Recent comments in /f/vermont

vermontaltaccount t1_j9ylk5d wrote

> She is a US congressperson and can comment on anything she wishes, even ongoing investigations.

lol, no, just because you're a congressperson doesn't mean you can ignore court or fed orders. What if she talked to the press and accidentally gave away information that helped Sam Bankman-Fried develop a better defense for himself?

If you've ever had jury duty it's actually specifically outlined that you can't, so I imagine that it's the same for her.

>However, once a jury is impaneled, journalists are prohibited from interviewing jurors while the case is being presented and during jury deliberations.

Again, I'm not saying she DOES have a no-talk clause from higher ups, but it's not unreasonable at all.

>I hope she gets it together over the weekend and agrees to talk about this with the Vermont media.

I hope she doesn't, because it would mean she is an idiot and I would no longer trust her to represent me.

Have you seen Breaking Bad? There's a scene in it where they actually joke about this with Badger.

>Did you say anything stupid? And by anything stupid I mean anything at all.

So I have to emphasize again, that the thing you are asking our congressperson to do, talk about an active legal case, is so well known in the public conscious as a horrible idea that modern media actually jokes about that one of the dumber meth dealers in a TV show might do it.

2

TheTowerBard t1_j9yfymm wrote

It’s like you’re complaining about someone on a platform that you can very easily block and never have to be bothered by again. Again.

Sarcasm aside, I genuinely don’t understand why you easily triggered folks don’t utilize the block feature more. It’s there for a reason. That, or just scroll on by if it’s a post you don’t care for. Instead, you choose to engage because this is obviously something that bothers you in some way. Maybe reflect on that.

−11

FiveDaysLate t1_j9ycwg3 wrote

And when you clear the trees, under it is a bunch of glacial soil full of....stones! Clear those stones out for agriculture or while removing stumps, and push them to the limits of your property line and BOOM. Stone wall. I read once some years back (wish I could remember the source) that New England's stone walls could stretch to the moon if put in one line, and they're under studied in general.

5

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j9yctkb wrote

To everyone saying that the walls keep sheep in, I can tell you from first hand experience that this is simply not the case. Sheep will stay within the boundaries of cleared land, simply because their food source, grass/pasture, is a product of that cleared land. Farmers did not give a rats ass where their sheep went to pasture, as they did not even keep them in barns (sheep can sleep out in the snow all winter long). The early barns you see were built to store either hay or wheat, the latter of which was grown on cultivated land. And, jf you've ever had to plow land in Vermont and try to plant grain, you will soon realize how much area is lost to rocks if you do not make a concerted effort to remove them, dragging them along with your plow until you reach the boundary of your field (where you pile them up to get them out of the way). If you pay close attention you will find that land that was too steep to plow will not have stone walls, although it was most certainly cleared and used for sheep.

4

HappilyhiketheHump OP t1_j9yca5d wrote

The “she might not be able to comment on it yet” line is silly.

She is a US congressperson and can comment on anything she wishes, even ongoing investigations.

She is choosing not to comment and the optics are not good.

I don’t have a reason to believe she was aware of the fraud. She did benefit from the fraud.

I hope she gets it together over the weekend and agrees to talk about this with the Vermont media.

−1