Defend whatever you want, buddy. The reality is they're literally making it up. The *only* thing they've got is an anonymous source. The documents are completely specious- they contain no alterations to federal contractor requirements whatsoever. Yes, they reference the Justice40 bogeyman, but that, too, make no changes to federal contractor requirements. So pardon me for using the word "biased" when "liars" would have been more fitting.

From an obviously-biased source, yes. Not one reporting the reality of actual federal policy. Ooh, "one senior official!" And "internal memos!" Couldn't possibly be made up, not with their utter failure (and yours) to cite a single public document outlining any policy change whatsoever from the prior half century.

How would the article be any more falsifiable if they had blamed leprechauns? Do you think it might have been leprechauns?

Were there? How odd that I've mentioned three of them explicitly and you're at zero, even after being called out for your ignorance of *any* of them.

Sure, so ignore what the administration actually did, then. Perhaps the citation of 5 numbers and 3 letters was too difficult for you. Wouldn't surprise me, you really are a dumbass.

To think, it would take one, just *one* citation to any federal official document whatsoever and you could look like less of a dipshit.

Ah, so Congress then, if anyone, rather than Biden. Fucking moron. And there's no such provision in the legislation anyway, making you doubly moronic. Perhaps you would care to review 23 CFR 680 wherein all the long-preexisting requirements are conveniently listed.

Via which executive order or federal rule that actually exists? I assume it's in the same document where they admit to stealing the 2020 election from Trump, but for some reason I just can't find it without your help.

Why would you want the government to take more of your money, on which you can routinely make net 9%, just so that the government can avoid 3.3% interest?

It's not the debt that bothers you, it's the government services. You're just hiding the ball so you don't have to seem so Republican.

No, what you *did* was blame Biden for federal contractor requirements that had been in place since the Johnson administration. "Justice40" doesn't say what you think it does.

Thanks for putting all that effort into making it clear you don't know what you're talking about.

At best, you're confusing the requirements regarding the *location* of charging stations with the requirements on contractors. You've denied that any failure may have resulted from any *actual* change to the workforce, then denied that any failure may have been caused by the only *actual* requirement on contractors, to then cite "quotas" and vague "additional requirements." Like using licensed electricians? Or that all the charging stations don't end up in Palo Alto? Oh, the unmitigated gall!

Sure, if you can't find it in the legislation, the rules, or the executive orders, why not make up claims to support your political preferences? People do this all the time.

Really? It was hard for contractors to self-certify that they maintained written affirmative action policies? Yet you think the ones that *couldn't* do so were nonetheless capable of creating a charging grid, but the ones that *could* were inept?

I commend you on your contortions to maintain your world view.

When you're talking a whole $180M, at best, yes, you're right, basically no value.

You're not even beating that person up with the most obvious question: how does a huge project founder because of a less-than-two-percent change in the people working on it? No amount of reporting from *any* source is likely to convince me that everything would have been great if just a couple people here and there were swapped out.

Wasn't there some report a (good) while ago about agents seemingly communicating in some language they invented that was indecipherable to humans? Seems like this might be the last time we catch the most sophisticated iterations doing anything but passing apparently random bits.

You misunderstand "evidence." Evidence is anything proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. If you don't know what the *fact* is, you definitely don't have any idea whether something is evidence.

But in terms of federal criminal law, it doesn't matter. See 18 USC 1519. All that's required is the alteration of a record or object "with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States."

If you're aware of an actual federal criminal case failing to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of the requisite intent, let's hear it.

It might be "subtly" different, which is exactly why it'll end up on a privilege log- it isn't different enough. And if you start your own legal strategy with the question "what does corporate policy say?" you've already failed yourself.