Thursday Open Thread

|

Please feel free to write comments on this post on whatever topic you like! (As usual, please avoid personal insults of each other, vulgarities aimed at each other or at third parties, or other things that are likely to poison the discussion.)

NEXT: Lessons of an Effort to Compensate Victims of an Unjust Use of Eminent Domain a Century after it Happened

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Anybody heard of Biden’s April 15th EO? I’d call it Biden’s Japanese internment, if he actually goes ahead with it.

    Executive Order on Blocking Property with Respect to Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation

    On the face, it doesn’t look too bad. But then you dig in.

    “Section 1. All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
    (a) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, and, with respect to subsection (a)(ii) of this section, in consultation with the Attorney General, or by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, and, with respect to subsection (a)(ii) of this section, in consultation with the Attorney General:”

    ….

    ” (ii) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, any of the following for or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, directly or indirectly, the Government of the Russian Federation: ”

    ….

    ” (C) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in the United States or abroad; ”

    Russian collusion, anybody?

    ” (v) to be a spouse or adult child of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (a)(ii) or (iii) of this section;”

    It applies to the target’s family, too.

    ” (vi) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of:

    (B) any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or”

    It operates by contagion, recursively.

    “Sec. 2. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include:
    (a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
    (b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.”

    You not only have all your assets locked, nobody is allowed to deal with you in any way, including feeding you if you’re hungry.

    And there’s not a speck of due process or opportunity to appeal.

    1. Chances it will be applied to Hunter Biden?

      1. Slim and none, and Slim left town.

        1. Which is one of the biggest problems with many government laws. Their selective application. IE, Hunter Biden’s illegal gun purchases.

          If the laws are evenly applied across all people, then any unjust laws are overturned. But when only “some” people feel the pain of unjust laws, while those in power don’t… Then the unjust nature is maintained.

          1. In a banana republic, el Presidente and his family & friends can do whatever they want, the law be damned.

            1. That’s why we fired Mr. Trump.

          2. I’ve already noted that just Hunter’s recent interview, let alone the contents of that laptop, would have any ordinary person rotting in jail. He’s confessed to repeated felonies, and the laptop provides enough evidence to convict on them, if the legal system had any interest in enforcing the law where he’s concerned.

            Which it doesn’t, and he knows it.

            1. You : “the laptop provides enough evidence to convict on them”

              What evidence? The “revelations” from the laptop along with the additional allegations of a disgruntled former business partner add up to this :

              1. Hunter may have gotten some face time with Daddy for a business associate. By political standard that’s nothing, much less illegal. Much worse occurred repeatedly at Mar-a-Lago during the last presidency.

              2. Hunter may wanted to cut Daddy in on a business deal after the latter had left public office and was a private citizen. The deal went nowhere.

              3. Joe Biden probably knew more about his son’s business dealings than he publicly admitted.

              And that’s it. You’ve repeatedly whined you were cheated of an “October Surprise” by the media, Brett. Now you’ve upped the ante of your talk, claiming you’re robbed of a criminal conviction. Why not make a case for either allegation? Unless it’s all just talk….

              1. You have not the remotest idea what was on that laptop, apparently. I suppose that’s understandable, given the degree to which the media have suppressed the story.

                Illegal drug use, and child porn. And the illegal drug use he has publicly confessed.

                1. Rudy Giuliani promised everyone kiddie porn but never delivered. Neither did Tucker Carlson, the NY. Post. or any of the other sleazy right-wing characters behind this bit of kompromat. Care to explain why Brett? Just a few weeks ago Fox News aired alleged photos of Hunter with prostitutes (in a snit, as a Gaetz distraction). They were supposedly from the laptop. So why not something on this kiddie porn business from them? Instead….nothing.

                  Rudy has all the laptop data in hand. No one can pretend Giuliani has the slightest ethics or scruples left. Kiddie porn would have deeply damaged Biden’s campaign.

                  But. Rudy. Didn’t. Produce.

                  You might try producing an answer to that mystery, Brett, instead of parroting obvious bullshit from liars. Otherwise you’d be left with an “argument” that Hunter should have been arrested for drug use because of pictures on a laptop taken years before. Given no one would be arrested for that – and you started off by claiming the exact opposite – that would leave you looking pretty foolish.

                  1. “Rudy Giuliani promised everyone kiddie porn but never delivered.”

                    By, “never delivered”, I presume you mean, “Never committed a federal felony”. Since he DID deliver to the legal authorities, who duly proceeded to make noises about looking into it while just ignoring it.

                    You want him to what, go on TV and show people pictures, and then proceed straight to jail?

                    1. Oh! So Rudy had the evidence in hand but didn’t dare show it to his buddies at Fox News or the NY Post for fear of running afoul of the law ?!? There are scores of news outlets who would have happily run stories about child pornography on Hunter’s lap if Giuliani had the goods, particularly if that evidence was coupled with the refusal of the Trump Justice Department to acknowledge it. And they could have printed or aired those stories without showing images and violating the law. Are you honestly claiming Giuliani couldn’t find anyone willing to do so?

                      That wouldn’t be the most absurd thing you’ve ever claimed here, Brett; there are countless other candidates for that “honor”.

                      But damn sure close……

                    2. By, “never delivered”, I presume you mean, “Never committed a federal felony”. Since he DID deliver to the legal authorities, who duly proceeded to make noises about looking into it while just ignoring it.

                      Oh. But you’ve seen it? Tell us about it. Or maybe the legal authorities “ignored it” because it wasn’t there.

                      Do you smell the stuff you’re being fed before you swallow it?

                    3. Bernard,

                      It’s pretty clear that Hunter lied on federal forms in order to obtain a gun, and he was never prosecuted.

                      Would it be a surprise he wouldn’t be prosecuted for other crimes?

                    4. “Would it be a surprise he wouldn’t be prosecuted for other crimes?”

                      That’s some pretty reckless reasoning.

                  2. “Neither did Tucker Carlson, the NY. Post. or any of the other sleazy right-wing characters behind this bit of kompromat. ”

                    Cite to where Tucker Carlson or the NY post ever covered that particular angle?

                    1. Well, yeah. They didn’t. That’s the point. Don’t you get that? Both were deeply involved in the laptop operation – particularly the NYP, who was in on this covert op from the start. Yet neither said anything about child pornography.

                      And it’s near-impossible the NY Post had the laptop hard drive in their possession, it contained child pornography, but they failed to mention it. Apparently they’re also part of this conspiracy Brett keeps gaslighting about.

                      As for that rancid clown Carlson, who knows? You might recall he breathlessly promised Amazing Shocking Laptop Developments, spun a bizarre conspiracy theory when some documents were briefly lost in the mail, and then produced zilch when they were found & delivered into his hands. He later admitted his producer always had a duplicate copy; he was lying to his dupe followers all along. By now he understands they like being lied to.

                      https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-says-he-had-authentic-damning-new-hunter-biden-documents-it-got-lost-mail-1543084

                      PS : Isn’t the mail a mess these days? I’m currently on my third attempt to locate a lost / excessively-late package from the USPS these past few months. Trump sure did a number on the Post Office.

                    2. You’re… blaming Trump for your issues with your mail? Don’t worry, that surely not TSD.

                2. “You have not the remotest idea what was on that laptop, apparently.”

                  Whatever Rudy’s stooge(s) could think of was on that laptop.

              2. Kiddie porn is kiddie porn — and is illegal.

                1. claiming expertise in kiddie porn now?

              3. Here comes grb to earn his paycheck with the latest ShareBlue talking points.

                1. And I’m due a raise too!

              4. So do you guys have sources for your accusations of child porn?

                1. Sarcastr0…Does GTV, based out of Taiwan count as a source?

                    1. Cliff notes: “We have no idea what’s on the hard drive, and the FBI wouldn’t say one way or the other. But nobody has publicly shown 25,000 pictures of kiddie porn and proved they came from the hard drive, so….”

                    2. Cliff notes of Brian: I gots nothing

                    3. Cliff notes of QA: SQUIRRRRRRRELLLLL!!!!!!

                    4. Nothing.

                    5. “Nothing” is what you have in response to what I actually said.

                      So in a feeble attempt to compensate for that, you burn down a straw man having nothing to do with what I said.

                      Do you have a life? At all?

                    6. “‘Nothing’ is what you have in response to what I actually said.”

                      Tie game!

            2. I’ve already noted that just Hunter’s recent interview, let alone the contents of that laptop, would have any ordinary person rotting in jail. He’s confessed to repeated felonies, and the laptop provides enough evidence to convict on them, if the legal system had any interest in enforcing the law where he’s concerned.

              Which it doesn’t, and he knows it.

              How long has Hunter Biden been fucking your wife?
              or is there some OTHER reason why you’re so fascinated by him?

      2. How would it apply to Hunter? It doesn’t apply retroactively, and what exactly is he doing now with Russia?

        1. It’s an EO. And it’s not clear that it wouldn’t apply to past actions. For example

          ” to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, any of the following for or”

          So if you HAVE for example, colluded with Russia in the past, your current assets could be seized.

          1. Executive Orders are still subject to the Constitution, which prohibits ex post facto laws. And you’re just taking a cherry-picked section, and not even the whole sentence! If you looked, for example, at the very first sentence of Section 1:

            Section 1. All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that HEREAFTER [emphasis mine] come within the United States, or that are or HEREAFTER come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:

            1. It’s using current law.

              Again, the idea is that current hackers or hackers who operated in the 2020 election could have their current property seized.

      3. Chances it will be applied to Hunter Biden?

        Um, none, since he didn’t work for the Russian Federation?

        1. Democrats have been treating the Ukraine and the Russian Federation interchangeably for a while, on the basis that some parts of the Ukraine government are Russian controlled and/or influenced.

          1. Treating interchangeably how? Not on the policy side, I can tell you!

            1. Brett can’t tell the difference, therefore nobody else can, either.

        2. It doesn’t apply to those just those who “worked” for the Russian Federation.

        3. Um, none, since he didn’t work for the Russian Federation?

          You interpret…

          “to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, any of the following for or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, directly or indirectly, the Government of the Russian Federation”

          …as meaning only those who “work[ed] for” the RF.

    2. Brett, even if I agreed with your reading of the section, which I’m not sure I do, comparing it to putting tens of thousands of people in camps because of their race is so outlandish that it makes it difficult to take anything else you say seriously.

      1. I said, “if he actually goes ahead with it”. I’d like to think they wouldn’t have the nerve to freeze all of Trump’s assets on the basis of “Russian collusion” allegations, and then do the same to anybody who offers him any help. I’d like to think they’re not going to freeze the assets of everybody involved in the January 6th riot, and anybody who donates to their legal expenses.

        But as far as I can see, this EO would permit them to, and I don’t see anything even vaguely resembling due process in it.

        If I’m wrong about that, explain why, in terms that don’t rely on the administration being reasonable or nice, just legal meanings.

        1. This is intended to hurt the Russian oligarchs. That’s perfectly normal foreign arm twisting. If a US citizen was caught up in it, they still have normal legal protections.

          1. No, I understand what it purports to do, and some parts of it are quite reasonable. But it’s absurdly over-broad, and on the face of it looks almost tailor made for abuse.

            I don’t, I really don’t, like bad laws that rely on people in power simply refraining from abusing them. Bad executive orders with the same features are just that much worse.

            1. How is it overbroad? It looks pretty specific to me.

              1. ” to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, any of the following for or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, directly or indirectly,”

                So, you don’t even have to be acting as their agent, it’s enough to have attempted to engage in an act that might have indirectly benefited them?

                And the plain language would even permit raising funds for a legal defense.

          2. The “normal” legal protections include being bankrupted for legal fees and subjected to the whims of a federal judge who is part of the federal government.

        2. Sometimes it’s best to not always rush to assuming the worst.

          1. “Sometimes it’s best to not always rush to assuming the worst.”

            This is Brett you’re talking about. This guy rushes more than a blitz mad defensive coordinator. And he never, ever, learns anything from the touchdowns that follow.

          2. I look around myself, and for years I have been watching the US construct all the machinery of a totalitarian police state. Panopticon surveillance. No-fly lists. The ability to impoverish and silence people at the flick of a switch, or even algorithmically. Every year seems to see some new addition to the dictator toolkit.

            And then we rely on the people in power being good people to keep that police state from coming into being.

            Is it really strange to think that’s a bad idea, and complain about it? Kinda late to complain about it AFTER a dictator steps in and uses those tools.

            This is a MAJOR addition to the dictator’s toolkit. It didn’t have to be, it could have been drafted with due process protections, requirements for judicial findings.

            It wasn’t.

            1. Where was your voice re Patriot Act?

              1. Republicans are mad that Republicans were allowed to do what Republicans have done and no one stopped them. Like when McConnell got Obama’s veto on JASTA overridden, then blamed Obama for not telling him forcefully enough that the law was a bad idea.

                1. I’m sorry, but what exactly does this have to do with a president signing an EO that basically financially freezes anyone, without due process, who helped anyone connected to Russia?

              2. That was a while back, but how’s this?

                1. Credit where it’s due, good on ya for that.

            2. “I look around myself, and for years I have been watching the US construct all the machinery of a totalitarian police state. Panopticon surveillance. No-fly lists. ”

              But enough about Republicans…

          3. This is Brett you’re talking to.

        3. That wasn’t actually my point. My point is that comparing freezing assets based on conduct to interning people based on race is a completely stupid analogy. Even if I agree with you that it’s a bad EO, it does not begin to compare with having to spend months or years in a camp because of where you or your parents were born.

          And with respect to your due process concerns, anyone who thinks their due process rights have been violated can file a lawsuit. Whether the EO specifically mentions it or not.

          1. In 2021, having all of your assets frozen in a world where a credit card is increasingly necessary to do *anything* essentially is a distinction without a difference from being interned in a camp.

            At least they fed and housed the people interned in those camps….

            1. Only an idiot would loan money to Donald Trump. How much did you give him?

        4. ” I’d like to think they wouldn’t have the nerve to freeze all of Trump’s assets on the basis of “Russian collusion” allegations”

          It’s fairly well-known that although Trump would have been more than happy to collude, the Russians wanted nothing to do with him. You can’t join a conspiracy that won’t join you.

        5. “I’d like to think they wouldn’t have the nerve to freeze all of Trump’s assets on the basis of “Russian collusion” allegations”

          You also think Trump HAS assets.

      2. Lol, yes, like most modern conservatives, Brett really can’t see what was wrong with the internment. He knows *something* was wrong, but like a color blind person straining to see green he doesn’t really understand what. But the internment is bad, and Biden is bad, so let’s loft them together in a lazy, casual hyperbole bomb!

        1. “Lol, yes, like most modern conservatives, Brett really can’t see what was wrong with the internment.”

          That’s interesting. At the risk of channeling Pauline Kael, I know a fair number of conservatives and exactly 100% of them think the Japanese Internment was an abomination.

          Weren’t we just talking about not always assuming the worst?

          1. ” I know a fair number of conservatives and exactly 100% of them think the Japanese Internment was an abomination. ”

            Like I said, most color blind people know there is thing others call ‘green’ even if they don’t understand it themselves.

            1. This is positively weird. I’m having trouble understanding the nature of your complaint.

              We think the internment was an outrage. It would have been an outrage no matter how the victims had been chosen, because they were not afforded due process or constitutional rights.

              We’re supposed to have been outraged on some other basis? Being outraged at a denial of due process and constitutional rights isn’t good enough for you, it somehow doesn’t count?

              1. Let us not forget that the authors of the internment of Japanese-Americans were also the folks who bent over backwards to appease Joe Stalin.

          2. An abomination, but perhaps a necessary one.

            The FBI lacked Japanese-speaking agents, let alone contacts in the community. There *were* spies, and they were telling the Japanese subs where and when to find our ships going to Hawaii, which — in the days before C5As, was the essential route toward Japan.

            Japanese subs *did* shell the US and Canadian coastline, their marksmanship was abysmal but they could have done a *lot* of damage if they’d had better targeting information. Likewise, don’t forget that the Japanese *did* invade Alaska and that there was a very real fear that they’d also invade California. Don’t forget the “Battle of Los Angeles” on February 25, 1942. https://www.history.com/news/world-war-iis-bizarre-battle-of-los-angeles

            It’s like the bombing of Dresden — wars are ugly and not fought in an ideal world. Other than the internment, with what FDR had at the time, what other options were there?

            1. Well, you’re the exception that proves the rule.

              “there was a very real fear that they’d also invade California”

              Not by anyone with the slightest understanding of the logistics needed. D-Day was a stretch, and it was mounted across a few miles of the Channel. Japan was not remotely capable of invading the mainland US.

              The Japanese navy in 1941 was about 486 shops. In 1945 the US Navy had 6768 ships, and were going to use most of them in the invasion of Japan, plus we had seized islands near Japan to use as forward bases. There was zero chance that the Japanese could successfully invade the mainland.

              That’s aside from the fact that Normandy to Berlin is about 400 miles. If you start in San Francisco and head east, at the 400 mile mark you are still in Nevada.

              1. Yeah, just to add on to what you said about Japan’s Imperial Navy not having the capacity. That comment was spot on. Japan’s capacity to seriously threaten the American Homeland was effectively ended by the end of June 1942.

                1. If by ‘seriously threaten’ you mean ‘stage a hit-n-run carrier raid, sure.

                  But Ed is saying invasion. They never had that capability. They weren’t within an order of magnitude of that capability. Consider D-Day again. The allies had absolute air supremacy over the channel and northern France, and absolute naval control of the channel. Caen in Normandy to Southampton is like 120 miles – a cargo ship doing 10 knots can make a round trip every day. They laid fuel pipelines under the channel – and still were fuel limited. Tokyo to San Fran is 5000 miles … that 10 knot freighter is going to spend over a month on the round trip bringing supplies … and the Japanese didn’t have much of an ASW capability, and the US in 1941 had as many fleet subs as the Germans had U-boats.

                  Heck, I was watching some video or other a few weeks ago, and the Japanese briefly considered invading Hawaii – but the Japanese themselves decided they didn’t have the logistical capacity to pull it off.

                  1. Correct, they went for Kisku and Attu instead. And succeeded for a time. 🙂

                    1. If you could pick the one place you would want an adversary to attack, those would be it. Please, please, attack me there!

                      I have always wondered why we bothered to take them back, as opposed to just evacuating the Japanese at wars end.

                  2. Mr Ed is talking from his posterior aperture

                    1. Not exactly an unusual occasion.

        2. Like most modern liberals, you have trouble remembering that the internment was your guy in action, not ours. We were totally out of power at the time.

          Kind of like you complain about racism and police brutality, and fail to notice you’re complaining in places that Democrats have run for a half century or more, and Republicans have precious little influence over, let alone control.

          What was wrong with the internment was that that it came down like a hammer on people without any individualized findings of guilt, no adversarial process, no opportunity to defend yourself. Just, “Oh, you’re an “X”, report to the camp and kiss your home goodbye!”

          It doesn’t matter what “X” was. It matters that you didn’t have to demonstrate the person was guilty of anything, or give them a chance to defend themselves.

          Look at this executive order: Somebody designates you guilty, and, wham, the hammer comes down, no defense, no advance notice. Anybody tries to raise funds for your defense? The hammer comes down on them, too.

          Just, “Sucks to be you!” and that’s it.

          1. “What was wrong with the internment was that that it came down like a hammer on people without any individualized findings of guilt, no adversarial process, no opportunity to defend yourself. Just, “Oh, you’re an “X”, report to the camp and kiss your home goodbye!”

            He sees green as a shade people recognize, but can’t see it like most do!

            1. QA,
              Despite your argument of why it iss important to argue with stupid or foolish people. I really think that in this case you’re wasting your virtual breath.

              1. Are you insinuating that Brett doesn’t believe that it’s wrong to inter people?

                1. I am not inferring anything.
                  Brett’s argument that the anti-Puti EO is the equivalent of interment is absurd.

                2. He is the king of whataboutism.

          2. “We were totally out of power at the time.”

            Lol, somebody doesn’t remember what party Governor Earl Warren, among others, belonged to.

            1. 1942-1945. The Democrats had uninterrupted control of the White house, and both chambers of Congress, from 1933 to 1947.

              I’m sorry, was the internment at the orders of Earl Warren?

              1. “But, it was not until the likes of Earl Warren, a moderate and highly regarded lawyer, then the Attorney General of the State and a popular choice to be Governor of California in the 1942 election, urged the President, the War Department, and the Congress to conduct a mass evacuation of all of Japanese ancestry as “a measure of national security and military necessity” that the President and his associates accepted the recommendation, with the resulting Executive Order being issued on February 19, 1942. ”

                You really like to spout off when you don’t know…

                1. You really don’t understand the difference between power and being able to spout off your mouth, do you?

                2. Whataboutism?

                  FDR could have ignored him.

                  1. Uh, its not whataboutism when it’s completely bi-partisan.

                  1. Battle: Los Angeles is a fairly mediocre movie about fighting space aliens.

          3. “Like most modern liberals, you have trouble remembering that the internment was your guy in action, not ours. We were totally out of power at the time.”

            Okay, Brett, given that one of your many, many, many areas of expertise is history, where were all the voices of protest on the right to Japanese internment or lack of action re. Jews in Europe? The commentariat here (as well as Bernstein) love to trot out FDR and liberals for a good kicking on these issues, and it’s well deserved, but this deep moral failure was not exclusive to liberals. Even if conservatives were out of power, where were their voices in opposition? C’mon, Brett, you know you’re smarter than all the historians, so school us on why this was solely a liberal sin and not a widespread American one?

            1. Congress voted on the internment. Want to guess how many good old GOPers voted against it?

              1. Here’s the bill. Oh, wait, that was an executive order, that didn’t require Congress to vote on anything. My bad!

                Public law 503 was enacted afterwards, (After enforcement had already begun.) on a voice vote. The only member of Congress to speak against it was a Republican.

                1. Wow. One whole Republican. Again, if this was a *uniquely* liberal failure, as you’re suggesting, you’d think all kinds of Republicans would have voted against it. Republican newspapers would have been editorializing against it. Republican politicians out on the hustings telling the citizens that this was unAmerican. And where were all the conservatives publicly shaming FDR for failing European Jews fleeing Germany? Again, come on, Brett, you’re smarter than any historian, how would you write this history? How would you explain Republican silence?

                  1. Whataboutism?

                    Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and could have passed anything they wanted.

                    1. Try to follow the argument. This is not about exonerating Democrats. At all. They were guilty of serious moral lapses on both Japanese internment and the persecution of Jews in Europe. They were in power and used in abominably in these cases. So, you with me so far? I’ll assume yes.

                      Now, what Brett E. Coyote, Supergenius, and others want us to believe is that Democrats were alone in this. Which is to say that Republicans did not support these actions and inactions, respectively. They were probably horrified by the humanitarian catastrophe and violation of civil rights, right, rsteinmetz? If that’s the case, there should be plenty of evidence out there to show that those on the right opposed it. Votes, editorials, speeches, letters. It’s not that Democrats could pass anything they want—duh—it’s that there’s no evidence that this actions and inactions weren’t fundamentally bipartisan. Republicans agreed or at the very least weren’t bothered by any of the policies regarding Japanese internment or Jews in Europe.

                      So, no, it’s not whataboutism. It’s about whether you want to look at these twin moral crimes from a perspective of principle, in which the failure was a widespread American one (weighted, certainly, on Democrats for being the ones who actually wielded power), or do you want to use it as a means of scoring points against one party, in which case you point to the one in power and ignore the great silence from the opposition. This shit isn’t hard if you actually care about principle.

                    2. No, the Democrats weren’t alone in it. Doesn’t change the fact that it was the Democrats who did it.

                    3. “No, the Democrats weren’t alone in it. Doesn’t change the fact that it was the Democrats who did it.”

                      Good answer, Brett—solid historical argument there. Serious commitment to principle and intellectual rigor. That shit wouldn’t fly in an undergrad paper, yet you like to think of yourself as smarter than professional historians. Keep on polymathin’.

                  2. How would you explain Republican silence?

                    Because there wasn’t total Republican silence ? Colorado Governor Carr immediately comes to mind. The point you are missing in your narrative driven diatribe is that this isn’t a Democrat vs Republican thing. It is a libertarian vs authoritarian thing. There are a fair number of authoritarian Republicans, probably the majority in fact. There are no libertarian Democrats. As with any era, the few libertarian Republicans are going to object. Supporting the internment to “make the public safe” is always going to be the easy path for the shallow and unprincipled, so of course it would have wide support.

                    It is easy to see why so many Republicans went along with the internment. There were in fact imperial Japanese supporters within those interred. Some of them would have committed espionage in support of imperial Japan. They almost certainly saved a small number of American lives by interring those of Japanese ancestry. It takes a brave person of conviction to stand up and say “It is my conviction that due process and fundamental civil rights outweigh any risk”. That is a very libertarian position. The authoritarian position is “If it only saves one life, we can bend the rules in an emergancy”, perhaps that’s more to your taste ?

                    1. As both Pearl Harbor and Midway were resupplied by ships sailing out of California, Japanese spies communicating with Japanese subs (possibly via morse code with lights at night on what was then still a largely uninhabited coastline) could have sunk all our resupply ships.

                    2. Well, see! We don’t need to look back at what Republicans of 75 years ago did or didn’t do–today’s Republicans like Dr. Ed 2 are the ones trying to justify the internment.

                    3. It’s not my narrative that says Democrat vs Republican; that’s Brett et al. They’re the ones who don’t care to ask why the opposition didn’t oppose if they were actually interested in the fate of Jews and Japanese Americans. I fundamentally agree with you that this is a libertarian/authoritarian and that the mainstream—center, left-center, and right-center—all had no problem with FDR’s actions.

                    4. It’s not my narrative that says Democrat vs Republican; that’s Brett et al.

                      You are bending over backwards to try and state “those guys are just like us”. Some Republicans are not libertarian. No Democrats are libertarian (At least without sarcastrian redefinition of libertarian). There is a difference and it is not flattering to the Democrats if you hold authoritarianism as a bad thing.

                      The larger point being the hysterical sacrifice of civil rights in the Japanese interment is exactly the same as the hysterical sacrifice of rights in any other emergency and in general, the rationalizations of those involved hasn’t changed one iota.

                    5. On the issue of Japanese internment and the war against Jews in Europe, no, there was no daylight between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats failed in their inactions/actions; Republicans failed to oppose them. It was a bipartisan failure. If you want to mount an argument that Republicans of that era were invested in the fate of European Jews and the civil rights of Japanese Americans, go for it. Some Republicans may have been libertarian, but how loud were they in the case of Jews and Japanese Americans? That’s your hurdle, not mine. I condemn the actions and the silence.

                      (And don’t put me in the liberal camp, then or now. Thanks.)

                    6. Some Republicans may have been libertarian, but how loud were they in the case of Jews and Japanese Americans?

                      This is silly. Seems to me some were pretty loud. Colorado Governor Carr published opinions in support of liberty calling the internment unconstitutional and wrong. That stand cost him his political career. Bob Taft of Ohio, the “Ron Paul of his age” was similarly vocal and survived due to a more libertarian constituency. Say what you will. There were Republicans that stood by their principles. Care to come up with any Democrats ? Your argument seems to be “yes, if you ignore the anti-internment Republicans they are just like Democrats”. You simply ignore inconvenient evidence to come to your emotionally desired viewpoint. The point remains. There were good Republicans. I know of “no” good Democrats.

                      It is also spectacularly stupid to conflate the internment of US citizens with the plight of Jews under the Nazi’s or Communists. There are fundamentally differing moral concerns here.

                    7. ” ‘ How would you explain Republican silence?’

                      Because there wasn’t total Republican silence ?”

                      Gee, it’s almost like the original claim wasn’t that there was total Republican silence.

                      Ultimately, Japanese internment also had the support of the US Courts.

                    8. “As both Pearl Harbor and Midway were resupplied by ships sailing out of California, Japanese spies communicating with Japanese subs (possibly via morse code with lights at night on what was then still a largely uninhabited coastline) could have sunk all our resupply ships.”

                      Or they could have called down the alien death rays. Possibly.

        3. “But the internment is bad, and Biden is bad, so let’s loft them together in a lazy, casual hyperbole bomb!”

          This is the logic that got Obama labeled as a communist and a fascist in the same complaints. The logic seems to be “Hmm… most Americans dislike Nazis, therefore we should label our opponents Nazis and hope it sticks!

      3. My days of not taking him seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

    3. Who says there is no due process? If you violate the order and are prosecuted for it, you get due process, including the ability to appeal.

      These happen all the time too. Every customer to a US bank is run through an OFAC database to determine if they are prohibited from doing business in the US. It’s what helps prevent people and entities in the US from supporting the Taliban or drug cartels or terrorist organizations abroad.

      1. Nothing in there about prosecution or trials, it’s just, you’re designated, and they proceed straight to the punishment.

        1. …do you think every criminal law has the entire rules of criminal procedure written into the statute itself? You do realize that’s not how laws are written right?

          1. This isn’t a criminal law, it’s an EO, and it has a procedure written into it, which doesn’t involve trials.

            In fact, it specifically states that they can do it without warning you.

            1. Executive Orders need to be authorized by existing law, and the very beginning identifies some of the existing authority to implement this order:

              “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code…”

              Executive Orders also do not supersede Constitutional requirements. You still have due process if you’re accused of violating the order.

              There’s a difference between freezing assets without notifying you, and prosecuting you for violating the law. It’s the difference between blocking a wire transfer to a Taliban bank account without notice, and prosecuting the person trying to send money to the Taliban. But you also have the right to challenge the block of the wire transfer. Think of the “no fly” list; they can put you on the list without notifying you or prosecuting, but you can also challenge that action.

              1. Yeah, that’s a Schoolhouse Rock level understanding of Executive orders.

                1. Schoolhouse Rock is more accurate than your alt-right understanding of reality.

                  1. In this case, SNL was a bit more accurate.

                    1. Executive Orders do not supersede Constitutional and statutory requirements.

                      That remains true.

                      Ask Trump how that works.

      2. How do you appeal if your assets are frozen and you have no money to pay lawyers?

        1. The same way you appeal if you’re indigent and in prison and have no money to pay lawyers.

          1. Except that giving money to a gofundme doesn’t normally get your accounts seized.

            1. Believe it or not, your Constitutional rights exist independent of gofundme. Those rights existed long before gofundme and other crowdsourcing did, and will exist long after. Also, the prohibited transactions are specifically listed in the EO, and assistance for legal defense does not appear to be a prohibited transaction (probably because it would be unconstitutional).

              1. “Also, the prohibited transactions are specifically listed in the EO,”

                Sure are, right here:

                “Sec. 2. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include:
                (a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
                (b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.”

                Is it your position that legal services aren’t services?

                1. Legal representation is a constitutional right, and no executive order supersedes the Constitution. So yes, legal representation is not prohibited under this order.

                  1. Right, I point out that the language of the EO would permit grossly violating the Constitution, and your comeback is, ‘No, it can’t, because grossly violating the Constitution is unconstitutional.

                    And the government never, ever, EVER violates the Constitution, right?

                    1. Well it’s a good thing we have courts then, isn’t it?

                      You’re saying it’s violating the Constitution in such an unrealistic way that it’s ridiculous. You’re actively reading into the law the most facially unconstitutional conduct you can possibly read into it and treating it like a stand-alone order instead of just 1 more piece in the very complicated legal system it operates in. For example, Sec. 11. (b): “This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.” You need to know what “applicable law” is and how the order can be interpreted to be consistent with it. You’re reading it to intentionally be inconsistent with applicable law. No reasonable lawyer or judge would read this executive order and think it’s intending to deny defendants the right to counsel.

        2. And anybody who donates you you ends up the same way?

      3. “Every customer to a US bank is run through an OFAC database to determine if they are prohibited from doing business in the US. It’s what helps prevent people and entities in the US from supporting the Taliban or drug cartels or terrorist organizations abroad.”

        All the bank employees get annual training on how to detect and prevent money-laundering, whether they have a job where that training is relevant or not. I worked on a refresh project for a major regional bank. My job was to get a list of people with old computer equipment, go to those people, back up their data, transfer it to new computer equipment, and take the old equipment away for recycling. But I was alert for signs of money-laundering!

    4. sounds like “corruption of blood” to me…

      1. Stretch stretch stretch that point.. sure Biden’s EO is a Bll of Attainder against Putin and his cronies
        let’s apply the same so-called reasoning to Iran, North Korea.. or other heavily sanctioned countries.
        By the way Putin’s buddies have money to pay their lawyers.

    5. Much of what you object to here is a formulaic recitation used for these sanction orders. For example

      Section. 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:

      and

      (iii) any person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to have engaged, or attempted to engage, in any activity that materially contributes to, or poses a risk of materially contributing to, […]

      and

      (iv) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

      (v) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

      Those are at least as sweeping as the ones you quote – they prohibit activity that “poses a risk of materially contributing” even if no such effect actually occurs – but mine are from Trump’s EO restricting Iran’s ability to trade in conventional arms.

      1. Just as any thoughtful person would expect.

    6. How nice.

      Look, you have to trust and love the unelected bureaucrats who run our government. They are just good people protecting you and doing the right thing. Once you accept that, it becomes much easier to understand and accept that our federal government can do LITERALLY ANYTHING, everything is criminalized, the average person commits three federal felonies a day.

      The federal government has absolute power, period. It is a nigh totalitarian state.

      1. You don’t need to blindly accept anything; these rules are published, and the internal controls are documented.

        1. Right. The government controls itself, internally. The bureaucrat produces many pages of meaningless documents.

          1. Private businesses also control themselves internally.

            If you don’t trust anyone, you’re going to be miserable under any system.

          2. “Right. The government controls itself, internally. The bureaucrat produces many pages of meaningless documents.”

            To a person who understands the point of bureaucracy, the desired effect is to take away the capacity for independent action. All the decisions are made in advance, and the bureaucrat (at whatever level) is only allowed to apply the preset decisions, not exercise any power.

            Bureaucracy is only scary to people who don’t understand how it works.

            1. James,
              Read Kafka’s “The Castle”

      2. “The federal government has absolute power, period. It is a nigh totalitarian state.”

        Why do you hate America?

        Other than its continuing turn toward tolerance and inclusiveness (over bigotry and insularity), reason (over superstition), modern communities (over can’t-keep-up backwaters), education (over ignorance), and modernity (over backwardness), I mean.

    7. You give yourself away in such fascinating tells, Brett.

      No one who thought the Republicans and/or the Trumps were wholly innocent of Russian collusion has anything to fear from this EO. Even a lot of people who felt the Republicans and Trump did likely collude with the Russians to win in 2016 and try to win again in 2020 (or who continue to perpetuate Putin’s attempts to get us to kill ourselves with COVID, etc.) would look at Biden’s temperament and the political atmosphere and figure that no member of our insurrectionist/fascist wing has much to fear, either. Biden’s just not that interested in inflaming partisan tensions by sanctioning, say, the Trumps.

      No, the only people who believe this EO is a problem are people who understand that Trump and the Republicans are guiltier than they’d prefer to openly admit, and are people with such a distorted view of the “other side” that they project onto them their own deep-seated fascistic impulses.

      1. Oh, give me a break, “If you’re innocent, you have nothing to fear!” is such an old steaming pile, it’s not steaming anymore.

        1. You have nothing to fear from a totalitarian government as long as you refrain from thought crimes like supporting Trump.

          1. You might have something to fear, if you continue to support electing chumps like Trump.

            1. Actually, James, you should not be afraid regardless of whom you voted for.

    8. I have a question….Is this breadth of authority asserted by the EO even legal?

      Maybe a lawyer could answer that one? 🙂

    1. But this time it’ll be a Good wall, not Trump’s Bad wall.

      1. It would be a Good Wall if Trump were on the other side of it.

    2. This is an opinion piece, resting on the following:
      “According to reports, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas explained that the president has ended funding based on Trump’s emergency declaration, but this leaves room for work on areas of the wall that need renovation and “particular projects that need to be finished.”

      This is nonsense. Read past the headline next time.

      1. Adding to the mixed messages to landowners, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas recently told agency employees that construction may resume to plug some of the “gaps” along the wall, according to the Washington Times.

        Uh huh. Just plugging some of the “gaps”. And continuing lawsuits to seize land on the border…

        Last week, a judge allowed the government to seize 6 acres of land from the Cavazos family, in Mission, Texas, property on the Rio Grande River the family has rented out to tenants for decades.

        Jose “Fred” Cavazos, a 71-year-old member of the family, told ABC News he is disappointed by the judge’s ruling, and the Biden administration’s continued pursuit of his land.

        Uh huh.

        Just little gaps. 10 feet…100 feet…maybe a mile in some areas.

        1. You’re doing a *lot* of work here to get where you want to go, you know that?

          Maybe Biden will restart the wall, maybe he won’t. But right now there’s not even evidence he’s thinking about it.

          1. There’s plenty of evidence. But don’t trust me. Trust Congresswoman Omar. She’s one of yours.

            https://nypost.com/2021/04/08/ilhan-omar-rips-biden-over-plans-to-resume-border-wall-construction/

            1. Yeah, the NY Post quoting Rep Omar pressuring Biden is not actually proof.

              And lord is your media diet unhealthy.

        2. “Last week, a judge allowed the government to seize 6 acres of land from the Cavazos family”

          IF only there was something that would force the government to pay out some money if they seize property to build on.

          1. Seizing land for the wall they aren’t building…

  2. In an age of increasing censorship by social media, it’s worth looking at history and some of the examples and laws that were passed.

    One of the examples is the “Equal Time Rule.” Passed when TV and Radio were becoming increasingly influential, the equal time rule meant that political candidates were required to obtain the same rate as the “most favored advertisers” when getting political ads on TV and on Radio. And radio and TV stations couldn’t just turn down political candidates ads.

    The reasoning here, was the FCC was worried that TV and Radio stations would be unduly influential in elections, by selectively permitting just one viewpoint from one candidate, while excluding others. (Note, this isn’t the “fairness doctrine”)

    Update this to 2020, and the Social Media organizations are the new TV and Radio companies, transmitting the views to the public. And here we see their selective “censorship” is indeed unduly affecting elections, as real news stories (Hunter Biden’s laptop) are censored, while fake news stories (Russian collusion) are hyped.

    It is indeed time for regulations on social media organizations to prevent their undue influence on elections.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule#:~:text=The%20equal%2Dtime%20rule%20specifies,political%20candidates%20who%20request%20it.

    1. Not quite, the equal time rule was distinct from the most favored rule.

      The latter declared that political ads had to be sold at the most favorable rate anybody got. You weren’t required to sell equal amounts of time, however, just every bit of time they would pay for, you couldn’t refuse their money, either.

      The former declared that, if you gave a candidate time on a show, you had to give other candidates in the same race equal time. This applied to unpaid exposure.

      In practice, the equal time rule tended to discourage giving candidates any free time at all, because as soon as you did, you had to extend the offer to all candidates in the race.

      1. So, currently Twitter and YouTube offer lots of free time to everybody. Except certain “censored” individuals. Perhaps its time to bring it back

        1. No, as I said, the practical consequence was usually to shut down free media, not spread it equally.

          1. Perhaps it should be shut down then, rather than be increasingly biased.

            If Twitter can’t offer the President of the United States a Twitter account, but feels free to offer Putin one for free…we have to ask ourselves…wouldn’t it be better if Twitter was stopped from giving either one an account?

            1. To put it another way, when your guy violetes the terms of service more outrageously and egregiously than Putin, the problem might be your guy.

              1. When you support censoring the POTUS, but not Putin or other actual dictators….

                We have to wonder where your motivations really are.

                1. Wonder away, clinger. It will provide something for you to do as you await replacement. By your betters.

                2. Well, no. The persistence of Putin and other dicators shows how reluctant Twitter are to enforce terms of service on high-profile politicians, no matter how deplorable. That Trump pushed them to act shows how extreme he became. Also, when you’re a dictator you can pretty much say what you like without much pushback or criticism from the country you rule, and even international criticism can be muted due to fears of provoking a backlash against dissidents and opposition figures within the country. Trump, whatever his aspirations, did not have that kind of license or that kind of freedom from criticism. Sucks to be the leader of a country that holds its leaders to account, I guess.

            2. “If Twitter can’t offer the President of the United States a Twitter account, but feels free to offer Putin one for free…we have to ask ourselves…wouldn’t it be better if Twitter was stopped from giving either one an account?”

              That is a question that would occur to a disaffected, obsolete, bigoted, fringe-inhabiting clinger . . . and no one else.

        2. “So, currently Twitter and YouTube offer lots of free time to everybody. Except certain “censored” individuals. Perhaps its time to bring it back”

          Or perhaps it’s time to stop demanding to use other peoples’ stuff in ways they object to.

          1. Hint: Broadcast media were subject to rules because they use licenses to use the public’s RF spectrum.

            1. James,
              Except by government fiat, the electromagnetic spectrum is a physical fact and belongs to no one.

              One can just as easily proclaim that bandwidth belongs to the US government. It is equally arbitrary

    2. “Update this to 2020, and the Social Media organizations are the new TV and Radio companies”

      This is all you need to know to laugh at AL’s Dear Orange Leader inspired views on this.

      1. “are the new TV and Radio companies”
        to the extent that a large fraction of the weak0minded get their news from social media that claim is substantively true, pathetic but true

    3. Update this to 2020, and the Social Media organizations are the new TV and Radio companies, transmitting the views to the public.

      Um, no. The Fairness Doctrine and related rules like the Equal Time Rule were based on the notion of government granted monopolies on limited broadcast spectrum. Neither aspect of that applies to social media companies, and it would be unconstitutional to try to force them to publish views they disagree with.

      And here we see their selective “censorship” is indeed unduly affecting elections, as real news stories (Hunter Biden’s laptop) are censored,

      Uh huh. Remember when the government seized the NY Post’s printing presses? Remember when the NYPost revealed that there was no “real news story” relating to the laptop that they wouldn’t let anyone examine, as it showed nothing of interest in the first place?

      while fake news stories (Russian collusion) are hyped.

      Someone has read neither the nonpartisan Mueller report nor the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report.

      1. 1. The equal time rule was long before the fairness doctrine, and is substantially different. In fact, an analog of it exists with print media. They can’t charge political ads different rates in many states from the “normal” rate charged to different advertisers.

        And there are laws regarding how newspapers accept ads.

        2. Censorship isn’t just from the government. It’s also from organizations that carry the news and those which transmit the news. Simply because you can still talk about something, doesn’t mean it isn’t being censored on a wider level.

        3. I did. “The evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”

        1. 3. Report was a bit longer than that. You want fake news, remember the Nunes Memo? Stupid shit like that is why nobody bought the laptop story.

          1. “Remember the Nunes Memo”

            I do. It was validated by the Inspector General Report.

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ig-nunes-and-schiff-11576022741

            1. How can you be this delusional?

              I noticed you missed some other quotes from the senate intel reports.
              I recommend this primer for the very long and redacted reports. This was a bipartisan, fact finding report. There is no doubt about the issue of “collusion”. It is a fact. Stone and Manafort at least provably cooperated with Russian spies regarding the 2016 election. You are just going to have to accept that, if you like living in reality

              https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did-senate-intelligence-committee-find

              1. “It is a fact”

                The Mueller report appears to say otherwise.

                “The evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”

                1. “The evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”

                  This is not exoneration. This is Mueller giving his excuse for why he did not recommend prosecuting in spite of evidence.

                  Now do the two other sentate intel reports. You can even use the digested version I linked for you.

                  1. His excuse for why he did not recommend prosecution is because there was not evidence to recommend prosecution…..

                    1. Not sufficient evidence, you hack.

                      “There’s insufficient evidence” != “there’s no evidence.”

              2. “How can you be this delusional?”

                Drank the FlavR-Aid.

            2. One highlight from the article linked:

              “Manafort had direct access to Trump and his Campaign’s senior officials, strategies, and information,” the committee notes, as did Gates—and “Manafort, often with the assistance of Gates, engaged with individuals inside Russia and Ukraine on matters pertaining both to his personal business prospects and the 2016 U.S. election.”

              The report provides a brief overview of Manafort’s “connections to Russia and Ukraine,” which date to “approximately 2004.” In brief, Manafort began work then for the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and pro-Russian oligarchs in Ukraine, which eventually led to his role in engineering the 2010 election to the Ukrainian presidency of pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych. While the Mueller report described Deripaska as “closely aligned with Vladimir Putin,” the committee’s report is much more direct: “The Russian government,” the committee writes, “coordinates with and directs Deripaska” in conducting influence operations, with which Manafort also assisted. At another point, the committee states that “Manafort’s influence work for Deripaska was, in effect, influence work for the Russian government and its interests.”

              In other words, as a baseline matter, the Trump campaign was—for a time—run by a man who himself had carried out influence operations on behalf of Russian interests.

              1. In other news, a political campaign hired a law firm to conspire with British and Russian agents and release “reports” designed to influence the 2016 election.

                Collusion! right….

                1. Read it, man. It is clear you have not. What are you afraid of?

                2. “In other news, a political campaign hired a law firm to conspire with British and Russian agents and release “reports” designed to influence the 2016 election.”

                  What? A political campaign tried to influence an American election?
                  Gasp!
                  Say it ain’t so!

                  1. By hiring foreigners! To collude with the Russian Government!

                    Collusion!

        2. 1. The Equal Time rule — which still exists, unlike the Fairness Doctrine — is distinct from the MFN rule for political advertising. (Though they’re related.) As its name suggests, it’s about time. The print media is absolutely not subject to the Equal Time rule.

          3. And you read “insufficient evidence for criminal charges” and got “hoax” out of it? Despite the fact that it explicitly points out that insufficient evidence does not mean no evidence?

          1. 1. Again, reading comprehension.

            I said an analog existed with print media in many states, especially in regards to rates charged for advertisements. Not that it directly applied to print media

            2. Yes. Based on the screaming from the liberals that Trump absolutely colluded with Russia…and basically no evidence was found. Yes. Complete hoax.

            1. The hoax is the claim that “basically no evidence was found,” which is not supported by either the nonpartisan Mueller report nor the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report.

              1. “There was not evidence…”

          2. “3. And you read “insufficient evidence for criminal charges” and got “hoax” out of it? Despite the fact that it explicitly points out that insufficient evidence does not mean no evidence?”

            Wishful thinking makes people say and do weird things.

            1. Wishful thinking makes people say and do weird things.

              Like, say, impeach the same president twice in the same term.

              1. It’s hardly wishful thinking to want to hold elected representatives accountable for their actions.

            2. James,
              Be honest. If the Orange Clown were your guy, you would make the same claim as AL.
              But he is not; so you sing a different song.

      2. “force them to publish views they disagree with.”

        Are they publishers or not?

        1. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t. Depends who the originator of the material is, and what the medium is. In this context, it would have been clearer if I had used the term “distribute” rather than “publish,” though.

          So consider my statement amended: ” it would be unconstitutional to try to force them to publish or distribute views they disagree with.”

          1. But the equal time rule requires TV studios to give equal time to politicians, even if they disagree with them.

            Correct?

            1. Not necessarily. There are a lot of rather significant exceptions to the Equal Time Rule. Have you considered why FOX News’s Sean Hannity Show does not have to give equal time (on the show) to political candidates?

              And to be clear by “equal time” we don’t mean equal time during the show. We mean during advertisements. (It would be a colossal waste of resources for a liberal to advertise on Sean Hannity or a conservative to advertise on Rachel Maddow, but whatev.)

              1. Indeed. Advertisements. Free or paid for. Statements made by the politician with little to no editorial oversight by the corporation.

                1. Right, and so your idea would be to extend that to Twitter, which would put an end to political advertisements on Twitter. That has nothing to do with banning the former President from Twitter, or banning people who spread lies about election fraud.

                  1. So, when you think about it, every time a politician posts on twitter, it’s a political advertisement.

                    It’s not a news show. There’s no editing. It’s all about advertising for them.

                    1. Are you fucking with me? Is this a candid camera moment?

            2. “But the equal time rule requires TV studios to give equal time to politicians, even if they disagree with them.

              Correct?”

              Not quite, because you’ve skipped over what the “equal time” is to be equal to. So, for example, if CBS put Nixon on “Laugh-In”, they’d have to do what for whoever the D’s put up against him in the next election? Or suppose NBC put Donald Trump as a guest-host on Saturday Night Live, what does that have to do, exactly, with Alec Baldwin?

            3. It requires broadcast stations to do so, based (as I said) on the notion of government granted monopolies on limited broadcast spectrum. It does not require anyone else to do so, and indeed the court has rejected such with respect to papers.

          2. If they claim a first amendment write for distribution, it sure walk, talks, and quakes like a publisher.
            They just want it both ways to suit their convenience of action.

        2. “‘force them to publish views they disagree with.’
          Are they publishers or not?”

          One of the things publishers do is decide what gets published.

          Congress shall make no law abridging this…

    4. I’m waiting for the Dog Eat Dog rule. Why not

  3. So, the Cult of Dear Orange Leader has shown that today’s conservatives don’t believe in markets anymore. So what’s left of modern conservatism? There’s white male straight grievance and some evangelical stuff (discredited by the Dear Orange Leader cult) and some gun stuff I guess, but that’s about it.

    1. I’d settle for a bustup of big tech like Standard Oil.

      1. Setting aside that the breakup of Standard Oil was bad for consumers, you understand that there’s no company called “big tech,” right?

        1. David,
          as the companies complained about are among the 10 most highly valued corporation in the world, your objection is a small bit of sophistry.

          1. They are also not monopolies by any legal definition.

            Doesn’t mean I’m against breaking them up, but lets be clear what’s being advocated for.

            1. Google is pretty much a monopoly.

              1. Pretty much no.

                  1. Uh, that’s not proof.

                    And the practices accused are also not the part of Google you have an issue with.

              2. That is much more armchair than lawyer talking.

              3. “Google is pretty much a monopoly.”

                In the sense that they don’t monopolize any market where they operate a business.

              4. Actually no, but they are quite arguably the best technically in the business.

          2. This is an unintentional self-own.

    2. Queen Amalthea : So what’s left of modern conservatism?

      Modern conservatism is an entertainment business. It started decades ago with talk radio, when the Right found they enjoyed a few daily hours of cartoon nonsense that paralleled political reality. Then came Fox News, and their entertainment became a 24/7 substitution for the real world. The final step was reality-TV stars for the politicians themselves – thus President Troll, who was always good for a laugh owning the libs.

      Of course the machinery of the old-Right still churns along servicing big-money interests, but the heart of today’s conservative movement only wants Punch&Judy puppet drama, the more lurid the better.

      1. Oh Lord, what tripe. 2 paragraphs of ad-hominem, with no addressing the points in the sub-thread.

        1. can you be specific as to which part of the accurate description you object to?

  4. Most blue states are legalizing pot.

    Most red states are not.

    The ostensible libertarians here who obviously lean right are saying…..?

    1. In the reason article on SD Governor unilaterally declaring the citizen’s initiative that resulted in weed legalization unconsitutional, it was about 50/50 in support of the weed banning governor. Most libertarians around reason are not libertarian at all. They have not done the reading. They do not understand the underlying philosophy or even the default libertarian policy preferences. They are embarrassed republicans or, increasingly, fascists in denial.

      1. Reading comments by the “libertarians” in Reason’s main section, my impression is they’re all adolescent males, still seething with rage because Mommy made them eat their brussels sprouts as a child. Me? I like brussels sprouts…….

        1. But those cruciforms can give you gas.

    2. It’s about time! 🙂 = The ostensible libertarians here who obviously lean right are saying…..?

    3. “are saying…..” “more states should legalize pot”

      Is this hard?

      1. They’re not saying that to the politicians they elect.

    4. I’ve found it’s easier for conservatives to give up on their conservative social policy issues and become more libertarian than it is for liberals to give up on their desire for detailed control and burdening of business.

    5. “Most blue states are legalizing pot.

      Most red states are not.

      The ostensible libertarians here who obviously lean right are saying…..?”

      That it’s really strange then that the big guy you elected is not taking charge of this federally. (Though, the libertarians here were saying that since before his election.)

  5. Several blue states have passed qualified immunity reforms.

    No red state has.

    The ostensible libertarians who obviously lean right are saying ….?

    1. saying that blue states have more rogue cops…

      1. You are confusing reported on with reality. I imagine it’s a common mistake with you.

        1. Last I saw, BLM was a national movement with supporters in all states.

          1. I’m not even talking states, I’m talking cities, where stuff like that is going to be much more documented.

      2. “saying that blue states have more rogue cops…”

        Yes, higher populations have more of every sub-group.

    2. The left tends to be more concerned with the liberty of sex and drugs. The right tends to be more concerned with the liberty of property ownership, productivity, religious expression, defense of self and family, etc. Is this supposed to be news to anyone?

      If you dislike “conservatism” you shouldn’t worry much. Mostly, conservatism is just 20 years ago’s liberalism.

      1. Indeed, the D’s constituency wants to tell you how to run your business, and wants the government out of your sex life.
        The R’s constituency wants to tell you how to run your sex life (assuming they still let you have one) and wants the government out of their business dealings.

        1. I disagree. You are right about the D’s constituency. And the R’s constituency does want to tell you how to run (or whether to have) a sex life. But, the R’s constituency very much wants the government to tell you how to run your business.

          (Just see the R’s constituencies’ embrace of antitrust laws above, their support of the government punishing companies for taking “liberal” positions on voting or social issues, and their love of subsidizing supporters’ businesses (welfare for wealthy farmers).)

          I mostly see a difference in how the R’s constituency wants to run your business versus how the D’s constituency wants you to run it.

          But, to be fair, you said the R’s constituency doesn’t want the government to tell them how to run their own businesses. That’s true. They just want the government to tell you how to run your business.

    3. “are saying ….” “more states should pass QI reforms”

      Really, this isn’t difficult.

      1. They’re not saying that to the politicians they elect.

        Indeed, not difficult. It’s almost like they want to observe a distinction between what they say and what they do.

    4. Qualified immunity reforms are presented in a distorted manner for outrage waves. The bad guys aren’t not unpunished. It is about the lawsuit pursuit of the deep pockets of government. Of course democratic politicians are more in favor of it, even though it attacks government itself. Their most important faction are suing lawyers, over minorities, legal drugs, unions, or even government unions.

      Qualified immunity reform should be done, but there’s no nobility in why certain factions choose to support it.

      Strange bedfellows.

    1. Right….

      Did you actually read that opinion piece? Follow up on the “confirms” link?

      Cause…there’s nothing there.

      1. Campaign chair gives Russian agent polling data.

        Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot.

        1. Yes, imagine if the campaign, through cutouts, paid for Russian disinformation against their opponent, instead.

          1. It’s one thing to say ‘what do you know?’

            It’s another to say ‘here’s what we got for you!”

          2. Lol imagine of bog-standard opposition research, initiated by Republcans, was the same as getting conned and penetrated by Russian intelligence.

            1. The Clinton campaign and their lackeys either got conned by Russians, or they colluded with them. Or both. What do you think the Steele dossier is?

              I love that you included “initiated by Republicans.” Please keep reminding everyone about the Lincoln Project guys and all the rest of the neocons.

              1. “What do you think the Steele dossier is? ”

                Opposition research. Again, it’s one thing to ask people ‘what do you know’ it’s another to go those people and say ‘here’s some information we have, use it to help us.’

              2. As a reminder : Steele’s report can be divided into three categories:

                1. Things he got 100% right, such as the Russian campaign to help elect Trump & their hacking of Clinton-associated email. In both predictions he was miles ahead of everyone else.

                2. Things he got 100% wrong, of which there were very few. You probably should put his allegations on financial ties between Trump & Russian-interests here, simply for lack of evidence otherwise. However Trump did expend a massive effort to keep his finances hidden, and lied about his Russian business ties repeatedly during the campaign. Steele may also prove prescient here in the end.

                3. Then there were things he got 66-80% right, which was a large part of his report. Here we find the famous “piss tape”, which did exist and the Mueller Report documents fixer Cohen’s efforts at damage control to suppress it. However most people think the tape was a fake. As for Cohen, Steele had him sneaking into Prague to meet with Russians about the campaign. Instead he was sneaking into Moscow to meet with government officials about a massive Trump business deal. (This happen throughout the ’16 campaign, and Trump lied & lied & lied about it) Likewise, Steele had Manafort meeting with a Russian spy to coordinate election measures. This happened, though Manafort claimed it was only to hand over internal campaign data to his handler. Who knows? Manafort is a notorious liar, caught-out multiple times while he was supposedly a cooperating government witness. Please remember the man was deeply in debt to people tied to Putin’s inner circle before he took the job of Trump Campaign Head without salary. Betrayal to the Russians was hardwired in right from the start.

                All in all, Steele had not a bad track record as far as raw intelligence goes. From my deep knowledge of spycraft (from reading many a spy novel), I’d say his report was a stellar example of the breed. He probably had a better batting average than most.

          3. “Yes, imagine if the campaign, through cutouts, paid for Russian disinformation against their opponent, instead.”

            What a ridiculous notion, that of Trump paying for something.

        2. So, I clicked on that “confirms” link and…

          It doesn’t even mention Manafort…

      2. But it says Manafort! And Russian spy! Manafort was obviously a Russian spy!

        1. Uh, yeah, he was. As any person familiar with foreign policy in that area knew at the time (read Anne Appelbaum on that) he was a long time foreign agent working for Moscow.

            1. speechless?

          1. “As any person familiar with foreign policy”

            Well, what’s your excuse then?

            You are not a person who is familiar with anything resembling coherent thought.

            1. I’d tell you to read this but probably better to have someone read it to you.

              https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/04/20/anne-applebaum-trump-is/

              1. Why would I care about the opinion of a hack lefty journo?

                Comprehension and thought are just beyond you.

                1. I’ll post this again as it is the most digestible yet complete summary of the Mueller report and several senate reports on the matter, and from a very good and nonbiased source.

                  https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did-senate-intelligence-committee-find

                  1. Lawfare and Benjamin Wittes are foul, repulsive propagandists LITERALLY engaged in “lawfare,” meaning:

                    -“the use of law as a weapon of war”

                    -“a method of warfare where law is used as a means of realizing a military objective”

                    – “The misuse of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money.. or winning a public relations victory.”

                    -“A tactic used by repressive regimes to label and discourage civil society or individuals from claiming their legal rights via national or international legal systems.”

                    All of the definitions seem apropos.

                    1. They rate very high for factual reporting and lack of bias. It is like this on all of the bias checkers I can find. You might find them biased because you find The Federalist to be unbiased.

                      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lawfare-blog/

                2. Lol, Applebaum was a darling of the Right before Trump ordered you guys to start liking Russia.

                  1. Funny how quickly they fell in line on that.

                  2. “Lol, Applebaum was a darling of the Right before Trump ordered you guys to start liking Russia.”

                    This Anne Applebaum? Talk about revisionist history.

                    That’s some hardcore TDS. You should have that looked at.

            2. “You are not a person who is familiar with anything resembling coherent thought.”

              Irony alert.

              1. “Irony alert.”

                Sorry, I didn’t mean to forget you. Though, QA does make you look at least semi-coherent.

    2. Hilarious attempt at rewriting things.

      The Russia hoax was a scheme cooked up to “get Trump” and cover up endless crime and corruption.

      I particularly like the multitude of lies packed into this one, “At the time, Flynn’s previous links to Russia made him the target of a counterintelligence probe, thoroughly justifying the FBI’s investigation into his collusive calls with a senior Russian government official.”

      The hyperlink in the words “previous links”?

      A story mentioning that Flynn got paid $45k for a speech. Never mind that Bill and Hillary did the same thing a thousand times over.

      1. “The Russia hoax was a scheme cooked up to “get Trump” and cover up endless crime and corruption. ”

        Again, anyone who knew anything about Russia knew to be suspicious when Trump hired Manafort who was a well known Russian stooge.

        1. Trump hired Manafort, who was deeply in debt to people tied to Putin’s inner circle. And Manafort volunteered to take the job heading Trump’s campaign for free, accepting no salary. That little counter-intelligence calamity almost rated an investigation in and of itself, even without Cohen sneaking into Moscow to conduct secret business negotiations during the presidential campaign, or Trump Jr reacting with glee (in writing) when told the Russian government wanted to secretly help his daddy, or Trump hiring someone who had picked up about 50K from Putin’s government less than a year earlier – and to be National Security Advisor, no less. It didn’t help that Flynn was known to have flouted the laws on disclosing foreign payments, had shown sleazy whore eagerness in servicing foreign regimes, and was a damn freak to boot.

          Meanwhile, the Russian government was all-in on helping Trump become president, and Donald was (metaphorically) Putin’s most unctuous & ardent fluffer every opportunity he got on national TV. You see, people didn’t know he was trying to use our country’s presidential campaign to grease a business deal then…

      2. “Hilarious attempt at rewriting things. ”

        Keep trying. Eventually, you’ll find something that sticks.

        1. “Keep trying. Eventually, you’ll find something that sticks.”

          Yes, we are well aware that this is your modus operandi.

      3. “The Russia hoax was a scheme cooked up to “get Trump” and cover up endless crime and corruption. ”

        Like when they blindsided him by asking him if he’d take dirt on a political opponent offered by a foreign government and he answered “of course I’d look at it.”

        The Russians wanted to saddle us with him, but they weren’t dumb enough to let him come to any of the meetings.

        1. Sure buddy.

          *pats you on tin foil head*

  6. White female Yale Professor serving as a town councilwoman makes bullshit accusation of sexism against Black male colleague. You’ll never believe what happened next!

    1. Is there some way that they can *both* lose???

      1. I don’t think the black guy did anything wrong, it was mostly other people making the racism claim.

        And if you’re a woman claiming that it’s sexist when men don’t refer to women as “doctor”, it’s hard to claim that it’s not racist when you demand that a black person call you “doctor” when it’s clearly not appropriate.

        Once you go down the rabbit hole, you’re in the rabbit hole.

      2. “Is there some way that they can *both* lose???”

        They could both interact with you.

    2. 12″,
      So the public is batshit woke. The professor’s demand to be called doctor was meant to be antagonistic.
      The male colleague used the appropriate address in the circumstance. “Councilwoman…” That is not sexist or racist; it is just correct protocol and she knew it.

      1. Sure, although there’s a sentiment among the woke female over-educated set that failure to call women with doctorates who aren’t doctors, “Doctor” is somehow sexist. The “Doctor” in the current scenario is of that particular persuasion.

        Using that reasoning, a white woman imposing the title on a black man in those circumstances is clearly racist.

        I mean, I would never use that reasoning, but she would.

        1. She was being hostile and belligerent. Had he called her “Doctor” she would likely have insisted that she was “Professor.” See how that works.

        2. ” failure to call women with doctorates who aren’t doctors, ‘Doctor'”

          Women with doctorates ARE doctors.

          1. Let me know how the operation goes.

            1. As a PhD in math once said, “We were doctors back when you were bleeding people and chanting.”

              1. That was a long time ago.

          2. And your point is?
            She was playing an antagonistic baiting game and got trumped.

        3. 12″,
          I can tell you when I taught at Yale. The proper term of address to a professor was Mr or Ms, not Professor or Doctor.
          And Yalies thought that they were getting more woke!

      2. “it is just correct protocol and she knew”

        She played her sexism card and to her surprise got trumped by a race card.

        1. Since Chauvin’s crime, racism is trumps

    3. Besides Rand Paul mentioned in the article, 3 other current US senators are medical doctors. All GOP.

      1. Oh good, maybe they can give each other rectal exams to see if they can find their heads.

      2. “Besides Rand Paul mentioned in the article, 3 other current US senators are medical doctors. All GOP.”

        And they ran Dr. Wehby in Oregon a few cycles ago. She did not win. Perhaps the lawsuit for performing unneccesary surgery worked against her political goals.

        1. James, that is an irrelevant snark, as irrelevant as Rand Paul’s observation

  7. This week in news media lies unraveling:

    1. Officer Sicknick died of natural causes. Original reports that he died because he was hit by a fire extinguisher were complete fabrications. Those lies were repeated by many here and were also repeated during the impeachment. As that fabricated story started to unravel, another story was concocted, saying he died as a result of being sprayed by bear spray. That was also shown to be entirely false.

    2. Russia did not put bounties on US troops in Afghanistan. It was another total fabrication, with zero basis in reality.

    In addition to these revelations, we are also seeing news media stories about Florida and Texas reopening dangers continuing to be false. Florida performed better than many other states that remained much more restricted, despite Florida’s older, more vulnerable population. Texas saw no new huge wave of cases or deaths either. States that have heeded alarmist advice harmed their economy and caused their population to suffer, but that additional government-imposed suffering resulted in no significant difference in the Covid death rate. It’s a real disappointing for those rooting for Covid to kill residents of Florida, Texas, South Dakota, Utah, etc.

    1. “1. Officer Sicknick died of natural causes. Original reports that he died because he was hit by a fire extinguisher were complete fabrications.”

      And media types were falling all over themselves trying to blame cops. Nope. This is on the media.

    2. ‘Original reports that he died because he was hit by a fire extinguisher were complete fabrications.’

      It’s a bit odd to claim it’s a wild fabrication to suppose a link between a guy getting decked with a fire extinguisher and sprayed with bear spray and then dying, it’s even odder to celebrate when someone hits someone with a fire extinguisher, the person dies, but the hitter gets off from being held responsible for the death. The only person who should be breathing a sigh of relief in such a context is the hitter, and presumably the sprayer.

      1. “It’s a bit odd to claim it’s a wild fabrication to suppose a link between a guy getting decked with a fire extinguisher…”

        It’s not if no one was decked with a fire extinguisher.

        1. I’m not sure ‘it was a riot, that fire extinguisher could have hit any one of a number of cops’ is any the less odd when you’re trying to get mad at people for reporting about rioters fecking fire extinguishers about.

          1. Nige,
            you’re proving yourself to be the Brett of the left.

            1. Further than that

            2. Are you telling me that the video of a fire extinguisher being thrown at cops is fake?

        2. But Nige heard he was decked and sprayed, so it must have happened, right?

          1. A fire extinguisher was thrown and stuff was sprayed, all at cops, including this poor guy, which put it at a level of realism far above, say, the whole Biden blue-screen affair.

            1. Fire extinguishers exist, therefore any tale that invokes a fire extinguisher is true enough for Nige.

      2. “ It’s a bit odd to claim it’s a wild fabrication to suppose a link between a guy getting decked with a fire extinguisher and sprayed with bear spray and then dying…”

        Which part of the complete falsehood are you defending? And what’s the defense?

        No. Pointing out that it was a complete fabrication isn’t “odd”. Making up another, alternate story after the other stories were shown to be false — that tells us something about you, though.

      3. Nige, You’re just repeating the lies here, again. Maybe you don’t realize that, but you’re a moron. He wasn’t hit with a fire extinguisher. Just a made-up lie like the media does constantly. Oops.

        1. It’s more that the urge to exonerate the rioters from the death of a cop they assaulted is less to do with strict fairness and more to downplay the riot itself.

    3. 1. The ME said causality was most likely tied to Jan 6.
      You also assume a level of intentionality to day-of reporting mistakes that is nonsense.

      2. From ze wiki “In June 2020, The New York Times reported that U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed, several months earlier, that Unit 29155 of the Russian military intelligence agency GRU had secretly offered Taliban-associated militants bounties to kill U.S. troops and other coalition personnel in Afghanistan, including during peace talks with the Taliban.

      The New York Times reported that “Officials said there was disagreement among intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian plot.” Defense Department officials reported that U.S. military intelligence was unable to corroborate the reported program.”

      Doesn’t look like fabrication, looks like reporting. Maybe yell at Intel for leaking?

      those rooting for Covid to kill residents of Florida, Texas, South Dakota, Utah, etc.
      Justifying your lunacy by nutpicking again, eh?

      1. 1. There is no way he could know that when there were no internal or external injuries to Officer Sicknick. Unless he’s saying the officer died of a stroke caused by stress of the incident. If that’s the case, a whole lot of other cops DIDN’T die of strokes.

        1. There’s no way the ME could know that when there were no internal or external injuries to Officer Sicknick?

          What?

          1. No injuries means no evidence. So the ME can’t draw any meaningful conclusions because the ME has no evidentiary basis for any conclusions.

            The sentence isn’t hard to understand if you aren’t actively trying to misunderstand it.

            1. Except for the part where a 40-year-old had a stroke right after an incident where he was assaulted multiple times.

              Do you think the ME was lying?

              1. It wasn’t even the same day. And the so-called “assault” caused no detectable injuries. Literally no evidence.

                But you’re making it clear that facts and evidence aren’t really relevant concepts to you.

                1. You don’t understand how circumstantial evidence works, and you don’t want to learn.

      2. 1. You have no evidence and are just repeating speculation based on coincidence. Natural causes.

        2. It was false. All the hype about it was based on a falsehood.

        Why are you always defending lies? There’s no obligation to defend them. You could just be quiet and not defend lies. Or you could say they should try harder get it right. But you don’t.

        1. The New York Times reported that U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed, several months earlier, that Unit 29155 of the Russian military intelligence agency GRU had secretly offered Taliban-associated militants bounties to kill U.S. troops and other coalition personnel in Afghanistan, including during peace talks with the Taliban

          This is not a false report.

          What is your proof the stroke was not caused by Jan 06?

          Given the balance of likelihoods, the ME said it’s more likely than not Jan 06 contributed.

          Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, dude.

          1. “Given the balance of likelihoods” says this is a guess.

            And there’s no “circumstantial evidence”. A coincidence with zero connection is not “circumstantial evidence”.

            1. You are requiring a level of direct evidence more than that required in criminal court.

              You’re just being really dumb.

              1. You’re making the argument that they must be guilty [of whatever, who cares?] because they were in the neighborhood the day before something bad happened.

                “You are requiring a level of direct evidence more than that required in criminal court.”

                The rioters must be charged with murder then. Are they? No.

          2. “the ME said it’s more likely than not Jan 06 contributed.”

            Do you have a source for that? I can’t find a copy of the actual ME’s report, just quoted snippets.

            Leftish sources are playing up this one: “All that transpired played a role in his condition.”

            Rightish sources are playing up: “According to the medical examiner, a stroke is specifically what caused Sicknick’s “natural” death, and, “If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.””

            I’m not sure either of those supports “more likely than not” – perhaps that is elsewhere in the M.E.’s report?

            1. I take the ‘all that transpired’ as a but-for causal role, abeit one not proven by direct evidence.

              But the ME and I seem to agree that 40-year-olds don’t generally die of stroke out of nowhere, and there is a likely cause right over there. That’s an argument I’d be willing to make to a court.

      3. “The ME said causality was most likely tied to Jan 6.”

        Cite? The closest I could find was that the ME said, “all that transpired played a role in his condition.” which is considerably weaker than your phrasing.

        1. How is it weaker?

          “Still, Dr. Diaz added of the riot, “All that transpired played a role in his condition.” His office said that it attributes death to natural causes when it can be ascribed to disease alone and that “if death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.”

          1. again, I don’t think that quote helps your claim.

    4. ‘My rioting comrades didn’t beat that policeman to death, they scared him to death! Checkmate, libs!’

      1. First story was a lie. Second story about the bear spray reaction was a desperate and false attempt to continue the original narrative, now also shown as completely false and never based on anything.

        What’s your response? To make up yet another new story.

        Now it should be clear to all that you won’t let facts or truth decide anything.

        1. Sure, his cardiovascular event had nothing to do with waves of your rioting comrades storming his post. Sure.

          1. It’s a made-up story and everyone knows it.

            1. Of course, like I said the idea that the unprecedented swarming mob violence surrounding someone could have exacerbated his condition so is as fantastical as a unicorn. All made up.

              1. “unprecedented swarming mob violence”

                ?? Protests where the participants get a little vigorous are hardly unpresented. You generally don’t have a bunch of cops getting strokes the next day. This looks like coincidence.

                1. Police officers die from unarmed “swarming” that causes no injury in this fantasy story.

              2. Yeah. Literally zero evidence means made up.

                What “condition”, BTW? Are you making that up too?

                1. How many times do you see a story of a crim where the criminal’s race is not identified and you declare it must be a black person?

                  That’s got less to it than this.

                  You’re selective skepticism is transparent BS.

        2. Second story about the bear spray reaction was a desperate and false attempt to continue the original narrative, now also shown as completely false and never based on anything.

          False. It was based on Sicknick’s brother saying that Sicknick had told him he was sprayed.

    5. ” Original reports that he died because he was hit by a fire extinguisher were complete fabrications.”

      So he was only assaulted and not murdered. Rats (?) that changes everything.

      1. You don’t think the difference matters.

    6. 2. Russia did not put bounties on US troops in Afghanistan. It was another total fabrication, with zero basis in reality.

      Your sentence is indeed a total fabrication with zero basis in reality.

      There is a dispute among various intelligence agencies about their level of confidence in this story. That in no way makes it a “hoax.”

      I wish idiot Trumpkins would learn what “hoax” means. A story where we learn more details as time goes on, some of which provide nuance and some of which may even contradict the initial version is not a hoax. On the other hand, “The election was stolen” = “hoax.” A deliberate lie.

      1. I’m here to help :

        1. The investigation into Trump & Russia was proved a “hoax” when Mueller testified before Congress on 24 July 2019 there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with a crime over foreign collusion to influence a U.S. election.

        2. Next day – 25 July – Trump tried to extort foreign collusion to influence a U.S. election.

        Pretty amazing, huh? But that’s just the way of a career criminal. Walking out the courthouse door after beating the rap on one crime, and already busy with the next scam.

  8. People forget that Hillary Clinton entered Wellsley in the Fall of 1964 as a Goldwater Girl — and was something else in the Spring of 1969.

    My prediction is that this BLM stuff is going to backfire, bigtime — and implode like Youth for Goldwater did. And Biden Harris will implode with it.

    1. No prediction of Civil War Apocalypse today? Took your meds, huh?

      1. Well, wasn’t what happened in 1969-71 a civil war of sorts?

        1. Mr Ed,
          Civil war? Are you completely crazy?

        2. “Well, wasn’t what happened in 1969-71 a civil war of sorts?”

          the Beatles split up, and there will be no Beatles reunion for as long as John Lennon remains dead, according to George Harrison, who is also likely to remain dead. so, yeah, civil war of sorts checks out.

        3. Well, wasn’t what happened in 1969-71 a civil war of sorts?

          No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions, Dr. Ed Edition.

      2. Nostradamus Ed was predicting nuclear holocaust a couple of weeks back. I asked whether that came before or after Civil War 2, but he didn’t deign to reply. There was also a predictions of total financial collapse (due to Biden), but he didn’t specify when. Some sequencing would be really helpful.

        1. This all has to happen before Jesus can come back.

    2. Like many Hillary Clinton learned at school that you have to think through the issues. After that your opinions on many things can change. You meet different people and they give you different prospective.

      1. You get 1 perspective. Some are able to escape.

        1. Did…you ever go to school?

    3. People forget that Hillary Clinton entered Wellsley in the Fall of 1964 as a Goldwater Girl — and was something else in the Spring of 1969.

      BFD. Why is this relevant to anything at all?

      1. It’s open line Thursday!

    4. Ed,
      Get used to calling her President Harris

    5. Hey what did you predict in the last election?

      1. He was sure the insurrection was going to succeed.

    6. Here’s a fun little side project for you. Every time you make a prediction (civil war, nuclear holocaust, Trump winning 40% of the black vote, white riots over Chauvin, etc etc etc), enter it into a spreadsheet. Add the date and the evidence that informs your predictions. Then go back to that spreadsheet and review it once a month. Ask yourself how you’re doing. If you were to bet money on your predictions, would you be living in a mansion or a shelter? Then reflect on what those results suggest about your reasoning ability.

      1. ” reflect on what those results suggest about your reasoning ability.”

        It’s our fault for not making reality match up with Special Ed’s preferences.

    7. “People forget that Hillary Clinton entered Wellsley in the Fall of 1964 as a Goldwater Girl — and was something else in the Spring of 1969.”

      So she could learn from mistakes. Why can’t you?

  9. The other thing people tend to forget about is that this anti-cop stuff hurts recruitment — departments are having to scrape the bottom of the barrel and take people they wouldn’t used to.

    1. Part of the problem may have been that for too long police departments did take the bottom of the barrel. What is worse when the bad cops screwed up they tended to look the other way.
      There may be some over reaction at this point. The recent shooting in Ohio may well be justified. But in an atmosphere where George Floyd, Dante Adams, Breanna Taylor and so many other have been killed senselessly everything will be going under the microscope.

      1. Well, they’re going to be scraping deeper now, because at this point nobody in their right mind would take a job as a police officer in an urban precinct.

        ” The recent shooting in Ohio may well be justified.”

        I have literally never seen a more justified shooting.

        1. Yes, change is difficult. So what? Police accountability has to happen, and it’s going to happen. The period of transition will be painful for cops, but that is the nature of change.

          The pendulum is swinging far in one direction right now, but it has likely reached its zenith. The reaction of the SJW’s on twitter to the Ohio shooting is being roundly mocked everywhere else.

          1. Define “Accountability”.

            1. Being subject to the criminal/civil action the same as the rest of us and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that that happens.

      2. Who’s Dante Adams?

    2. In my fairly quiet suburb of a big metro area the Chief of Police said two officers put in their retirement packages recently and another three put in their transfer notices. The department has not been able to hire one cop since this time last year despite having a full-time recruiter supported by an outside consultant doing talent acquisition. Chief said he would need to run limited coverage on “off” hours once/if the transfers actually go through. People of course were at the local government meeting complaining, but I don’t know what they expect.

      The local cops are also “hands off” these days. They used to do some proactive policing of the few bad areas to keep the crime out of the area. Now they they sit around and if you think they are running traffic enforcement, think again. You can see they are looking down, face lit up by a kindle type device. Basically they just read books all day and listen to podcasts. Can’t really blame ’em either…

      1. We need to attract a better class of people to law enforcement. Better temperament, better education, better judgment, better character. Fewer authoritarians seeking the respect they are unable to obtain without a gun, a badge, and a uniform. Fewer half-educated bigots. We also need to manage law enforcement personnel better. Better training, better compensation, better equipment, better oversight, better accountability.

        If some of the obsolete officers depart voluntarily, that seems good.

        1. “better compensation, better equipment”

          An enlightening look at the leftist mentality.

          That stuff about defunding the police is just boob-bait for your idiot base.

          1. A starting Columbus Ohio cop makes almost 59,000 per year {above both US average and median income] and $92,000 after 9 years.

            Of course that is without overtime and without off duty security at football games and such.

            Its a good living.

            So bigoted troll is being stupid again.

            1. Plenty of officers — particularly in the can’t-keep-up backwaters — are paid $10 or $12 per hour, with scant or no benefits and difficult schedules. Some officers work for several departments in an effort to pursue enough compensation to live.

              Many — if not most municipalities — struggle to maintain a legitimate department, with inadequate training, substandard equipment, rapid turnover, and other problems.

              Other than that, tough, great comment, clinger.

        2. Go ahead and sign up, Art! There are positions open in just about all of these big cities. Let’s see if you have the stones to do the job.

          1. How many departments are going to hire a retirement-age officer whose compensation level exceeds $600 an hour?

            Other than that, though, great comment!

      2. The local Sheriff’s Department is running recruitment ads — they have *never* done that before. You used to have to know someone to get hired by them.

    3. Brett,
      The worm turns and will turn again.

    4. The hope is that to the extent there are candidates who think cops should be allowed to murder people, and now it appears that is not the case, those candidates will decide not to become peace officers.

      1. Enough of the hyperbole. There were 20 whole black people shot by cops last year. Most were justified. The “murder people” comment is just silly hysteria.

        1. You are off by over 200.

          1. He’s actually off by far more than that, since he said ‘shot by’ rather than ‘killed by.’

        2. That sounds like something a “colorblind” conservative bigot would assert.

        3. Re: hyperbole, I was talking about the recent conviction of officer Chauvin for second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. What did you think I was talking about?

        4. “There were 20 whole black people shot by cops last year. Most were justified.”

          How many unjustified shootings is too many?

          1. He’s also wrong. It won’t let me post it but when I googled it there over 240 black persons killed by police last year.

    5. “The other thing people tend to forget about is that this anti-cop stuff hurts recruitment — departments are having to scrape the bottom of the barrel and take people they wouldn’t used to.”

      Having worked in vocational education, in a school that had an LE program, they weren’t looking for the cream of the crop before, which is one of the reasons they have problems now.

  10. Volokh like SCOTUS really avoids the big issues of the day. Just saying

  11. The media always put everything through the White Cop/Black Victim filter. But its getting to absurd levels not previously imagined.

    There was no evidence of racism in the Chauvin case. It was all matter of fact “of course it was racist”. How?? was never answered. But to suggest the Columbus shooting is due to racism is off the scales absurd.

    1. It’s hard to tell, but it looks like the girl that went rolling across the ground might be White, and hence what race is the girl in pink who would have been dead if the cop hadn’t fired.

      Just speculating here, but it’s real clear that she’s gonna disembowl her, and that’s why I think BLM is going to implode.

    2. I know. I tend to agree with the BLM types on most shootings. But it’s frustrating to see them blow all their credibility on obviously justified shootings like Columbus.

      1. You have to ask why that is. What is the long-term thinking here?

        1. They profit off racial division. Their whole gig goes away if they bring people together.

          1. You have literally no interest in listening to the opinions of black people. You think black people having opinions based on their own experiences and wanting elected representatives to take them into account isitself a form of racism. If they wait until you decide to unite with them, they’ll be wearing fur coats in hell first.

        2. I Callahan : You have to ask why that is. What is the long-term thinking here?

          I have my own theory, which is mine alone. BLM is heavily influenced by three factors very separate from the cold hard numbers on police shootings :

          1. A sense that there is no accountability for police actions, both because of the Blue Wall of Silence and the deference prosecutors, judges and juries automatically give to cops – particularly when scary black people are involved.

          2. Observing the eagerness & glee which a substantial segment of white American excuses any police mistreatment of blacks, something very visible in the Chauvin case – video be damned.

          3. Connecting the rare cases of fatal police misconduct with common personal experience of petty police harassment.

          My theory (and mine alone) is that these three factors lead blacks to believe they can’t trust the system to handle extreme cases.

    3. “There was no evidence of racism in the Chauvin case.”

      Unless you count up the number of dead black guys, and can count higher than 0.

  12. There was once an attorney who was making his first appearance at the Court of Appeals. He kept making the same simple, obvious, no-brainer point over and over again, until one of the judges finally said, “Counsel, please give us credit for having some common sense up here.” To which the lawyer responded, “Judge, that was the mistake I made at the trial court.”

    1. Sounds like a lawyer making an attempt to win a contempt finding

  13. 73-year old 80-lb woman with dementia wanders out of Walmart, forgetting to pay for a few things. Store employees recover the items.

    Cop finds the woman picking wildflowers nearby. Three cops beat her up, break and dislocate her shoulder, leave her handcuffed without medical attention for hours before somebody at the jail realized she was injured and sent her to the hospital.

    1. And, as expected, the Loveland Co. area is heavily Democratic.

      Why do Democrats have such violent police departments?

      1. Both state legislators associated with Loveland are Republicans, you half-educated, bigoted rube.

    2. What race are the cops and what race is the victim. If the answer is not white cop and black victim its not news and not really a concern for our justice system.

      Unfortunately when folks try to make sense out of these things they avoid the obvious, because well the obvious is “actual racism” not the faux kind promoted by the media. Sometimes you just have to go with Captain Obvious

      1. You don’t think this story is getting coverage?

        There’s video.

        Don’t suppose things that’ll make you look like a fool.

    3. Not seeing where they “beat her up”. That has rhetorical implications both in general and in a context of police arresting people.

  14. THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
    This White, male, right-wing
    blog has operated for
    FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
    without publishing a vile
    racial slur and for
    727 DAYS
    without imposing partisan,
    viewpoint-driven censorship.

    That’s a two-week anniversary on the gratuitous use of a vile racial slur and nearly the two-year anniversary with respect to this blog’s viewpoint-driven censorship.

    Congratulations, I guess.

  15. I’d like to hear about other cases involving juries who may have been intimidated or threatened. Not only what became of the case between the state and the defendants but what protections, if any, the jurors have been found to have or not have a right to receive.

    Because in a just world: (1) the press would have been frozen out of the entire jury selection process rather than allow as much information about jurors to get out as certainly has happened; and (2) the judge would have put Maxine Waters behind bars by now, for jury intimidation and/or contempt, and her colleagues on Capitol Hill would have nothing to say about it. (Maxine made her speech in Minnesota, not in the Capitol, so it’s not immune, right?)

    1. She was not speaking on the floor of the House.
      She could have been sanctioned.
      But it is not a crime to be old, stupid, and crazy.

      1. More or less, yeah.

  16. Anyone else getting tired of the liberal brash assumption that they have some kind of “right” to govern? If the right ever proposed anything like “court packing” because it simply wanted to control that branch of government the media would go crazy. Instead we get nothing except frankly “victim blaming” type rhetoric (Republicans were bad so they deserve this…) And Hilary can’t shut up about what “cost” her the election. Notice the nuance in language there. She did not “lose” the election. What people did (or did not do) “cost” her the election like she was entitled to win it had others done their job correctly.

    The arrogance of the left is at an all time high and personally I am glad to see it. Keep on pushing your anti-racism racism and keep up the other dung shoveling exercises though. It will be nice to have Congress back and the White House by 2024 followed by another generation of conservatism.

    1. Hilary cost herself the election.
      Next question

      1. But who gets credit for winning this one? Not Biden; when he left his basement at all it was to wow huge crowds of fewer than 100 people each.

        Having someone as corrupt as Biden in the oval office is scary. But having an obviously senile Biden operated as a puppet by a hidden committee of the Deep State is terrifying.

        1. Biden won it.
          He hid out, kept his mouth shut and Trump campaigned for him. Sounds like he had a good plan

          1. Well, if you’re in a boxing match & your opponent keeps punching himself in the face, the smart thing to do is hang out in your corner and watch……

        2. jdgalt1 : Having someone as corrupt as Biden in the oval office is scary.

          Hilarious. Let’s review :

          (1) Someone saying something that dumb must be a Trump voter.

          (2) Trump is a zillion times more corrupt than Biden could ever be, even if the latter put “be corrupt” atop his To Do list every day.

          (3) But corruption oozing out of the CINC’s skin didn’t “scare” our jdgalt1 during the previous four years. Go figure.

          It’s like those people who voted for Trump in ’16 because Hilary wasn’t “honest”, and therein put a grotesque pathological liar in the presidency. But even that’s not as painfully ironic as people who thought a buffoonish bungling bankruptcy-machine would bring business-like efficiency to the Oval Office. That’s funny at a whole other level….

    2. Jimmy, to the extent that the left does as you claim, it’s because the right doesn’t have to thanks to all the unfair structural and procedural advantages it already enjoys — Wyoming being able to cancel California in the Senate, an electoral college that twice in the last quarter century has given the presidency to a Republican popular vote loser. The right can’t have *all* the unfair advantages, now, can it?

      1. Those are not “unfair advantages” those are structural procedures within a constitutional framework. No government in the history of the world has ever worked off of a “majority rules” basis. Ours does not either (you know that, you are a lawyer, so stop pretending it does or is “unfair”). If you want to float your theory then do so in the terms of a constitutional amendment. Don’t cry about it like we should care otherwise.

        1. No need to change the constitution.

          Our system’s structural amplification of hayseed votes has been intensifying. There is no need to change the Constitution to return that unearned advantage to more traditional levels — merely enlarge the House (and with it the Electoral College).

          There also is no need to alter the Constitution to change the size of the Supreme Court. Enlarging the Court to 13 would restore the one-justice-for-each-circuit standard.

          Admitting states, similarly, would require no Constitutional amendment.

          Revising the filibuster — eliminating it, or perhaps changing it to require participation by senators representing a majority of the population — would involve nothing more than changing Senate rules.

          1. I’m sure you were not such a fan of “majority rules” when it was back in the 60’s and the majority was supporting various systems of oppression that the (then minority) used the same power apparatus to disassemble…right?

            1. Our constitutional system is majority rule with protected rights for minorities. Only since recognizing that they will never have the majority again have republicans been embracing minority rule. Minority rule never works long term. See South Africa for an example.

              And also, I’m sure the Democrats would not be discussing any of these measures had Trump and his cult demonstrated some respect for elections and the constitution. They are a domestic enemy of the constitution.

        2. I do not advocate pure democracy, but the current system, under which virtually nothing can happen without the approval of flyover country, isn’t working. Congress can’t even pass a budget.

          And if the Constitution didn’t also require near-impossible supermajorities you might have a point. Having rules that makes something next to impossible simply results in people working around the rules.

          1. Just an FYI, “Flyover country” makes up over 1/2 the country by population.

            1. Not by any reasonable definition of flyover country.

              1. To the flailing hayseeds, Chicago, Houston, Denver, Detroit, and Phoenix constitute “flyover country” when numbers are needed to cobble together something resembling an argument.

          2. ” Congress can’t even pass a budget.”

            If they couldn’t spend money without passing a budget, they’d suddenly be able to pass a budget. They don’t want to pass a budget, because there would be too much transparency about how absurdly high spending levels are, and how rapidly they’re rising.

            And I’ve pointed this out before: Legislative supermajorities don’t require population supermajorities. They will exist as long as you have even very modest population majorities that are reasonably distributed.

            The reason the left cannot assemble legislative supermajorities for their programs is that they basically only appeal to urban centers, and tank everywhere else.

            You want to rule the whole country from half the country, and yes, the system IS set up to prevent you from doing that.

            1. I fail to see the relevance of reasonable distribution. If most of the population and most of the economy happens to be in one place, why shouldn’t it have disproportionate say in governance? One vote should equal one vote.

              1. You don’t understand Brett’s reverence fro acreage as a basis of political representation.

                Say you have a state where 60% of the voters live in cities, and 40% in the country. To him, that justifies 50-50 representation, or maybe even 60-40 in favor of the rural dwellers, because they have more land.

                It’s insanity.

            2. The reason the left cannot assemble legislative supermajorities for their programs is that they basically only appeal to urban centers, and tank everywhere else.

              You mean they only have appeal in the places where most people live? Must be, given election results.

          3. K_2,
            Don’t insult the midwest.
            Congress’ inability to pass a budget has nothing to do with “flyover country” and much more to do with competing moneyed interests on the coasts

        3. The Constitution’s provisions are not unfair, they’re totally constitutional!

      2. Vermont can cancel Texas.

        Or Delaware or Rhode Island. Did not hear us complaining in 2011-2015 about that.

        Democrats used to win Mountain West seats like Montana and both Dakotas until quite recently. Still have a seat in Montana.

        1. I’ve pointed this out before: If you rank the states by population, it takes the bottom 18 to cancel out California, and most of them are red. It doesn’t matter that there are a few blue states in there, the cumulative effect is a significant Republican advantage.

          1. US would be much better off governed like CA

            1. I don’t think your sneer is justified. There is a reason most people live in blue states. If Kansas were a great place to live, it would have 40 million people and California would have 4 million rather than the other way around.

              1. Kansas is a great place to live. For those willing to not have the world revolve around them, like what happens in bluer areas.

                1. Kansas is the predictable result of a community’s smart, ambitious young people departing at high school graduation for generations.

                  1. But they’re opposed to birth control there, so maybe they can replenish even if most of the smart people leave to pursue better opportunities.

                    1. That is not the record. When the smart, ambitious young people flee a community for an extended period, the depleted human residue that remains becomes a concentrating pool of ignorance, superstition, bigotry, disaffectedness, economic inadequacy, more bigotry, and Republican registration.

              2. Krychek_2…That proposition is about to be tested = There is a reason most people live in blue states.

                The pandemic changed the equation, somewhat. For those who can truly work from home, geography is no longer a limitation. I don’t think the ‘old’ (feels really, really weird to write that) way where people worked in an office building cube will last more than a decade or two. I know that I vastly prefer remote working. Fortunately, I can. Why work remotely from a high-tax geography if you really don’t ‘have to’?

                U-Haul publishes interesting data. You might want to see the rental patterns of where people are moving from, and where they are moving to. Here in the People’s Republic of NJ, I see lots of U-Haul trucks.

                1. “For those who can truly work from home, geography is no longer a limitation.”

                  No, the challenge then becomes digital divide. Rural areas have comparatively poor Internet service.

                  1. I agree. But that digital divide is an objectively definable problem that can eventually be solved.

                2. This entire sub-thread is stupid, having relevance only because of the extreme polarization of the parties. When that was not so, this majoritarianism was not a compelling issue.
                  What is needed is a bit more moderation in political opinion rather than a tyranny of the majority whatever that might be.

          2. When say cancel WTF do you mean. A states electoral votes are weighted based on their population.

            So yes folks other than the big blue cities get a say so. That’s a feature not a problem. The constitution would not have been signed if not for the electoral college.

            1. The constitution also wouldn’t have been signed had it not permitted slavery, so I’m not sure “the constitution wouldn’t have been signed without it” is that solid an argument.

              And just to be clear, are you just as opposed to flyover country dictating to the big cities as you are the other way around?

          3. But its not permanent, North Dakota had 2 Dems until 2011 and the last just lost in 2018.

            12 years ago, Dems had 60 senators. GOP has not had 60 in 100 years.

            Its not structural.

            1. I don’t see Republicans getting 60 seats any time soon, but I do see them having a 51 or 52 seat majority despite not coming close to winning a majority of votes cast for the Senate nationwide. Enough to ensure that even popular Democratic proposals can’t get passed.

              And you’re right, it’s not structural, but I also don’t see the small states going blue any time soon.

              1. You can’t just add up votes for the Senate like you can the House, a third of the states don’t have Senate races in any given election year.

                Let’s see, the 15 least populous states:
                15: New Mexico, Blue
                14: Nebraska, Red
                13: Idaho Red
                12: West Virginia Red
                11: Hawaii Blue
                10: New Hampshire Blue
                9: Maine Blue
                8: Montana Red
                7: Rhode Island Blue
                6: Delaware Blue
                5: South Dakota Red
                4: North Dakota Red
                3: Alaska Red
                2.5: DC Blue
                2: Vermont Blue
                1: Wyoming Red

                So, 7.5 out of 15.5, or 7 out of 15 How much closer to 50-50 did you want, anyway?

                1. Nice cherry-picking, Brett.

                  The fact is that Democratic Senators represent about 40 million more people than Republican Senators.

                  Take your BS stats and shove them.

                  1. “about 40 million more ”

                    Because they have both California senators.

                    If one seat in California switched, it would be equal.

                    1. “If one seat in California switched, it would be equal.”

                      Sure, and if elephants could fly, umbrellas would be more common.

                  2. “The fact is that Democratic Senators represent about 40 million more people than Republican Senators”

                    Can you share the general outlines of your math?

                    For example, California has a population of 37 million. In the last presidential election it voted about 63% for Biden, 34% for Trump. So are you saying the two Dem senators represent 37 million people?, or 37*0.63=23 million people?

                    If I take the 2020 presidential results (51:47) and multiply by the US population, I get 169M and 156M, which is a difference of 14M, not 40M.

                    I get that in one sense a republican/libertarian/communist in California is indeed represented by Diane Feinstein (and in another sense is ignored by her), but I’m not sure that’s the right way to phrase things given the point you are making. It’s like saying ‘We’re a country that has a unanimous political viewpoint because we are all represented by Joe Biden’. Or, last year, Trump.

                    1. If a state has two senators of the same party, assign the entire population of the state to that party. If a state has one senator of each party, assign half the population of the state to each party. The Democrats then end with about 41 more million people than the Republicans.

                    2. “If a state has two senators of the same party, assign the entire population of the state to that party. If a state has one senator of each party, assign half the population of the state to each party. The Democrats then end with about 41 more million people than the Republicans.”

                      It doesn’t have to make sense, it just has to make me look right.

                    3. The implication of the calculation is if the number of senators were proportional to population rather than two per state, then 56% of the senators would be Democrats.

                  3. What cherry picking? The question was small states, I listed the 15 smallest states, and DC. And small states are NOT disproportionately ‘red’, it’s about even.

                    The disproportion is actually among the large states.

          4. So, if you look at the bottom 11 states in population, 6 of them are blue states…Vermont, Maine, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Hampshire

            So, what exactly are you complaining about? You’ve got a majority of the bottom 11.

            1. There’s a reason I said the bottom 18. Yeah, if you change the facts I gave, you can get a different result.

              1. So let’s keep moving those goalposts until we get the result we want? Why 18? Why not 11?

                1. Well, if Krycheck uses 18, the numbers look better. They’re ALL red states. Except “a few blue states” Like 6. Or maybe 7 with New Mexico. And Montana has a blue senator, but really it’s red. So it still counts. Mostly. Make it a 1/2. West Virginia is a 1/2 too.

                  And maybe count Nevada too! There are 2 blue Senators there. Wait…that’s number 19. Nope…can’t do that.

                  So, the bad bad bottom 18 have 36 Senators. 16 of which are Blue Senators. To 20 Red Senators. The entire system is unfair. If we use the bottom 18. And not the bottom 11.

                  1. Armchair Lawyer, the point that you’re missing is that while a difference of four seats (16 blue, 20 red) may not sound like much, in a closely divided Senate it can and has made the difference. Also, bear in mind that California only has 2 in comparison with their 36. If the Senate were proportionate by population, Republicans would never control the Senate again.

                    Also a caveat: I have not independently counted to confirm that your numbers of 20 red, 16 blue are correct because it doesn’t change the bottom line.

                    1. Uh huh. Seats make a difference. But where you make an arbitrary cut off makes a difference too. As does statistical variation. And you cry endlessly how all the small states are red…when they aren’t. You move to 19, and the gap changes to just 2 seats. You move to 17 at the gap changes to just 2. Move to 16 and it’s gone.

                      And remember. The Republicans won the House in 2016. The way things are going, they’ll win the House in 2022. So they can easily win a majority of the Senate, even under your special rules.

                    2. It’s not an arbitrary cutoff. It’s the number of states at the bottom required to add up to the one at the top. In other words, the number needed for an apples to apples comparison. You want to continue to pretend not to get that, I can’t help you.

                    3. “It’s not an arbitrary cutoff. It’s the number of states at the bottom required to add up to the one at the top. In other words, the number needed for an apples to apples comparison. You want to continue to pretend not to get that, I can’t help you.”

                      It’s very arbitrary, because Senate representation has nothing at all to do with population.

                  2. If we assign to the party that has two senators in the same state the entire state’s population, and split the population if the senators are of different parties, the 50 Democratic senators comprise 56% of the population. That is, we would expect Democrats to hold a 56-44 advantage if the number of senators were in proportion to the state’s population. So yes, there is currently a small-state advantage for Republicans.

                    1. But it’s a slight advantage, well in line with statistical variation. And it’s an advantage that has shifted over the years. Some years the Democrats have the “small state advantage.” Other years the Republicans have the “Small state advantage.”

                      You could shift a single senator, potentially, and the “small state advantage” would disappear or reverse itself.

                      Statistically, you shouldn’t expect a perfect 50-50 split that’s in line 100% of the time. There will be some shift back and forth.

                    2. That’s a good argument if Republicans had any chance of winning a Senate seat in California. As of now, they do not (but you are correct in the past, there was no Democratic small-state advantage).

                2. Because in terms of population it takes the bottom 18 to add up to California. So I’m comparing the states that cumulatively add up to the one at the top.

                  1. “Because in terms of population it takes the bottom 18 to add up to California.”

                    Your math is wrong. Try rechecking it.

              2. “There’s a reason I said the bottom 18.”

                People don’t usually confess to cherry picking. Well done, I guess.

          5. Given the craziness of having a one-party state in which the government acts first and thinks later, I would not want the entire country to emulate our golden state.

            Just one example:
            Newsom’s EO to ban sales of gas powered cars after 2035.
            Just what are our poor immigrants and our poor going to drive.
            And what happens to the billions form gas taxes to maintain our roads. Gavin has hardly thought more than 1 move deep.
            This is a good topic for next Thursday

      3. Jimmy, to the extent that the left does as you claim, it’s because the right doesn’t have to thanks to all the unfair structural and procedural advantages it already enjoys — Wyoming being able to cancel California in the Senate

        So you are opposed to DC statehood, because it’s wrong to give little states two senators?

    3. The nut Biden appointed to run ED-OCR is going to be interesting…

      1. Can’t wait for more “all men are guilty” Title 9 stuff to come out of OCR.

        1. Not all, just 95%. It’s in the title ix coordinators’ training.

      2. some nut is mad that a different nut got the job (again… why does that keep happening?)

    4. “Anyone else getting tired of the liberal brash assumption that they have some kind of ‘right’ to govern?”

      Just because they won the election…

    5. The left has the same right to govern as anyone else, it’s weird that you find this shocking and appalling. Weirder that you take saying things ‘cost’ Clinton the election versus Trump’s claims that he actually won and think the left come off as entitled and arrogant.

  17. Jen Psaki characterized the shooting of Ma’Khai Bryant as “police violence.” Valerie Jarrett, an Obama advisor, tweeted “A Black teenage girl named Ma’Khia Bryant was killed because a police officer immediately decided to shoot her multiple times in order to break up a knife fight. Demand accountability. Fight for justice. #BlackLivesMatter.”

    What’s wrong with you people? (“You people” are progressive democrats.)

    1. Look, if white shooters like Dylann Roof are taken into custody alive after killing black people, there’s no reason that Ma’Khai Bryant couldn’t have been taken into custody alive after killing black people.

      1. Dylann Roof was not actively shooting at police when he was taken into custody. Trying to make everything into a race thing makes you look stupid, not enlightened and woke.

        1. “Trying to make everything into a race thing makes you look stupid, not enlightened and woke.”

          There’s a difference?

        2. “Dylann Roof was not actively shooting at police when he was taken into custody.”

          Ma-Khai Bryan wasn’t shooting at ANYBODY. details… do they matter?

      2. That is such an obviously absurd argument.

        Thousands of black murder suspects, including many accused cop killers are taken into to custody without being harmed, every year.

        Dylan Roof surrendered peacefully. If he had fired on officers or reached for a gun, he in all likelihood would have been shot.

        Race has nothing to do with which criminal suspects get killed by police and which ones do not. The severity of the underlying crime also has little to do with it, though police might be more wary and prepared to shoot when they know or believe they are dealing with a very, dangerous criminal.

        The behavior of the suspect when the arrest attempt is made is the overwhelmingly most important factor. A compliant, black serial killer and cop killer has a 99.99% chance of being taken alive. A white, jaywalker who pulls a gun and aims it at police excellent chance of being shot and killed,.

        There are other factors, like the experience and training for the officers and how willing an individual officer is willing to put his/her own life in grave danger to avoid shooting a suspect. Also, in rare cases an officer just fouls up, and in far rarer cases one kills out of malice.

        But, in 99 plus percent of cases, the suspect determines whether or not he will be shot.

        In the Columbus shooting, a black teenage girl was in imminent danger of being stabbed to death. The officer fired to save her life. Would you be happier if the teenager in pink was murdered and her murderer survived?

        1. If that had appened and teh murdered girl was black the story would be “Black girl murdered while polices stood by”.

        2. James, an impulse to focus discussion on commonplace cases can also be a distraction from considering problems. To take the issue completely ought of fraught territory, think of a telescope, with a reflective element in the optical path. You have a choice of reflectors. Both reflect more than 99% of the light. One reflects 99.2%. The other reflects 99.6%. The latter is notably more costly than the former. Why so much extra cost for an apparently trivial difference? Because the problem is not the light transmitted, it is the light scattered, and what the scattered light does to the images the telescope is designed to deliver. The former reflector scatters twice as much light as the latter one does, which makes it notably less useful.

          Knowing that problem areas are small in comparison with expected results does little to help analyze relative magnitudes among the problems.

          To put the discussion back into fraught territory, consider instead what happens among a small subsample of people killed by police—that being the ones who turn out to have been unarmed and apparently innocent of criminal intent. Turns out, members of racial minorities are over-represented in that group, and it is not a close comparison. That suggests something you ought to consider about the effect of race in all the other cases, where police shootings have arguably been justified. Should we suppose the notion of justification rules out consideration that racial bias may have predisposed police officers to shoot minority members more often than others? That seems to be what you are doing.

          1. Actually the exact opposite. Blacks are less likely than whites to be shot in that situation. It’s the minor non-lethal interactions that minorities are more likely to have problems in.

            1. Illocust, say what you mean. In absolute numbers, or in proportion to numbers in population? Say your source. Mine is a multi-year study published in the Guardian, citing every case they could find, and detailing names and circumstances for each.

              1. Per encounter, whites are actually more likely to be shot than blacks. It’s just that blacks disproportionately live in high crime areas, and so end up with a disproportionate number of encounters.

                So do the whites living in such areas.

                But in any given encounter, the white guy is more likely to be shot than the black guy.

    2. “knife fight”?

      When one person has a knife and the other does not, is that a knife fight?

      Atomic bomb fight with Hiroshima? OJ Simpson knife fight? Roof gun fight with worshipers?

      1. “When one person has a knife and the other does not, is that a knife fight”

        Not if the other person has a gun, in which case it’s a gun fight.

    3. If it wasn’t already obvious to you:
      Our culture thinks it’s okay if black people kill and destroy each other.
      That’s why people are more angry with a white police officer saving a black girl’s life than they are with Ma’khia Bryant trying to murder a black girl.

      https://www.facebook.com/samuel.sey/posts/10165483577130355

      1. Sadly, I think there is a lot of truth to what you are saying, at least among the American Left. They do not seem to believe that law abiding black people (who are the vast majority) have any right to live, and value the lives of black violent criminals, far more.

        1. The person they shot is the one who called the police because she’d been threatened.

          1. From what I’ve seen, that was reported and then walked back. AFACT we don’t know who called the cops.

    4. It is the American rule that when someone is threatening another with deadly force, police first look to stop with deadly force.

      This was a good shoot under current procedures.

      I’m not sure how crazy I am with those procedures, though. 4 cops with body armor coulda tackled this girl no problem.

      1. Seeing you think that “body armor” makes it perfectly OK to shoot fireworks and other incendiary devices at cops it wouldn’t surprise me that you think it would confer some superhuman protection against a knife and serious bodily injury as well.

      2. Put some body armor on and arm me with a knife. Let’s see how willing you are to tackle me. I promise that if you walk away from the encounter, that you’ll be bleeding at minimum. Body armor doesn’t protect everything, and nobody walks away from a knife fight without injury.

        Aside from your boisterous bullshit and website bravery, did you consider that she couldn’t have been tackled in the moment she was stabbing the other girl? That “4 cops with body armor” weren’t around for your lovely perfect-world hypothetical to even occur?

        That officer didn’t do precisely what one would expect, because he actually managed to neutralize the attacker mid-swing without even hitting the would-be victim. I’d say he went above and beyond what I expect out of LEOs.

        1. Sarc is a keyboard warrior at the best. I doubt he has ever been in a fist fight or shot a gun, but he likes to talk about it a lot like he has experience in these areas.

          1. Shot plenty of guns. I was an Eagle Scout, comes with the territory.

            You don’t know me.

            1. I know you are a phony. Shooting a .22 at band camp is not really shooting guns.

              1. Hey, why not try me? I’ll gladly list my list my military weapon qualification ratings. To be fair, I only scored in the upper medium range on the M-16, but that was because shooting prone and from the foxhole didn’t completely compensate for less-skilled marksmanship kneeling.

                OTOH, I qualified Expert on the M-203. To be absolutely fair, all five or six of us on the range did. Close counts in grenades & the 203’s round has a sizable kill radius.

                That established, I have lots of common-sense suggestions on gun regulation, and some rather hurtful observations to make about Gun Nut Culture…..

              2. Again, you don’t know me.

        2. I mean, that’s what we pay police to do, right?

          1. We do not pay them to get stabbed when they can avoid it.

            1. We pay them to risk being stabbed, among other things.

              1. Not to take stupid risks. Closing with an angry person with a 5 inch knife is lunacy.

                BTW, according to the new video, there were not “4 cops” but one anywhere near her.

                1. If someone isn’t physically fit enough to take on a single 16-year old girl with a knife, he shouldn’t be a police officer.

        3. “Put some body armor on and arm me with a knife. Let’s see how willing you are to tackle me. I promise that if you walk away from the encounter, that you’ll be bleeding at minimum.”

          “Aside from your boisterous bullshit and website bravery”

          Irony alert.

          1. You’re not very bright, are you?

            I’m not the one claiming that having body armor negates the danger from a knife.

            It’s ‘website bravery’ and ‘boisterous bullshit’ to pretend that as long as it’s someone else who would get stabbed, that it must be a reasonable risk the officers should have taken.

            If he’s going to make that argument, then I see no reason why he shouldn’t be willing to don his best kevlar and test his theory himself. Unless perhaps it isn’t nearly as safe as he’s pretending.

            Kindly crawl back under your rock.

      3. a) They body armor would not protect the police sufficiently.

        b) Even if it could, there was no time to tackle Bryant and prevent her from murdering the girl in pink. She was a split second from plunging that knife into her victim.

        1. a) Sufficient for what? 100% proof of injury? Of course not.

          b) Right – the whole interaction was predicated on the gun as first resort. If that was not assumed, things might have engaged differently.

          1. I’m not really to the idea of using a deadlier weapon to stop somebody from using the less deadly weapon. Generally, that’s how we expect people to effectively protect themselves and others. There is no rule that you can’t use a gun to stop a knife attack, and there shouldn’t be.

            1. There is in Europe and England, and they do fine.

              Bottom line, out current policy has no problem with killing the aggressor. I think we should weight their life more than that.

              1. “current policy has no problem with killing the aggressor. I think we should weight their life more than that.”

                there’s also the part where we assume whoever is winning when the cops roll up was “the aggressor”.

                1. I’ve watched the video. She was the aggressor, there isn’t a lot of question about it. The girl in pink was just minding her own business. This wasn’t a fight where somebody was winning, the only person there fighting was the lunatic with the knife attacking people.

                  The cop was called because of a report of somebody going around attacking people with a knife, arrives, there’s somebody attacking people with a knife. He shoots her just in time to keep her from carving somebody up.

                  Yes, you’re free to imagine some backstory that makes her actions seem non-homicidal. Alert us if you ever locate any evidence to that effect.

              2. And I don’t. I’ll always put the weight on saving the life of the victim, the aggressor can take their chances.

                You don’t like that? Don’t be the aggressor.

                1. I hold human life at a higher value than you do. That’s become *very* clear in our discussions.

                  Life is as cheap as property to you.

                  1. You clearly don’t, because you’re quite willing to claim the girl in pink’s life wasn’t worth using deadly force to protect when she was imminently about to be stabbed.

                    Naturally if that had been your daughter at risk of death in the next 1/2 a second without police intervention, you’d be praising their actions as having saved your child.

                    It’s easier for you though, to just sit on the sidelines and pretend that a rousing chorus of Kumbaya and some body armor would’ve stopped time and prevented the stabbing that was literally in-progress and act like you have some kind of moral high-ground here.

                    The truth is: You’re ignorant of how real life works, and the consequences for attempting to murder someone in front of an armed citizen, police or otherwise.

                    1. I’m weighing the risks, including that of the girl who was killed.

                      You have given the girl who was kill’s life no weight at all.

                      That is the current American rule. I don’t like it.

                      Asking what if it had been my daughter is emotionalist bullshit that adds nothing to the argument. And your assumption that things could not have worked out differently shows how unreasonable you are on this.

                    2. “I’m weighing the risks, including that of the girl who was killed.

                      You have given the girl who was kill’s life no weight at all.”

                      So, Aggressor is trying to kill Innocent, without justification.

                      Each strategy for preventing that has a tradeoff between harm to Aggressor and Innocent. You object to a weighting of 0:100, i.e. to strategies that put all the risk on Aggressor, and none of the risk on Innocent. What do you think the right balance is? 50:50, because Aggressor’s life is a human life, just as valuable as Innocent’s life, and so it matters little which lives? 100:0, because Aggressor deserves a chance to turn her life around, and Innocent dying is a reasonable price to pay to enable that? Something else? I’m fascinated to understand what you think the right tradeoff is, and why.

          2. “Right – the whole interaction was predicated on the gun as first resort.”

            Cops aren’t supposed to use deadly force as a first resort. They are supposed to use their judgement and only use deadly force if it is necessary to prevent death, etc.

            Often they get this horribly wrong, but I just don’t see an argument that they got it wrong in this case.

            1. I would agree with this. MMQBing the situation, it still looks like the cop acted properly. There simply wasn’t time for him to try anything else, and regardless of what was going on earlier, at the time he got there Bryant was clearly the aggressor.

              1. I saw some cops discussing this on another forum. One made an interesting comment – that some time ago, maybe the 1960’s or prior, cops faced basically no review of their use of force decisions. And they carried blackjacks and batons, and regularly used their fists (I recall reading the memoir of a cop from that era who mentioned arthritis from having broken bones in his hands so many times punching people). And, perhaps not coincidentally, this was also the era where you read biographies where cops say ‘In thirty years of policing I only drew my gun once’.

                Now, there were … obvious downsides to the lack of review of use of force (Rodney King, the LAPD squad that was having chokehold contests, …). But the upside was that, perhaps, in the case at hand the officer would have A)arrived baton in hand and B)have used his baton routinely enough that going into a baton v. knife fight wasn’t an undue risk.

                I don’t know what the right balance is, but I think Sarcastro has been making the point ‘why did they go right to the gun’, and I think to some extent the answer is ‘we have deprecated most of the lesser means because they are prone to abuse’. Maybe we weren’t nuanced enough about that. Getting cold cocked by a blackjack isn’t pretty, but maybe it’s better than being shot.

        2. ” Even if it could, there was no time to tackle Bryant and prevent her from murdering the girl in pink.”

          You’re skipping a step or two. Waving a knife at someone doesn’t kill them. Nor do most knife strikes, unless the knife wielder is proficient in a way that few 16-year-olds are.

          1. “You’re skipping a step or two. Waving a knife at someone doesn’t kill them. Nor do most knife strikes, unless the knife wielder is proficient in a way that few 16-year-olds are.”

            Always good for a laugh, James. To be clear, I’m not laughing with you, I’m laughing at you.

          2. “Nor do most knife strikes,…”

            Source??

            IIRC Kleck’s 1991 book mentioned that the probability of dying from a single wound to the torso was about 10%, whether the wound was from a pistol or a knife.

            That makes sense, because both basically make a hole that either does or doesn’t intersect something vital (rifles are a different thing, because of hydrostatic effects at a distance from the bullet path … IIRC the odds for a single long gun wound to the torso were about 1 in 3).

      4. “4 cops with body armor coulda tackled this girl no problem.”

        Internet police expert!

        How do they close 8-10 feet in 1 second smart guy? She would have already plunged the knife in.

        1. The issue is your framing of the timeline. What if the cops didn’t come being taught in that situation gun is the first resort?

          If you want to argue shooting was the only option off the break, you’re the one assuming expertise.

          1. You can use a gun to gain control of a situation by shooting someone, or you can use a gun to gain control of a situation by threatening to shoot someone. cops use both techniques.

            1. But going first to the gun is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy that force will become lethal.

              1. So is attempting to murder someone. Still haven’t seen a response to your idiocy that 4 cops (who didn’t exist within 1/2 second of her attempt to murder the other girl) wearing body armor (also did not exist in reality) could have tackled her in the time between trying to kill the girl in pink, and successfully stabbing her.

                But hey: It’s easy to claim they should tackle a knife-wielding criminal when you aren’t the one having to risk maiming or death in doing so, right?

                Coward.

                1. You’re the one who insists death is the only outcome here. And it makes you so angry at me that I think maybe not.

                  You really got some issues, eh?

          2. “The issue is your framing of the timeline. What if the cops didn’t come being taught in that situation gun is the first resort?”

            Well, maybe Bryant would still be alive. Maybe the girl in pink would be dead. Maybe the cop would be dead. Maybe the girl in pink and the cop would be dead. Heck, maybe everybody would be dead.

            I’m not sure how you argue for any particular outcome in that counterfactual without resorting to rank speculation.

            1. I’m not the one arguing a particular outcome; Bob is.

          3. Have you actually watched the stinking video? The one NBC didn’t mess with?

            He literally shot her while she was swinging away with the knife, from enough of a distance that if he’d tried to close instead, the perp would have had time to at best badly cut up the victim, at worst kill her.

            That was literally the most justified police shooting I have ever seen.

            There was an easy way for that lady to not end up dead: She could have refrained from assaulting somebody with a knife.

            1. Read my 6:16 pm comment again, and look at the pinched timeline you chose, and try again.

              1. He didn’t choose a pinched timeline. This happened within seconds of the cop driving up to the scene. The security cam footage from across the street makes it even clearer.

                1. Link to the security camera video. That video doesn’t really comport with Sarcastro’s narrative.

                  As an aside on the general subject of knife v. gun fights … I’m sure no expert, but I have had I think 5 days of classes on ‘Edged Weapon Defense’, ‘Retention and Disarming’ and so on over the years, where you get out the rubber knives and guns and have at it. Before the first one I suppose I agreed with the general sentiment of knife>>gun that most people seem to have. Then the instructor asked for a volunteer, and I stepped up. About 10 seconds later I was firmly convinced that, within arms reach, a knife was fully a match for a gun.

        2. “4 cops with body armor coulda tackled this girl no problem.”

          Listen, I’m sure we’re all quite familiar with the process of subduing furious women wielding kitchen implements, and even somewhat familiar with subduing furious women wielding kitchen implements at other women, but I don’t see that it’s easy to predict the outcome of an encounter like this either way.

      5. No, they couldn’t have, well at least they couldn’t have until she already stabbed the girl in pink 2 or 3 times. Only one possible action by the police could have prevented the stabbing, shooting her. There was literally no time to do anything else.

      6. I’m not sure how crazy I am with those procedures, though. 4 cops with body armor coulda tackled this girl no problem.

        Even if that’s true, problem is that there weren’t 4 cops with body armor there.

    5. “A Black teenage girl named Ma’Khia Bryant was killed because a police officer immediately decided to shoot her multiple times in order to break up a knife fight. Demand accountability. Fight for justice. #BlackLivesMatter.”

      Biden has repeatedly said that cops should be trained to shoot knife-wielding attackers in the leg.

      But of course any Democrat knows that cops involved in knife fights should be trained to deceive the other participant about when the fight will start, then kick them in the nuts.

      1. The theme “kids get into knife fights so let it happen” has been pervading Twitter like it is just a normal thing society should let happen. And these are the same people that deplore the saying “boys will be boys” whenever that is used to justify male centric behavior that riles the feminists.

        1. So many blacks on twitter, including high profile ones, just assume their fellow blacks are violent.

          1. It basically comes down to, well I don’t know anymore….nothing has any real meaning…just say words that feel good and other people will like it and upvote you or whatever indicates internet support…

  18. What do you do with a case where it’s simply impossible for someone to get a fair trial? I mean, if it’s so widely publicized before the trial that all prospective jurors have been exposed to the media reporting, and the judge and jury know there will be grave consequences for finding one way, personally and societally, and adulation for finding another way; then how can the defendant possibly have a fair trial? What to do?

    1. Default to granting changes of venue requests by the deferment when there is publicity involved, would do a ton of good.

      1. In this case a change of venue might have helped a little, but an impartial jury would still be hard to find.

        The main benefit would be that the jurors in a different county might have less fear or imminent harm to themselves and their neighborhoods in the event of a not guilty verdict.

        That said, while I think there was a lot of rhetoric and threatening language and behavior that could intimidate or influence a jury, I am not sure that happened in this case.

        IMO, in recent jurors across America have done an outstanding job of reaching verdicts that are supported by the fact and the law, in high profile, racially charged use of force cases. The same has been true of Grand Jury decisions, in cases where the DA’s have presented full cases to the GJ’s as opposed to given them only the prosecution’s side to ensure an indictment.

        In all such cases that I can think of, the juries have rendered verdicts that were either clearly correct or at least very defensible

        Chauvin, Van Dyke, Noor, Guyger, Drejka – all convicted.
        Yanez, Shelby, Zimmerman – All acquitted.

        I cannot find fault with any of these verdicts. American juries seem to be far more fair and courageous than politicians and media members.

        1. “Yanez”

          The guy who told Philando Castillo to get his license and not reach for his gun, then shot him when he complied? There’s absolutely not reason he should have been acquitted.

      2. “Default to granting changes of venue requests by the deferment when there is publicity involved, would do a ton of good.”

        Sure. The best trials are held as far away from any witnesses as possible.

        1. Planes are thing now days. Distance is less of an issue in the modern era.

    2. Bench Trial?

      It’s been done in some horrific child abuse trials — e.g. the baby in the oven.

      1. Judges are just as scared as jurors

      2. I believe Chauvin had the right to a bench trial, but did not choose to have one.

        1. well, partly. He didn’t demand the jury to rule on the aggravating factors for his sentence.

      3. Urban legends now, Ed?

        1. Uggggghhhh. Googling for baby in oven abuse cases … finds more than one. I did not need to know that.

          (I didn’t dig to see if they were bench trials)

    3. Nothing could completely fix the problem of a tainted jury pool, but the jury knowing some facts prior to the trial doesn’t irreparably taint them.

      But I can think of one thing that might help: Not having a baying mob on the courthouse steps, threatening to burn the whole city down if they don’t get the verdict they want.

  19. I think the prosecution in the Chauvin trial actually did a decent job based upon the videos I was able to watch. It wasn’t that I think given the evidence that there is an objective case here for his guilt, but it is the prosecutions job to present a viable theory of criminal liability. And that is what they did. It was a simple straight forward narrative that they were able to support with “expert” witnesses who survived a vigorous cross examination. The defense had a rather complicated “but for” type argument that the jury obviously did not follow and/or believe. They opted for the straightforward application of theory and it obviously worked here.

    The best advice I ever got was “keep it simple stupid” because most people don’t even have an IQ of 100. Here you had a video that looked really bad and you had egg headed expert tell you that it looked bad because it was actually bad. The defense went all intellectual with drugs, overdoses, autopsy, etc. and the jury just said “I know what I saw” and that was it.

    Now let’s see if the conviction stands on appeal. I think there is a coin flip chance of a retrial or acquittal based upon application of the law here.

    1. You did a good summary of the case. The prosecution did a good job and I don’t think this is any good reason for granting an appeal. This is not the first nor the last high profile case that will be tried. You can’t just appeal because the case was high profile.

      1. Every case is “political” to some extent and juries face external pressures all the time. Once I was advising an insurance case and the subtle argument the plaintiff was using is “someone has to pay for this guy’s disability” (that obviously wasn’t their legal argument, just underlying theme pushed to the extent permitted by the judge). And, the lawyer basically said if the jury didn’t make the insurance company pay it was going to come out of their taxes (again not exactly like that….) Low and behold, the jury didn’t want to be holding the bag as taxpayers so found for the plaintiff. (To be fair, the evidence could have gone either way, but the plaintiff had a weak case.)

        Point being that is a feature of the jury system, not necessarily a bug.

        1. Good points here. Whatever pressure the jury may have felt from the public could well have balance a natural tendency to find for the police officer. In this case that may have left the jury to simple consider the evidence and decide on what was presented.

          1. I think it is fair to say public pressure was on the jury to convict. Just that pressure is not illegitimate in our system of law (to some reasonable extent). Police for decades if not centuries enjoyed the reverse. Did the “mob” get their justice? Sort of, maybe, but that is sort of the way the system is designed to function. Twelve peers judge you. That is what happened.

        2. Low and behold, the jury didn’t want to be holding the bag as taxpayers so found for the plaintiff.

          Meanwhile, a third of them probably have the same insurance company. The populace pays for it one way or another.

    2. I think it will go to SCOTUS for reversal — both MN app courts are in St Paul, and the 8th Circuit in St Louis — rioting will be a factor.

      Is it possible to do a plea deal in lieu of an appeal, ie drop the 2nd degree and accept the exact same sentence Noor received? Of course that would require a rational AG and that’s not who is AG in that state right now.

      1. That is assuming Chauvin survives in the prison system for at least 3-5 years for a direct appeal to get there. My guess is that he is public enemy #1 and that his ticket is going to get punched before too long.

        1. Sadly this is the case. Jeffery Dahmer did not last too long in prison. I suspect that Chauvin will spend much of his time alone.

      2. SCOTUS very rarely reviews abuse of discretion.

        Where’s the circuit split?

        IOW, you’re dreaming.

        1. IOW, you’re dreaming.

          You’re mistaken. They’re totally going to reverse it based on the FERPA/HIPPA doctrine.

      3. “I think it will go to SCOTUS for reversal”

        Is this going to happen before or after the white people rise up in civil war?

      4. Why would it go to federal courts at all?

        I don’t see any federal issue here, at least until its been thoroughly looked at in the MN appeals and Supreme courts.

    3. Was this thing expedited? How long does it usually take from the incident for a murder trial to conclude?

      1. It is usually around a year but varies depending on jurisdiction and speedy trials guarantees.

      2. ” How long does it usually take from the incident for a murder trial to conclude?”

        Depends on what else is on the schedule.

    4. Wait, you are Ok with the prosecutions ‘fast and loose’ behavior wrt discovery? Because the prosecution dumped evidence onto the defense during the trial, more than once. That was wrong. Or are you simpatico with that, and that is par for the course.

      I thought that crossed the line past ‘gamesmanship’.

      1. That’s a good point, Commenter_XY, and I think it will be one of the bases of appeal. I don’t recall the exact number, but there were in excess of 500 individual pieces of evidenced dumped on Nelson during the trial. In addition, the prosecutor crossed the line several times during summation, and that’s an opportunity for appeal.

        1. Don’t forget to account for wishful thinking.

        2. What annoys me the most is the prosecution did not have to do that. The prosecution did not have to resort to that….cheating (not a legal term, but it fits); this case was a lock. The video tells the story. Chauvin is guilty (people disagree on what). But the prosecution affirmatively made a choice to behave that way (e.g. screw with the discovery process). They did it because they could. That is the part that really bothers me the most, ThePublius. The prosecution did it, knowing they would get away with it.

          We need a long, thoughtful discussion about the boundaries of prosecutorial discretion.

          1. There have been countless police abuse cases that looked like a lock, going all the way back to cops wailing on Rodney King. If I was a prosecutor interested in a conviction, I’d leave nothing to chance.

            1. There’s a heck of a difference between leaving nothing to chance, and violating the right of the defendant to a fair trial. You screw with discovery that way, you’ve denied the defendant a fair trial.

              I really see this case being retried, for more than one reason. But the prosecution’s discovery games will be one of them.

            2. Oh, so cheating is Ok? That doesn’t sound like you, grb.

              1. (1) I don’t have the slightest idea whether the prosecutor did or didn’t cheat on discovery. I didn’t follow the case that closely.

                (2) It’s my (nonlawyer) understanding that both sides regularly push the legal boundaries on discovery, particularly prosecutors.

                (3) My only point was there is no such thing as a “lock” with police abuse cases, where a video of a policeman shooting someone in the back five times results in a hung jury.

              2. Criminal trials in America are knock-down drag-out fights between the two lawyers. They are full of tactics you might think of as unfair, on both sides.

                But cheating is just a misapprehension of the rules.

  20. Capitol riot suspect ‘viciously’ beaten in jail, may lose sight

    WASHINGTON — An attorney for a Capitol riot defendant says her client was “savagely” beaten by a guard while in custody at the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility and may lose sight in one eye because of his injuries.

    Elisabeth Pasqualini is one of the lawyers representing Ryan Samsel, a Pennsylvania man accused of pushing over barriers and knocking down a police officer…

    Samsel has been in federal custody since his arrest in January on charges of forcibly assaulting or interfering with a federal agent, obstructing an official proceeding and obstructing an officer.

    This week, another Capitol riot defendant, Ronald Sandlin, told a federal judge during a bail hearing that Samsel was one of a number of defendants in the case who had experienced violence from D.C. correctional officers.

    In an interview with WUSA9, Pasqualini said Samsel had been “viciously and savagely” beaten by a corrections officer who zip-tied his hands first. She says she was only alerted to the alleged attack when two attorneys representing other defendants contacted her and said her client had gotten “a beatdown” by a guard and was in the hospital.

    “He has definitely suffered serious injuries, including a shattered orbital floor, a broken orbital bone, his jaw was broken, his nose was broken,” Pasqualini said. According to Pasqualini, Samsel is currently unable to see out of his right eye and may permanently lose vision in it.

    Even before the alleged assault, Pasqualini says her client was being held in lockdown for 23 hours a day and was having difficulty getting access to hygiene supplies and the shower. She says he has since been moved to another jail facility, where he remains under lockdown.

    https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/national/capitol-riots/dc-corrections-officer-savagely-beat-capitol-riot-suspect-attorney-says-ryan-samsel/65-ee38f382-4686-4dd6-9486-5db67c5bc794

    1. Our jails suck in a nonpartisan fashion.

    2. Has this been a pet issue of yours, ML, or just a recent interest now that some of your fellow travelers are getting to enjoy the treatment they wished on so many others?

    3. I don’t think the US can lecture any other country about “political prisoners” because that is exactly what the people who participated in the capitol hill event are being held as.

      1. Only in the sense that they had political motivations for their common crimes.

        1. In our constitutional system we reserve punishment for after conviction, not before….

          1. I don’t think that’s response to the point about whether they could be considered political prisoners.

            1. People who commit similar crimes are released without bail, or even have charges dropped immediately, in jurisdictions across the United States — because their politics are accepted by the people in charge of those cities and states. That is not true of these people, making them political prisoners.

              1. What similar crimes? Which people in jurisdictions across the United States attempted a coup?

            2. They are, by definition. Politics is the only reason for the imbalance in treatment of Capitol protesters and BLM and Antifa protesters.

              It’s like the FBI continuing to call the Scalise shooting “suicide by cop” and not an act of domestic terrorism.

              1. There is no imbalance in treatment. They did different stuff. Those who rioted this summer are in jail, awaiting trial.

                And Antifa is not protesting, you just threw them in there to be scary, eh?

          2. “In our constitutional system we reserve punishment for after conviction, not before….”

            Unless a cop delivers summary execution.

            1. Which happens like almost never in this big huge country…..

            2. Whining, vanquished right-wing bigots — worried about incarcerated. anti-American insurrectionists — are among my favorite culture war casualties.

  21. Tensions are running high between guards and inmates at a D.C. jail housing many of the defendants in Jan. 6 cases..

    “Myself and others involved in the Jan. 6 incident are scared for their lives, not from each other but from correctional officers,” Sandlin said during a bail hearing ..

    In an unusual direct plea to the judge, Sandlin said another Capitol riot defendant, Ryan Samsel, “was severely beaten by correctional officers, [is now] blind in one eye, has a skull fracture and detached retina.”

    Sandlin also described racial tension between minority guards and the largely white defendants, some of whom have been publicly accused of membership in or association with white supremacist groups.

    Sandlin said guards tackled “to the ground” one high-profile prisoner, Richard Barnett, 60, who was photographed with his boot up on a desk in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. Sandlin said one of the guards declared, “I hate all white people and your honky religion.”

    Barnett is charged with.. entering Pelosi’s office and putting his feet on the furniture ..

    Steven Metcalf, a lawyer for Samsel, said that after his client complained last month about slow delivery of toilet paper, he was zip-tied, moved to a cell outside the view of surveillance cameras and brutally beaten by guards.

    “I have seen Ryan. He has two black eyes to this day, two weeks later. All the skin is ripped off both wrists, which shows the zip ties and how tight they were,” said Metcalf, also from New York. “Other inmates said his face looked like a tomato that was stomped on.”

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/06/capitol-riot-defendant-beating-guards-479413

    1. So we should reform law enforcement and prosecute bad cops, right?

      1. That would be useful

        1. No Don, these Capital protestors are the “wrong sort” of people. There won’t be any charges at all for roughing them up.

          1. AL,
            Start somewhere, anywhere or nothing will change.

          2. “No Don, these Capital protestors are the “wrong sort” of people. There won’t be any charges at all for roughing them up.”

            They should think of that before deciding to engage in criminal acts.

            1. And James goes full authoritarian

              1. The right-wing rubes who disrupted our democratic process at the Capitol were the authoritarians in this context.

                Getting stomped in the culture war, by your betters, has made you cranky, Armchair Lawyer. Try to lose with a bit of dignity.

              2. Says the guy going full illiterate.

            2. “They should think of that before deciding to engage in criminal acts.”

              For the slow who didn’t recognize it, that’s a straight-up quote of Republicans responding to complaints of police brutality.

    2. Holy fuck, the lawyer is taking pictures right? Surely there is some human rights organization that would jump at the opportunity to poke America in the eye.

      1. Doesn’t matter. They’ll just say he must have tripped and fallen.

  22. Who killed Ashli Babbit?

    1. Doesn’t matter. Only cops that kill people of certain demographics get demonized. The others are “celebrated” and protected because that is way tribalism works these days….

      1. Are there any journalists at all looking into this story?

        1. I think the threshold question is – are there any “journalists” left?

      2. A woman gets shot, you think it was a bad shooting, and you get mad at people who have nothing to do with either what brought her there or the person who shot or or the institution to which that person belongs. If you’re mad at people not taking up her cause, shouldn’t you be looking at her compatriots and supporters and people on her side of the political divide first before castigating others?

    2. Who cares, other than traitors?

      1. Lots of people.

        Do you think cops should get to remain anonymous when they kill people who are peacefully protesting?

        Or is it just if they kill peaceful protestors that you disagree with?

        1. Your choice of person to be concerned about is quite telling. But you know that.

          1. Look, I’ve got Babbit down as “suicide by cop”, given the circumstances. But it is STILL rather conspicuous that in THIS case, they’ll guard the name of the cop, when the usual procedure seems to be releasing the name even if it’s predictably going to result in death threats.

            Look, I can see a case for concealing the name, I can see a (better) case for releasing the name, but pick one, don’t just switch back and forth depending on the politics of the victim.

            1. They do that in lots of cases, Brett. You just don’t see it because the right doesn’t highlight it.

        2. Point to where I said what you imagine I said.

        3. I don’t know who these “peaceful protesters” are you talking about. Ashley Babbit was a traitor in a sea of traitors. They should have opened fire with live ammo the second the building was breached.

        4. Babbitt was climbing through broken glass doors in an attempt to breach a barricade and enter the Speaker’s Lobby which leads directly to the House floor where some members of Congress had taken refuge.

          1. She was a peaceful protestor.

            1. Breaking a barricade designed to keep people away from Congress members who had been threatened is a peaceful protest?

              1. Pretty sure she didn’t break anything. Even if she did cause some minor property damage still yes, going by the current definition of peaceful protestor.

                1. She didn’t break the glass window. She climbed through the already-broken glass window to break through a barrier designed to protect members of Congress. That’s what you believe is the current definition of a peaceful protest?

                  1. She wasnt violent, ergo, she was peaceful. A peaceful protestor.

                    Babbitt aside, the protest as a whole was what is known as a mostly peaceful protest.

                    1. Breaking through a barrier to gain access to the location where Congress members are being protected from threats is peaceful?

                    2. M L : A peaceful protestor.

                      No doubt. Like those people screaming “lynch Mike Pence”……

                    3. Asked and answered.

                      Is it your contention that trespassing is violence?

                  2. It is my contention that trespassing into an area to gain access to people who have been threatened is not peaceful.

                2. Yeah we just got lectured last summer, all season long, about how property damage was no big deal…

            2. “She was a peaceful protestor.”

              Dead people are quite peaceful.

        5. ” Do you think cops should get to remain anonymous when they kill people who are peacefully protesting? ”

          That question is irrelevant in the context of Ashli Babbitt.

          Except in the minds of the marginalized right-wing bigots this blog attracts.

        6. Do you think cops should get to remain anonymous when they kill people who are peacefully protesting?

          No. In fact, I don’t think cops should get to remain anonymous when they kill people who are violently attempting a coup, either. Like Babbit.

    3. Her actions resulted in her death.

      Cry more about it – it’s entertaining.

      1. Personal responsibility is only applicable to people with the “wrong” political persuasion.

        1. But enough about YOUR political orthodoxy.

      2. It’s not like she was about to stab someone.

        1. As far as you know.

    4. A public employee, doing his duty.

      Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

  23. A little shocked I am not seeing much about this at reason. LEO donates $US25 to Kyle Rittenhouse defense fund and includes an email message of support. He is quickly fired.

    It is bad enough that he was doxed by hacked data. While he did use his work email account that does not seem to figure into the city’s decision to fire him. From the yahoo story:

    Norfolk city manager Chip Filer said in a statement on Tuesday that he had accepted the recommendation of Chief Boone that Mr Kelly be relieved of duty.

    “His egregious comments erode the trust between the Norfolk Police Department and those they are sworn to serve,” he said.

    “The City of Norfolk has a standard of behavior for all employees, and we will hold staff accountable.”

    In a separate statement, Chief Boone said the force “did not want perceptions of any individual officer to undermine the relations between the Norfolk Police Department and the community.”

    While there may be some work related rules about using a work email account I am not sure that is a firing offense. Again not sure about 1A protections either. The LEO was a 18+year vet of the force with no previous problems mentioned. He did work in IA as a supervisor so not sure of his relations with the community.

    In any case seems like a real over reaction to me.

      1. Exactly. My idea is we all boycott partisan strife – bleeding heart liberals & zombie undead conservatives alike – until management caves to our demands and provides an edit function.

        A few days of tumbleweeds rolling thru empty comments sections and the Man will learn he can’t oppress us! My only worry is Volokh will bring in scab commentators…..

        1. Volokh is the SCOTUS of Reason. He avoids anything controversial. Like geez I wonder what legal proceeding happened last week that was of interest?
          Instead lets discuss stuff no one gives a FF about

          1. What happened? Was there a big First or Second Amendment case that we missed?

            Or, are you just an idiot?

          2. Prof. Volokh is trying to make right-wingery more palatable, or even popular, among a broader audience.

            That’s not easy. He is probably doing his best with what he has.

    1. Might be an over-reaction, but at will employment is a thing.

      1. I’m sure the cop is union, so probably not at-will.

        1. Fair point. Presumably the union can/will file a grievance in that case so he’ll get a more thoughtful review of his employment situation than most people would.

          1. Hahaha. No, the union will throw the officer under the bus because Orange Man Bad.

            1. ” No, the union will throw the officer under the bus because Orange Man Bad.

              Orange Man Gone. Get a new schtick.

          2. Police unions are a huge part of the problem. They protect bad actors at all costs. Another huge problem is police culture, from the street cop all the way up to leadership, that imbues a cowboy attitude that is beyond accountability.

            1. Most of them are professional, but there is an element of training that focuses on the notion that there are unseen risks every second, and dangers waiting to pounce upon the poor defenseless policeman. The “officer safety” paradigm is a big part of what’s broken in modern police work.

    2. It’s pretty worrying really.

      Donate to people, get doxxed and fired?

      1. It is the intended result of cancel culture. That is to shame people from participating in democracy who do not espouse the “correct” beliefs. And it works well too. I’ve run into a number of people that are scared to even register republican because they don’t want the hassle at work when someone inevitably checks the online voter rolls…

        1. It;s not the fault of cancel culture, whatever that is, that the Republican brand has become so toxic.

          1. That is some good victim blaming there. I hope your day job isn’t dealing with rape victims.

        2. “It is the intended result of cancel culture. That is to shame people from participating in democracy who do not espouse the “correct” beliefs. And it works well too. I’ve run into a number of people that are scared to even register republican”

          Considering that Republicans invented it and employed it for decades, the boo-hooing over it is amusing.

      2. I thought we’re supposed to celebrate accused criminals having the support of good defense attorneys?

    3. ” I am not sure that is a firing offense.”

      Which matters not at all, in the sense that nobody’s giving you authority to make firing decisions regarding police officers.

  24. Did anyone else think it was sort of weird there was such a diverse selection of people just hanging around the corner bodega in the middle of the day when Floyd decided to do all the drugs and pass a clearly counterfeit bill? There was a firefighter, MMA fighter, whites, blacks, hispanics, a real cross section of America right there on that corner at that exact time. I’m night saying it was a set up or conspiracy, just thought it was interesting that in sort of a crappy neighborhood, in front of a junky store, there were so many truly diverse people….

    1. I believe it was wonderful that a 17-year-old witness had the bearing and courage to record the event. Without her judgment and effort, the original police story might have prevailed, rather than justice.

      1. Yeah ain’t that convenient…..

        1. And the device used to make the recordings just happens to be a product of a big tech company. What a coincidence.

          1. Sometimes I think wingnuts just can’t win in modern America . . .

            . . . and I enjoy another beer.

            Carry on, clingers. If your betters permit, that is.

            1. “Sometimes I think”

              Assumes facts not in evidence.

  25. The Senate has passed a bill to fight Asian Hate crime.

    It not exactly clear what this bill actually does and the bipartisan support suggests it doesn’t do much at all.

    Not withstanding the recent shooting in Atlanta and Indianapolis, and all of the media attention no one has come forward and confirmed that either these were motivated by anti-Asian animus.

    According to published reports:

    The Atlanta shootings seem to have been primarily motivated by religious guilt over the shooters sex addiction and using massage parlors for sexual gratification.

    The Indianapolis shooting is less clear but it seems the shooter was motivated by animosity toward his former employer who happened to employ a large number Sikhs in that facility.

    1. Can we agree that mass shooting is not an appropriate response to guilt over religious hypocrisy OR not liking your boss?

      1. There’s very little that mass shooting is ever an appropriate response to, and basically nothing that mass shootings of innocents is an appropriate response to.

        1. “There’s very little that mass shooting is ever an appropriate response to…”

          Unless it’s Right Wing insurrectionists, in which case it’s perfectly fine to shoot them, even if they’re unarmed women.
          Just ask any liberal.

          1. There was no mass shooting of right-wing insurrectionists. Just ask any rational person.

        2. Or Republican Congressmen trying to play a game of baseball. Then when a Bernie Bros reigns down bullets on your for about 10 minutes straight it is “suicide by cop.”

        3. Brett Bellmore : There’s very little that mass shooting is ever an appropriate response to, and basically nothing that mass shootings of innocents is an appropriate response to.

          An opportunity to whole heartily approve a Brett Bellmore comment! (maybe I should go out and buy a lottery ticket too…)

          1. Don’t get used to it. He can turn on a dime.

      2. No shooting of any innocent is ever justified.

    2. Well its all fun and games to have a special “Asian Hate Crimes” law until they discover that about 90% of the Asian hate crimes are committed by blacks and about 0% by the imaginary white supremacists.

      Oops never mind.

  26. BLM domestic terrorists storm OK capitol and no mentions of insurrection in the media. Does this surprise anyone….?

    1. Surprised, no. After all the NYT employs Paul Krugman who just denied that any real such riots happen. The DOJ is dropping charges on rioters who attacked a federal courthouse in Portland. It’s a sure bet if you’re leftist and want to riot you’ll get a slap on the wrist. If you want to waltz through the Capitol and take selfies, expect a prison sentence. That is life in Stalinist Amerika.

      1. Meanwhile we have political prisoners being assaulted in DC jails because they are part of the “wrong” political movement.

    2. That you’re lying about what happened? No, that doesn’t surprise anyone. There were no terrorists and no storming.

    3. “BLM domestic terrorists storm OK capitol and no mentions of insurrection in the media.”

      when a racist white guy decided to try to get some attention in OK capitol, he blew up a daycare, and that got PLENTY of press coverage.
      The lesson here is that the media are super biased, and not that blowing up daycares full of kids is worse than spray-painting slogans on buildings.

    1. Rolling out to client states with oppressive governments, like Venezuela or in Africa, soon!

    2. “China launches app to report people with ‘mistaken opinions’ ”

      US Republicans kicking themselves because they didn’t think of it first.

  27. The US Postal Service is running a ‘covert operations program’ that monitors Americans’ social media posts for ‘inflammatory content’

    1. Maybe that’s why they can’t seem to find time to deliver my damn packages….

    2. Link or it didn’t happen.

        1. Pres. Biden can’t get Louis DeJoy and the other Trump appointees and nominees out of the Post Office fast enough.

      1. Link or it didn’t happen.

        Are you really that inept and helpless?

        Let me Google that for you

        1. So inept as to make a claim with no evidence, demanding the other people employ google-fu to figure out wtf you’re whining about?

  28. VIDEO: ‘I hate white people,’ black law student leader says

    University of Miami law school remains silent after several students filed complaints

    https://www.thecollegefix.com/video-i-hate-white-people-black-law-student-leader-says/

      1. Funny term, describes a core MO of far-left mainstream media and their viewers.

        I’m not nutpicking. I don’t claim that the hateful viewpoints expressed are representative of any broader group, like the mainstream media incessantly does with anyone on the right.

        Rather, what’s notable here is that the student would have been expelled already if they were white and said that they hate black people.

        1. I don’t claim that the hateful viewpoints expressed are representative of any broader group
          Funny. The website you link sure does.

          what’s notable here is that the student would have been expelled already if they were white and said that they hate black people.

          Now you’re nutpicking and doing a counterfactual.

          You really live in a reality all your own.

          1. Where did the article say that this individual’s statement is representative of a broad group? I didn’t see that, but anyway, I wasn’t noting this for any editorializing by the journalist, just for the reported events.

            Again, where’s the nutpicking? What’s the nutty thing that I’m falsely attributing to a broader group?

            1. What’s the nutty thing that I’m falsely attributing to a broader group?

              Thank you for asking. The short answer: your comment presumes an unforgivable false equivalence.

              A black person who says, “I hate white people,” should enjoy a presumption for a forgivable motive for doing so, based on damaging effects of either tacit or overt racism expressed by so many white people. Also, white people manage social structures, social norms, and socially-mediated activities which—whether intended to do so or not—inflict readily measurable disparate impacts on black people.

              Those are everyday problems which can be considered without need of any more extensive analysis of the historical impact on blacks of slavery, the end to Reconstruction, Jim Crow, lynching, and violent white resistance to the black civil rights struggle. But would it be plausible, forgivable, or even sane for a white person to expect black people to put aside that history, and its demonstrable continuing impacts? No, it would not. And yet you not only hold that expectation, you demand it of others.

              Even today, 156 years after the Civil War, it is easy to find white people who begrudge the nation the inflictions used against the South, to quell that moral outrage of a rebellion to preserve slavery. And it remains easy to find other whites to say such grievances have their justifications. Unscrupulous whites say that— and then turn around to demand that blacks forget utterly the far greater inflictions imposed against them by the South before and during the Civil War, and imposed against them across the entire nation afterward. That takes unscrupulousness to extremes.

              See M L, there are folks who don’t put on the blinders you use to promote a grievance-based white ideology of false equivalence. They see it differently than you do. They can understand that it is a miracle to find any intelligent, reasonably aware black person who does not hate white people.

              And yet such virtuous paragons of mild-mannered forgiveness are commonplace among blacks. That is a fact which I have all my life had trouble understanding, but which I credit gratefully as a gift from blacks to whites on all the frequent occasions when I have received its benefit.

              Now, M L, do the thought experiment. Turn all that around, keeping actual history as your context, but replacing the perceptions of blacks with those of whites, and vice-versa, and see if any of it makes any sense to you. It is totally nutty to suppose so. There is no equivalence at all in any such assertion.

        2. “I’m not nutpicking. I don’t claim that the hateful viewpoints expressed are representative of any broader group, like the mainstream media incessantly does with anyone on the right.”

          That’s because nutty ideas ARE common on the right, and less so for other groups. That’s the price of getting your marching orders from nut-jobs with AM radio programs.

  29. Example of how “conservatives” are sometimes hypocritical and/or ignorant on the Constitution. They’re very concerned with fidelity to the Constitution when it aligns with their political desires, less so when it doesn’t.

    https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/20/does-the-federal-government-have-the-power-to-regulate-immigration-thomas-jefferson-and-james-madison-said-no/

    1. In the early nineteenth century, the federal government wasn’t actually trying to limit immigration, and the United States more-or-less happily accepted everyone who showed up tempest-tossed upon our shore. (unless they were sick with a communicable disease). then some racists decided we had too many Chinese folk running around, making Chinese-Americans, and racist immigration policy was born.

  30. Any views on state laws which purport to protect drivers who injure or kill protestors? The question whether any of them invite federal civil rights charges interests me, but I have no qualifications even to guess.

    1. That particular problem will be resolved (ish) when a few protesters, attacked with deadly force by a two-ton killing machine, stand their ground and return fire with a handheld killing machine. That’ll put a damper on driving over people as a form of counter-protest.

  31. Also, in a stand-your-ground state, what happens to a protestor who shoots an oncoming driver in self-defense, or in defense of other protestors?

    1. Depends on how good his (or her) aim is.

Please to post comments