't actually fucking matter. All I needed to learn was that if you are appointed by an authoritarian Cheeto, the law is what you make it.
He's saving the "BUT MY RESOLVE HAS NEVER BEEN STRONGER" portion for the convention
First thought that popped in my head yesterday.
Seriously consider Scranton, PA. I live here and most houses go for well under your budget. You get all the seasons, are surrounded by state forest, and multi gigabit internet is available (thru Comcast unfortunately but other ISP's are moving in soon). Also it's in a county that remained blue during PA's 2016 turn to red.
This was really an administrative law case. The Biden administration was defending against a claim that the taskforce that decides which things should be covered was unconstitutional. Now the Trump admin has taken up the case and is arguing that the taskforce is constitutional, but because the secretary of hhs has final rule making authority and can actively override the taskforce. The supreme Court seems to be agreeing with that interpretation. Meaning that the brain worm will get more power to be able to decide which drugs should and should not be covered....so not a great result overall.