Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The New York Attorney General has filed a response to the effort of Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump to avoid being deposed and producing documents in the New York civil investigation of the Trump Organization. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/memo-of-law-2022-01-18.pdf The filings there, including a verified supplemental petition, show a compelling case for placing the three Respondents under oath to testify.

Donald Trump and the Trump Organization have sued the Attorney General in federal district court in New York seeking a preliminary injunction requiring that the state investigation be stayed or, in the alternative, requiring that the Attorney General recuse herself from being involved in the investigation. In keeping with the maxim about being careful what one asks for, it may be appropriate to simply notice Donald Trump for a deposition in the federal proceeding.

[AmosArch]

People call me a fan of Trump yet even I can't fathom being as obsessed with him as so many people like you seem to be.

[not guilty]

Call it obsession, or call it what you will. The man deserves prison time.

[Michael P]

So do Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden, but you don't obsess over them in all these threads.

[not guilty]

Supporting facts? Or just confirmation bias?

Trump attempted and conspired to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding of Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) and 1512(k). He is under criminal investigation in New York and Georgia. Let's hope he goes to prison sooner rather than later.

[Life of Brian]

Trump attempted and conspired to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding of Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2)

"(c)Whoever corruptly . . . (2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so"

A vague, overbroad, never before construed statute? That's all you have to work with in this supposed attempt to overthrow the nation? Really?

[Life of Brian]

For the pedants, "never before construed" refers to "a proceeding before the Congress" in 1515(a)(1)(B), which is what you have to hang your hat on to call the certification ceremony an "official proceeding."

[not guilty]

That issue has been litigated in the cases of several January 6 defendants. At least three district court judges have opined that the certification of the electoral college vote is an official proceeding within the meaning of section 1521(c)(2).
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.226726/gov.uscourts.dcd.226726.558.0.pdf

[Life of Brian]

That issue has been litigated in the cases of several January 6 defendants.

Of course -- that was the "never before" part. Citing a bloc of coordinated opinions about the very same One Bad Thing they suddenly want the vague overbroad statute to cover after sitting untouched on the books for 40 years is a circularity.

[Krychek_2]

"Coordinated opinions"? You got any evidence to back up that fairly serious claim of judicial misconduct?

[Life of Brian]

Sorry, not biting on the overwrought distractions. Perhaps you'd like to speak to the merits? One more time:

This results-oriented construction of a dustbin statute is seriously the best option this country has to prosecute what is supposedly the worst attack on democracy in the history of our country since the Civil War?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, if you believe all the courts are wrong and in bad faith, you can substitute whatever weird legal opinion you have and then go from there!

But it's not a really realistic way to go.

[Krychek_2]

If you think it's a distraction, don't make the claim. You're the one claiming coordination.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that question about you addressing the merits was largely rhetorical. Unsurprising, since there is no defense to this desperately contrived folderol.

[Krychek_2]

LOB, I think you're confusing me with someone else. The point remains, though, if you think that issue is a distraction, don't make it. Once you've made it, it's a legitimate point of inquiry.

[Life of Brian]

Nah, you've just latched onto a single contextual adjective like a little rat terrier latches onto a loose slipper and worries it to death while shrilly yapping in the hope it'll distract from the puddle on the carpet.

After multiple invitations, it's now crystal clear that you have no cogent response to my overarching argument and are desperately trying to redirect from that.

If you change your mind, please feel free to fill us in with your thoughts on (1) why the statute at issue is not vague and overbroad; and (2) why prosecutors are reduced to relying on such a statute for what is ostensibly the worst thing to happen to the Republic in ~100 years.

If you care to do that, I'll be happy to clarify my thoughts on the word that is supposedly giving you the vapors. If not... let's just say I won't be shocked. Always a pleasure.

[Krychek_2]

LOB, two boys were once walking through a cemetery and saw a headstone that said, "He is not dead, but sleeping." One turned to the other and said, "He ain't foolin' nobody but himself."

Neither are you.

[Life of Brian]

Yap yap!

Nope -- not shocked. LOL

[Queen Amalthea]

LoB: No, that's not X!
Response: Well, three district courts have found it is X. Here's a 49 page opinion finding that.
LoB: Pfft, that's just a conspiracy!
Response: Uh, any evidence of that?
LoB: Hm, don't want to address the merits, eh?

Lol, you can't make this up.

[Life of Brian]

that's just a conspiracy!

I think you misspelled "post-hoc rationalization." But thanks for playing.

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, yeah Brian, a 'bloc of coordinated post hoc rationalizations!'

You're clearly flailing, but if I had to root my world view in ConspiracyLand I guess I would be as well!

[not guilty]

Life of Brian, what part(s) of Judge Mehta´s analysis do you disagree with? And what, if anything, is your countervailing authority? Please be specific.

[Life of Brian]

Please be specific.

That's a bit rich after just throwing out a link to a ~50-page opinion without saying why you think it's correct (other than that you like it).

But hey, I'm in a good mood. More notable issues include pesky little statutory interpretation breadcrumbs like the original context of the legislation (the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982), Congress's stated purpose of the legislation ("(1) to enhance and protect the necessary role of crime victims and witnesses in the criminal justice process; (2) to ensure that the Federal Government does all that is possible within limits of available resources to assist victims and witnesses of crime without infringing on the constitutional rights of the defendant; and (3) to provide a model for legislation for State and local governments."), and likely a good deal more in the legislative history to clearly demonstrate that the "official proceedings" envisioned here were of the investigative and adjudicatory ilk (you know, stuff that involves "victims" and "witnesses"), not any meeting for any purpose whatsoever. Mehta's judicial equivalent of "nuh uh" to all this (whipping out Merriam Webster on a word not even in the statute, but in the defendants' briefing -- really?) isn't persuasive and doesn't appear intended to be.

And as I already said multiple times, that part of the statute has never been interpreted before, in any context, with respect to any particular act or class of acts. So in that sort of blue-sky situation it's childishly simple to engage in a bit of pretextual chin-stroking and perfectly thread the needle to capture the act at hand while providing a bit of results-oriented cover to exclude conduct that facially falls well within the scope of the ridiculously broad language (e.g., blocking traffic to the Capitol building, walking through a planned Congressional tea party on the South Lawn, or letting a particularly noxious fart in the House gallery). And Mehta didn't even really try to thread the needle that much -- his understatement that the language is "admittedly broad" is followed by little but rejoicing about how easy that makes it to determine culpability here.

Which leads to my next overarching concern: these defendants don't exactly have rockstar defense counsel. The overall texture of Mehta's opinion suggests pretty clearly that the arguments weren't briefed particularly well. So a good deal of the ~50 pages is spent just dutifully dealing with what actually was raised (probably to a bit of collective chuckling). Hopefully at least some of them both preserve enough viable arguments and have the resources and will to try to get a more considered opinion out of the Supremes.

[Life of Brian]

And lest it get lost in the shuffle, I'll also raise my more fundamental question one more time, in the hopes that someone will actually respond rather than the pattern so far of essentially saying "la la la, I can't hear you" and hoping to keep the distractions going long enough for me to go away.

This never-used, never-considered statute with a plethora of potential problems is the ONLY tool available to counter what we're supposed to believe is one of the most horrible offenses against the country in a century? That doesn't give you one nanosecond of pause?

[not guilty]

I never suggested section 1512 is the only tool. It is, in my opinion, the easiest to prove.

I hope that Trump, Eastman, Giuliani and others who conspired with them to enlist Pence in their nefarious scheme are tried, convicted and denied bail pending appeal.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's my understanding that "corruptly" in this context doesn't mean that you have bad motives, but instead that the means used are not legal. Bribes or extortion, or something like that, not just asking.

Otherwise you could hit people with this charge just because they asked somebody in an official proceeding to do something. Which is pretty much what happened here: Trump asked Pence to do something, no threat or bribe, Pence didn't do it, and he suffered no consequences for this decision.

[not guilty]

Your understanding means shit. Acting corruptly for purposes of section 1512(c) means acting with an improper purpose and engaging in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede or obstruct the proceeding. United States v. Friske, 640 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2001); United Statesv. Gordon, 710 F.3d 1124, 1151 (10th Cir. 2013).

Trump and his cohorts importuned Pence to unilaterally reject several states´ slates of electors, to thereby exercise authority that he did not lawfully possess, contrary to 3 U.S.C. 15. That is critical. They entreated him to violate the law. They did so based on the demonstrably false premise that Trump had in fact won the vote in several states which he did not. The purpose of this unlawful entreaty was for Trump to obtain a benefit to which he was not lawfully entitled -- a second term in office.

When things turned violent at the Capitol, Trump refused for hours to call off his supporters. This inaction can be seen as at least tacit approval of the mob´s conduct, probative of Trump´s vile state of mind.

There is ample evidence from which a properly instructed jury could find that Trump and his cohorts acted corruptly.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This is way too broad an interpretation. Let's give a different example to explain why.

During the second impeachment trial, it was stated that Officer Sicknick was killed by being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher by a protestor. This "fact" made it into the Congressional record, and was used to support charges of impeachment.

In fact, Sicknick was never hit with a fire extinguisher, and died of natural causes. Under your interpretation of 1512(c), all those who pushed this "fact" would then be guilty of engaging in conduct to subvert an official proceeding of Congress.

[not guilty]

Uh, no.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Uh, no"

A winning argument there...

"Uh, no" ..why?

Are you going to argue that the impeachment proceedings weren't official? Are you going to argue the "fact" wasn't false? Are you going to argue the "fact" wasn't designed to influence or subvert the proceedings?

Which tack do you want to take here? Or are you going to argue a different tack, and will you apply the same tack to the Trump argument you're making....

[BravoCharlieDelta]

These people are deranged and genuinely approve of one-sided political prosecutions.

They are truly evil and will face justice in this world or the next.

[Bob from Ohio]

"genuinely approve of one-sided political prosecutions"

They should study Cicero and the Optimates to see how that often works out.

[Queen Amalthea]

Yeah, I especially think it's troubling when they yell 'lock him up' amirite?

[Krayt]

Lock him up!

Lock her up!

Both sides are evil. 70% around here fail to realize they are in one of those two boats.

[Sarcastr0]

Knee jerk above it all cynicism is not a better position.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Both sides are evil. 70% around here fail to realize they are in one of those two boats."

Disaffected, antisocial, irrelevant right-wing losers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

Enjoy life at the whiny, inconsequential fringe, complying with the preferences of better Americans.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Farts in jars.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" in this world or the next "

Gullible, half-educated hayseeds dumb enough to believe childish fairy tales are true are among my favorite culture war casualties.

You should have joined the military, BCD. You're a born loser, and
a military that hasn't won a war in 75 years would be a perfect fit for you. You would plainly do your part to ensure the series of vague draws against ragtag irregulars would continue.

[Krychek_2]

And that comment would be relevant if this thread were about Hillary Clinton or Hunter Biden, but it's not. It's about Donald Trump. And maybe we don't spend time on Hillary or Hunter is that (1) neither of them ever tried to subvert basic democracy and (2) neither of them is still active in politics, so the comparison isn't even apt on its facts.

[Michael P]

This is the Thursday Open Thread, not the Open Season On Trump Thread. People post about whatever they want -- and I want to point out the blatant hypocrisy and narrowmindness endemic to the guilty left. The fact that you think those two didn't attempt to subvert basic democracy or are still active in politics shows how blinkered you are.

[Krychek_2]

How did they attempt to subvert basic democracy?

[Michael P]

https://www.yahoo.com/now/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html

Hunter Biden's entire shtick is peddling influence and access. He subverts democracy by selling it out to Chinese and Russian bidders, when he's not having his father's Secret Service buddies destroy evidence of his felonies or impregnating strippers.

[Krychek_2]

Expressing an opinion that an election "was not on the level" and encouraging a riot are not exactly the same thing. At this point you're desperate to find a comparison, but it's not there.

And prosecutors from both parties have been looking at claims against Hunter Biden for a long time. That they haven't brought charges indicates maybe there's nothing there.

[Michael P]

If you stretch logic so far as to claim that Trump encouraged a riot, Clinton has done that and more. RIP Vince Foster, Seth Rich, Jeffrey Epstein. (Okay, Epstein doesn't deserve peace. But you get the point.)

Maybe there are no legitimate charges to be filed against the son of a prominent politician who is now president. And maybe political pressures were applied to prevent them. When the Secret Service disappears a handgun that Hunter Biden illegally possessed, and when "nobody saw nuthin" yet everyone knows Hunter was doing crack in DC nightclubs, I know which way smart money goes.

[Krychek_2]

Me too; the smart money is that you've completely fallen for conspiracy theories. I'm surprised you haven't alleged Hillary Clinton was behind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There are actual text messages and Hunter Biden talking about incest with his underage niece.

That's not a conspiracy.

[Queen Amalthea]

Cite please.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"Hallie go ahead and talk to him but only with me present — the past time I let you speak to my therapist you told them I was sexually inappropriate with Natalie — I told Keith about that also and he said and you did not immediately get out of the relationship– that’s a line that if you cross and the consequences is you are labeled a child molester – that’s a line brighter than throwing my gun in a full trash can in a busy grocery store and…"

[Queen Amalthea]

That's not a citation, that's a bunch of barely coherent words.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Those are Hunter's crack riddled words.

Of course you don't know this because you probably still believe the "Laptop from Hell" was Russian disinfo like your mindmasters commanded you believe.

[Queen Amalthea]

Do you literally not know what a citation is?

Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised if you didn't...

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You don't command me like I'm your dog.

I provided you quotes. I know what you morons do. Any website that hosts these quotes you will use the domain to dismiss out of hand then you will claim they are only true if they appear on some hack rag like the NYT.

As if any mainstream source is unbiased on this issue, which you idiots pretend to be true.

This is how you morons operate. I provided the quote. I don't care if you don't like how I did so and you can't dictate how I present my arguments.

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, you actually eventually do understand that a quote is not a cite, you just have no cite! Conspiracy nut.

[Krychek_2]

And no, it's not hypocritical to talk about one subject at a time. Having a conversation about roses does not require one to also mention tulips.

[Michael P]

It is hypocritical to complain that people talk about different things on an open thread while defending the first person's choice of topic.

It is also hypocritical to implicitly justify one's Trump Derangement Syndrome by claiming that he belongs in prison while paying no attention to many other politicians and hangers-on who belong in prison at least as much.

It is especially amusing when the TDS patient relies on such a corrupt state as New York to fuel the delusions. What happened to the last three people to be elected Attorney General of the state?

[Krychek_2]

Take two valium and have a nap; you'll feel better.

[I Callahan]

And you lost with that ad-hom.

[Krychek_2]

No, because he'd already lost before I made it.

Look, when someone shows up here and argues conspiracy theories, you don't seriously expect them to be treated as anything other than crazy conspiracy theories, do you?

[Queen Amalthea]

He's probably into more than a few himself, so the answer's likely yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it's so convenient to rule out pointing out double standards, isn't it? As long as the topic of conversation can be limited to the case at hand, that a double standard is being applied is just inadmissible to discuss.

[Krychek_2]

So it's a double standard to only talk about contract law without also mentioning torts?

No one has ever said that you can't start a conversation about Hillary Clinton or Hunter Biden. Just that it's tiresome to have every thread about Trump hijacked with "But what about . . ."

And they're not even on point anyway. Get back to us when either of them called the Georgia Secretary of State to ask him to change vote totals, or met with state legislators to ask them to set aside the results of the popular vote in their state, or instigated a riot at the Capitol when the electoral votes were being counted.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a double standard to say that a politician of the opposing party clearly deserves to spend time in prison, and attempt to prohibit any mention of people on your own side who are equally deserving, but walking free.

[Krychek_2]

Who's prohibiting what? My objection isn't to having a conversation about Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton; it's to hijacking every thread about Trump. And for reasons I've already pointed out, they're not even on point.

[bernard11]

Who is prohibiting?

Go on with your raving about Clinton's emails and Biden's laptop all you want.

But explain why whatever they did makes Trump innocent.

[DonP]

"Never Trumpers" with Stage 4 TDS all lead angry, frustrated lives.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Welcome to the mute list.

[Moderation4ever]

Really? Both Hillary and Hunter are out there and yet no prosecutor has chosen to bring charges. This suggests to me that there are no real charges to bring.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So you feel the same way about Trump?

[Krychek_2]

No because that's obviously still an ongoing investigation. It's my understanding prosecutors in at least three different jurisdictions are looking at him.

If all of the prosecutors currently looking at it ultimately decide there's nothing there, then yes, I would say the legal system has run it's course and it's time to move on. But until the investigations are over, there are no conclusions to be drawn.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You understand that Hunter is still under investigation, right?

[Michael P]

Clinton would probably be under investigation, too, if the FBI didn't give so many immunity agreements to Clinton's staffers.

[Krychek_2]

I could probably fly if I had wings.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

I find it hilarious you don’t mention Neal Bush who was actually successful at helping China develop a semiconductor industry while his brother just happened to be president. The scheming of the Bidens and Kushners and Trumps and Rodhams and Clintons is chump change compared to the scheming of the Bushes and Cheneys. Btw, Liz Cheney is the only female State Department employee with 5 children…was she dragging them on international flights to Azerbaijan to breast feed them?? George P Bush is currently running for AG in Texas and he worked as a lawyer for 3 years!?! You people are clueless!!

[Krychek_2]

I was not aware of that; I thought the Hunter investigations had concluded. Assuming you're right, then the same principle applies.

[Armchair Lawyer]

They have not. Hillary may be under investigation as well, for her role in pushing the fake Russian Dosser... The threads are leading that way

[Krychek_2]

Don't forget my qualifier, "assuming you're right".

[Sarcastr0]

That is quite the long shot, AL.

[David Nieporent]

They have not. Hillary may be under investigation as well, for her role in pushing the fake Russian Dosser... The threads are leading that way

As Jesse Jackson used to chant: "Keep hope alive!"

[I Callahan]

Jesus, Dave, that’s not a reply. Are you really of the belief that the things Trump did are way worse than what Clinton did, or that Clinton did nothing? Is that your view? If so; why?

[Queen Amalthea]

That's not what David is talking about, he's mocking this hope that any day now Clinton is going to be indicted.

[Sarcastr0]

I absolutely think the things Trump did are worse than what Hillary did.
But then I care about suborning elections more than whatever esoteric classification pissing match the right came up with.

How many Benghazi hearings were there? And you're complaining about this?! Get better standards.

[not guilty]

Resort to tu quoque indicates that a commenter has no substantive reply.

[Krychek_2]

I Callahan, yes, what Trump did is way worse than anything Clinton did (and I say that as someone who acknowledges Clinton did a lot of bad things). Clinton never called the Georgia Secretary of State asking that vote totals be changed, nor did she meet with state legislators and ask them to overturn the results of an election, nor did she incite a riot on January 6. Get back to us after she's done any of that stuff.

Call it TDS if you like but yes, he really is in a category all by himself.

[Sarcastr0]

Also, as not_guilty pointed out, it's a distraction to bring up Hillary at all.

And I fell for it.

But yeah, stay on target I Callahan and AL.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Clinton never called the Georgia Secretary of State asking that vote totals be changed"

She's got that in common with Trump; He didn't, either.

[Queen Amalthea]

Pedantic. He wanted votes to be 'found' which would change the totals.

[David Nieporent]

Other people answered, but just to make my position clear:

I am 10,000% of the belief that the things Trump did are way worse than what Clinton did, whatever the latter refers to. Clinton did not, for instance, try to violently overthrow the government. She did not try to coerce elections officials to throw out election results and install herself as president.

But precisely as QA said, I was actually mocking the idea that people are holding out hope that any day now Clinton is going to be indicted.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Pedantic. He wanted votes to be 'found' which would change the totals."

Not pedantic. It's the difference between demanding that the bank give you somebody else's money, and demanding that they conduct an audit that you expect will reveal that your check mistakenly got deposited to their account.

[Queen Amalthea]

You're ignoring some important things:
1. Trump is the POTUS
2. Also the titular head of the party the Sos is
3. Several audits had been conducted
4. And he asked for *the exact amount* of the result of such an 'audit' he needed

Your ignoring of these contexts speaks volumes.

[Queen Amalthea]

Also, you're even wrong in the literal sense. If the SoS 'found' the exact number of votes Trump asked to be found for him, the vote totals would change, no?

He literally asked for a finding that would change the vote totals to one where he won. Unprecedented and unconscionable.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Rosenstain was a Trump appointee that appointed Mueller. You must come to terms with the fact Bush Republicans attempted a coup against Trump and not Democrats who behaved like typical DC partisans.

[Queen Amalthea]

You're like a damaged Matrix program stuck in the 2000s.

[David Nieporent]

Not pedantic. It's the difference between demanding that the bank give you somebody else's money, and demanding that they conduct an audit that you expect will reveal that your check mistakenly got deposited to their account.

He didn't demand that they conduct an audit. He demanded that they find a specified number of votes — the exact number he needed to win.

[Bob from Ohio]

"10,000%"

Libertarian math.

[bernard11]

It is absolutely clear that the things Trump did are worse, far far worse, than anything Clinton did.

No rational person could believe otherwise.

Oh. And the Trump Administration did not distinguish itself when it came to emails either.

Should Nikki Haley be prosecuted?

And tell us, what do you think of Trump's cell phone practices. I'm sure you have excuses.

[Brett Bellmore]

" He demanded that they find a specified number of votes — the exact number he needed to win."

Again, go back to the transcript if your memory is deceiving you. He didn't demand that THEY find anything.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus, Brett.

Just a shameful display of self blinding.

[AmosArch]

Well let's see. We throw parades and give boatloads of taxpayer money to people who directly murder multiple fully developed viable babies or mutilate the sexual organs of children to 'transition' them. How much jail time should he get based on that standard?

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, reminds one of those defenders of Confederate monuments who say 'why are some people so obsessed with the past that they want to take down our beloved, towering, prominently placed, publicly maintained memorials?'

[David Nieporent]

You think talking about a current event involving the law in a law and current events blog shows "obsession"?

[John F. Carr]

Your honor: It's legal to force a person to plead the Fifth on the record. /s/ L.J.

I think the brief could have been distilled down to not much more than that. She's entitled to drag them in to either testify or invoke a privilege.

Does New York recognize a privilege for a corporate officer to refuse to produce corporate documents that would incriminate him? My understanding is the federal courts do not but some states do.

[not guilty]

Apparently the New York AG is empowered to issue investigative subpoenas for testimony and documents. The parallel criminal investigation is legitimate cause for concern, but the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination remains available. Eric Trump apparently invoked the privilege more than 500 times.

In the federal suit, it is Trump who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court (however ineptly). If he is noticed for a deposition and fails to appear, he could be sanctioned, up to and including involuntary dismissal. Federal judges do not view trifling with the court kindly.
Under those circumstances, he would be the author of his own misfortune.

[Bob from Ohio]

Motion for protective order. What are those?

[not guilty]

Motion for protective order based on what facts? Trump has moved for a preliminary injunction, supported by nothing but conclusory, unsworn pleadings. He has thereby opened himself up to discovery in federal district court -- his chosen forum.

[Bob from Ohio]

Being forced to give testimony/provide documents is the subject of the suit. Nothing Trump can say has any bearing on the legal question so discovery is premature.

The court is not going to permit discovery until it decides the legal question. Then the case is over.

[not guilty]

Have you read Trump´s federal complaint? https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21165208-trump-v-james It´s not about being forced to give testimony. And preliminary injunctive relief is fact specific and a proper subject of discovery.

There are grounds for a sua sponte dismissal. Abstention may be applicable pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The district court could decide that the pleading standards of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), are not met. But in any event, the court is not required to stay discovery.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its to end [or limit] the investigation. No investigation, no subpoenas, no testimony. So, ultimately its about Trump giving evidence.

"court is not required to stay discovery"

Of course. There won't be any discovery though.

"There are grounds for a sua sponte dismissal."

LOL The defendant will file a dismissal motion, the court will rule. Its not going to entertain your fantasies.

[not guilty]

Filing a motion to dismiss and taking advantage of available discovery -- thereby seeing Trump hoist with his own petard -- are not mutually exclusive. That would be schooling Trump on the maxim, be careful what you ask for.

[jimc5499]

So what gives the Attorney General of the STATE of New York any authority to investigate an incident that happened in Washington DC?

As far as Hilary Clinton is concerned, mishandling of classified information is a CRIME. There was plenty of evidence of her having classified documents on an unauthorized personal server.
She walks on it, while a sailor, is hammered for taking a picture inside of a nuclear submarine. The classification of the documents on Clinton's server have been verified, while the pictures taken in the sub have no classified items in them, his crime was in just taking the picture. The exact same control panel is visible in at least three documentaries on nuclear subs.

[not guilty]

The New York investigation is inquiring into conduct of the Trump Organization occurring primarily in New York. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/letitia-james-trump-filing-january-18-2022/e4038cab1ecf788a/full.pdf

[rsteinmetz]

They apparently haven't found anything criminal and releases a statement that Trump may have engaged “fraudulent or misleading” practices by apparently over valuing his properties to obtain loans.

I'm shocked a Real Estate Developer would attempt to borrow as much money as possible and produce valuations which were optimistic. I'm also shocked that large lenders haven't seen this kind of behavior before and taken steps to safeguard their investments.

[Bob from Ohio]

No lender relies on developer valuations. They always get an appraisal, and unlike pre-2008 home loans, large commercial loans get serious appraisals. Loan to value ratio is a big lending issue.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're shocked about a lot of things. Perhaps that's because you're rather ignorant of the law.

[bernard11]

"The all do it." Right, Steinmetz?

Hey, I was once told that defrauding a federally insured lender is a pretty serious criminal offense. Guess not.

[David Nieporent]

Why are you recycling stupid and irrelevant talking points? The sailor you refer to, Kristian Saucier, like everyone who gets "hammered" for mishandling classified information — and despite your claim, it was indeed classified, and it was not just "a picture" — engaged in obstruction of justice. Only the people who do something beyond mere mishandling get prosecuted.

And I have no idea why you think the AG of the state of NY is investigating something that happened in DC. She's investigating Trump's — or, strictly speaking, the Trump Organization's — business dealings in NY.

[Michael P]

Trump should have just wiped it all, like with a cloth. That way you get off the hook for obstructing justice by destroying evidence. At least when the FBI is super friendly towards you.

[David Nieporent]

You know that the FBI wasn't even investigating Hillary at the time said wiping occurred, right?

[Michael P]

You know there does not have to be an active investigation yet for an action to violate 18 USC sect. 1519, right?

[David Nieporent]

You there has to at least be one being contemplated at the time, right?

[M L]

Andrew Weissman, is that you?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Subpoenas. The judicial branch can issue subpoenas and enforce them. The executive branch can issue subpoenas and enforce them. The uniquely subpoena-powerless legislative branch can issue subpoenas and get laughed at. How come? Not a coequal branch? Was it not previously a thing that the legislative branch could enforce its own subpoenas?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, during the Teapot Dome scandal they enforced their own subpoenas by sending out their own people to arrest witnesses who didn't comply with subpoenas.

I think they're a little reluctant to risk a firefight between the Secret Service and their own sergeants at arms over what is, after all, just a political dirt digging operation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, there need be no such risk. First, most subpoenaed witnesses will not employ security, nor have it provided. For the others, levy fines, very large fines. Enforce them with liens on bank accounts and real estate.

By the way, does anyone know what happens legally if you are judged guilty of contempt of Congress, suffer seizure of considerable real estate as punishment, and then years later get a pardon from a re-elected crooked president? I hope not. Uncertainty would give something to think about to some witnesses who seem to suppose impunity.

[not guilty]

I don´t think seizure of real estate is an authorized punishment for contempt.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Are fines authorized? If fines are authorized, can they be secured with liens?

By the way, who gets to say what are authorized punishments for contempt of the House of Representatives?

I do not intend these questions rhetorically. I don't know the answers and would like to have them.

[not guilty]

2 U.S.C. 192:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thanks for that.

I wish I hadn't seen it. Guess I ought to stop hoping for compliance with House subpoenas.

[ducksalad]

Correct if I'm wrong, but aren't those after-the-fact punishments that could/would only be applied after a trial in a regular court?

That would be distinct from whatever measures Congress could take to coerce someone into compliance. Those are generally not considered "punishments", right? In the same way that handcuffs, tasers, tear gas, or towing a car aren't "punishments".

[not guilty]

You are right. The statutory penalties would require a trial in federal district court.

Congress can tell the House or Senate sergeant-at-arms to detain or imprison the person in contempt until he or she honors congressional demands. That has not happened in modern times.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,"

That seems to skip the trial part, and go directly to the verdict.

[not guilty]

No, there is still a trial required where the prosecutor must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cavanaugh, when a judge see contempt in front of him, is he required to schedule a trial before citing the contempt?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I don't know, Stephen. I'm commenting specifically on the actual text, which suggests they are in fact guilty - not just 'charged.'

It doesn't say "shall be charged with a misdemeanor." If that nuance isn't relevant, then neither is my comment.

[not guilty]

Contempt in the presence of a court can be punished summarily, per Fed.R.Crim.P. 42(b).

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, at least at the time of the Teapot Dome scandal, Congress had its own jail in the basement, that it could throw uncooperative witnesses into.

[Kazinski]

“That would be distinct from whatever measures Congress could take to coerce someone into compliance.”

A Bill of Attainder?

[Krayt]

The interest rate on his stuffed golden lion's poop is more than $1000 per day.

[bernard11]

a political dirt digging operation.

Right, just like those guys were tourists.

You are seriously deranged.

You know, it's amazing. The Trumpists deny they are cultists. Yet here we have a decidedly RW, Republican court ruling against Trump - even Trump's three appointees went against him - and according to the Trumpists here the decision is obviously incorrect and demonstrates complete anti-Trump bias. .

But hey, don't call Brett, Michael P., Amos, et al, cultists.

[Michael P]

You'll have to try harder to satisfy Paul Begala: "I think the problem for the Democrats right now is not that they have bad leaders. They have bad followers."

[Sarcastr0]

Oh no, Not Begala!

[Voize of Reazon]

Brett, why do you imagine the Secret Service would interfere? They are not the Trump family's personal muscle.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Congress can absolutely enforce its subpoenas. It just typically chooses not to at this point in history, presumably for political reasons.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur, for a political reason that it enjoys being made a mockery? Or maybe something better, but I can't think what. What political reasons would you suppose? The only thing I can come up with is maybe the House leaders prefer their own investigation be frustrated, so they can try to use that politically to bring out the base in the mid-term election. Which sounds really lame to me. I don't see how that could be it, but it is all I have.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's partly to avoid the potential of a physical conflict, it's mostly because they've let their actual capacity for in house enforcement whither, and because often they're just looking for headlines about issuing subpoenas.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Because Congress could use its contempt powers to compel compliance and chooses not to, I assume it's because the members (of both parties) have concluded that inaction benefits them more. They didn't make me privy to their discussions so if you want a detailed explanation of their calculus (or a defense of its accuracy) it will have to come from elsewhere.

[swood1000]

The judicial branch can issue subpoenas and enforce them.

The judicial branch cannot enforce its subpoenas. It relies on the executive branch for that, which is why Alexander Hamilton called it the “least dangerous branch” of government.

[Bob from Ohio]

Boy was he wrong.

[swood1000]

Would we be better off if the executive felt free to ignore the judiciary?

[Bob from Ohio]

I was commenting on "least dangerous". Now, its the most important one, both of the others are subordinate.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That's an unhinged take.

The judiciary is still far from the most important branch. Congress (and state legislatures) still pass the laws, the vast majority of which are not successfully challenged, and the President (governor / executive branches) sign and enforce them, again, usually without a successful court challenge. The policy of the nation is largely promoted, directed, and enforced by the legislative and executive branches. The judiciary nips around the edges sometimes in ways you don't like, but that hardly makes it the most important branch.

And that's even accounting for the fact that Congress has largely neutered itself, I still haven't seen the judiciary spend several trillion dollars in one year the way Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate did. Or start a war. Both of which are far more consequential than anything the Court has done. In its entire history.

Calling the judiciary the most important or most dangerous branch is pearl clutching at its most ridiculous.

[santamonica811]

Anyone have an understanding, in Trump's second impeachment trial in the Senate why those in charge (ie, Dems) did not require anonymous voting? I could not see anything in the text of the Constitution that forbids it. I know the idea was floated at the time. And I heard *Republicans* in the Senate speculate that, if the voting had been anonymous, there was a real chance that Trump could have been convicted by well over the 2/3 margin.

I spent some time today, thinking about how I (if I had magically been given the authority to craft some guidelines for such a vote) would have handled it. Maybe something like: Each vote is recorded and attached to a particular Senator. There are one or two unimpeachable (heh!) observers from each party. Their role would only be to confirm that, yes, Senator X voted to convict, Sen. Y voted to acquit, Sen Z also voted to acquit, and so on. All these observers would sign an agreement to not disclose how any individual voted until the actual non-anonymous voting were released. Say, one year later. Or 3 years later. Something similar in effect to Heinlein's "Fair Witness."

Anyone have other suggestions on how to do it, so that everyone (minus conspiracy nutjobs, who will not believe anything, so they're irrelevant from my perspective) comes away with a clear sense of, "This is the final vote, and both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate agree that this was the final tally."

[Michael P]

Each house shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require secrecy; And the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one-fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

They could change their rules, but they can't change the Constitution with a 50%+1 majority.

[Brett Bellmore]

ALL congressional votes with any effect should be roll call, without exception. How are the voters supposed decide whether to retain an office holder, if they don't know what they're doing in office?

Basically you're suggesting that Senators should be able to vote to remove a President the voters had put in office, without the voters having any opportunity to punish them at the next election. You want to destroy democratic accountability.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would add that your 'observers' could easily subvert the system by lying about what vote somebody had cast, since no member would have any way to prove that they'd voted differently than the 'observers' said.

That's already a problem in Congress with voice votes; Leadership never loses voice votes, because they can just say they won them, and nobody can prove otherwise.

[bernard11]

ALL congressional votes with any effect should be roll call, without exception

Yes.

[Commenter_XY]

sm811....An interesting question. My thought is that requiring a vote on the record is a lesser evil (the 'guilty' might go free) than a secret vote (no accountability to constituents). I get where you are going.

POTUS Johnson probably would have survived, even with a secret vote (IMO).
POTUS Clinton would have been removed from office with a secret vote (IMO).
POTUS Trump probably would have survived both votes if they were secret (IMO).

Last thought. The system for impeachment and removal we have in place has worked for over 200 years. Officials have been removed for cause; not often I admit. My reading is those who were impeached and convicted had overwhelming agreement in the Senate (thinking of some Federal judges who were removed). My point, there has to be a compelling reason where we change this process. One controversial POTUS does not a reason make.

Great question, sm811.

[not guilty]

Bill Clinton would have survived a secret vote. His critics harped on his flaws that voters were aware of when we elected him -- zipper problems and a casual regard for telling the truth.

Also he was fortunate in the enemies he developed. Folks like the loathsome Newt Gingrich and Kenneth Starr.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's hard to say. It was as much a political as legal fight, but there wasn't any question that Clinton had genuinely committed perjury and obstruction of justice, and used government resources to further the latter. He had to relinquish his law license to avoid being disbarred over it.

On the whole I think he'd have survived a secret vote, but it would have been closer.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Lol, no. You can’t go crying cry to the sheriff to arrest someone when they don’t say exactly what you want in a deposition. We have an adversarial civil justice system and every civil case involves misleading statements during discovery. Jones’s attorneys should have been disbarred for wasting the court’s valuable time and not properly representing their actual client.

[Kazinski]

He lied to a grand jury, not Just a deposition.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Wrong, he didn’t mislead the phony grand jury only the unethical attorneys during a deposition.

[Sarcastr0]

The Party system is different than it's been in the past 200 years. Dunno if that changes anything, but appeal to tradition doesn't work by itself.

[Commenter_XY]

Not that different, Sarcastr0. I mean, people are people; human behavior and instinct probably has not changed appreciably in 200 years.

I guess you could say it this way: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Sarcastr0]

The party structure is pretty different; the way leaders wield power, the way whipping occurs, the focus on negative partisanship.

People are people, but also institutions are not inviolate. What used to work sometimes no longer does.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

That has to do with the creation of the right wing echo chamber circa 1990…unfortunately the Democrats have been forced to create their own echo chamber which is how you get the phony Russian collusion story and the notion Trump did a poor job as president and the belief a man that chops off his penis becomes a woman.

[Kazinski]

I don’t think it’s as vituperative as when the Federalists and Anti-Federalist were duking it out.

And pre-civil war there were canings one congressman from Maine was killed in a dual with a Representative from Kentucky.

And a senator from California was killed by the Chief justices of CA’s Supreme Court in an argument over the Slavery question.

No, things are much better now than the worst of the past.

[Bob from Ohio]

"why those in charge (ie, Dems) did not require anonymous voting?"

"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
Benjamin Franklin

100 senators can keep a secret, if 100 of them are dead.

[Sarcastr0]

The Senate keeps secrets all the time.

[Krayt]

Anyone have an understanding, in Trump's second impeachment trial in the Senate why those in charge (ie, Dems) did not require anonymous voting?

I don't know about the mechanics of the Constitution, but it would be inordinately bad to do so.

No anonymous witnesses. No anonymous votes. The People need everything out in the open for trust. After all, power hungry people are attempting to overthrow their elected official.

We love democracy! Until we don't. Because it gets in our way.

[Ben_]

"...why those in charge (ie, Dems) did not require anonymous voting..."

Require? What if people announce their votes despite the scheme to "require" anonymous voting? What were "those in charge" going to do about it?

[F.D. Wolf]

Why weren't there secret votes in the twenty previous impeachment trials secret?

The reasons against secret voting should be apparent. The representatives of the people should be accountable for their votes to the people. The years of hysteria and histrionics of Trump haters notwithstanding, "because Trump" is not a sufficient reason to upend history,

As for the Constitutional text:

[blockquote]Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; [b]and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.[/b][/blockquote]

[santamonica811]

FD,
In other words, the ability to use secret voting was specifically contemplated and authorized in the Constitution.

From the few rumors I've heard (and I am far from being particularly well-plugged-in, in the murky bowels of Congress), there were many many Republicans who really wanted Trump impeached. Some of them were appalled by Trump's horrific behavior. But, I grant you, some others were merely hoping to clear the deck for their own 2024 run for president...which cuts against my idea and cuts in favor of your "do the deeds in public, so voters can see and judge for themselves."

I was not asking for the opposing side--it's pretty clear about some of the institutional advantages of doing these things in public...along with the downsides. And of course there would have been lip-service blowback from all R's in Congress. And all the evening whores on Fox News would have had their heads explode. I'm more interested, actually, in hearing substantive improvements on my idea. If I had hired you as my lead attorney, in the Senate, and it was your job to give legal advice to help make the process as good as possible; what safeguards would you have implemented? ("I think it's a bad idea." would not be a helpful response, so I'm hoping to get substantive suggestions from both supporters and opposers of anonymous impeachment trial voting.) 🙂

[santamonica811]

...But I did not reply to your own substantive point, which was: Hey, a bloc of a mere 20% of Senators can force a public vote, which I guess is a real roadblock (unless more clever posters or VC commentators can think of a workaround). Hmmm . . . .

[Michael P]

Why are you so opposed to accountability for elected officials exercising the powers of their office?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if they're accountable to the public, then they can't do things he wants them to do, but which are unpopular with the voters.

I thought that was obvious.

[Michael P]

I'd like to hear his reasoning, and compare it to the rationales used for institutions like secret police.

[Sarcastr0]

Reps doing unpopular things sometimes is literally how a representative system is supposed to work. It is not direct democracy by proxy.

Add to that the fact that American Congresspeople are making policy for the nation, not just for their constituents, and it seems more like you're the one picking a system to get the outcomes you want than the reverse.

[Michael P]

That kind of disingenuous attempt at moving the goalposts is why we love you. And by "love you" I mean "call you Gaslighto".

The question was why sm811 was opposed to accountability for elected officials exercising the powers of their office. Why do they need a shroud of secrecy to do the right thing?

[Sarcastr0]

I am responding to Brett's point, which is why I replied to him.

[Michael P]

"Context free" is a convenient trait in a computer grammar, but a very poor one in an argument.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sorry you had trouble following the conversation.

But that is not my problem. Brett seemed fine with it.

[Sarcastr0]

Heck, you seem fine with it below.

Stop accusing me of stuff you don't mean.

[Michael P]

I followed the conversation just fine. Brett made a point, and you decided to ignore the entire context and make a stupidly irrelevant assertion that did not really engage with his point, and has always been questionable. Especially before the 17th Amendment, Senators were very clearly expected to represent their state's interests rather than sacrifice their people to some imagined collective good. They are still supposed to be accountable to the people who elect them, not to talking heads from big cities in other states.

Below, your only argument for secret impeachment votes proved way too much -- it undercuts the example where you said voting accountability is good practice, in addition to the fact that the entire form of your argument is that you don't see a reason for X and sometimes Y, therefore X is not needed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastro, sure, sometimes a representative is going to think they need to do something unpopular. The question is, should the system be set up so that the voters can't know they did this?

A democracy where you elect people, but can't subsequently know what they did in office, is a bit of a joke.

[Sarcastr0]

For policy votes? Sure, that seems good practice.

But for stuff like impeachment? I don't see any reason why that must be open. It's not directly effecting the governed.
There's plenty of other nondemocratic parts of our system; occasional secret ballots doesn't seem extraordinary.

[Michael P]

By similar token, criminal laws do not directly affect the governed. A prosecutor must file charges and a court rule against the defendant before anyone is affected. That is not a good reason to hide the legislators' votes on criminal law bills.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you just made an argument for a jury's votes to be secret ballot, nothing about prosecution. At least to analogize to impeachment.

[Michael P]

That is not apposite at all. A petit jury is selected by screening a randomly selected pool to determine whether they can fairly judge a specific trial. That is not at all like a Senator trying an impeachment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Impeachment IS policy, it has direct real world consequences on the operation of the government.

[Sarcastr0]

Not all politics is policy.

For instance, in administrative agencies, adjudication is not rulemaking, even if it has policy implications. (This gives rise to some interesting Chevron implications, but that's neither here nor there)

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, you cannot be serious = But for stuff like impeachment? I don't see any reason why that must be open. It's not directly effecting the governed.

If you remove a Congresscritter or POTUS, you are directly affecting the governed. I am not following your logic at all here.

If you want a secret vote because you want to make it easier to remove federal officials in a politically unaccountable manner, simply say so.

[Sarcastr0]

As I said below, I make a distinction between adjudicatory function versus a rulemaking one. Congress mostly does rules, but the incentives are different in adjudication.
No long term precedent, for instance.

If you really cared so formally about every decision, you'd be against unanimous consent. And certainly against deeming something as passed and a lot of long-held Congressional procedures.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm against unanimous consent, too. It's chiefly, like voice votes, a way of avoiding the record reflecting the absence of a quorum.

When I said every vote should be a roll call vote, I meant EVERY vote. Every last stinking vote, with no exceptions at all.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don't see any reason why that must be open. "

Because you are removing a president of the United States and you need public support and a belief it was aboveboard and fair.

[Sarcastr0]

The issue I'm concerned about is less public support and more threats and the like.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the threats by the voters to not reelect members who vote contrary to their constituents' wishes.

[KenveeB]

"But for stuff like impeachment? I don't see any reason why that must be open. It's not directly effecting the governed."

How on EARTH is removing an duly elected member of another branch of government not directly affecting the governed? If I voted for President, either way, I have an interest in whether the person who won that election stays in office. And I absolutely have an interest in knowing how elected officials are using the power they have been elected to handle in deciding whether I intend to RE-elect them.

[Sarcastr0]

That wasn't perfectly put, but the point is that rulemaking is not adjudication, to make an analogy to admin.

[Michael P]

So what if rulemaking is not adjudication?

To the extent that either function is part of an elected office, then the exercise of that function should be accountable to the electors. Simply asserting some difference between two functions does not justify secrecy in the exercise of only one. It is only in truly exceptional cases that courts -- whether Article III or otherwise -- can issue secret rulings, and I think never with an anonymous judge.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
You completely sidestep Brett's comment by making an accusation of insincerity.
I do agree that all motions short of "unanimous consent" and the like should be roll call or openly recorded and reported electronic votes.
Just what is your substantive objection to having decisions being transparent in a representative democracy?

[Sarcastr0]

It's more that I don't see a strong democratic need for open voting for every function.

There's closed committee meetings that include votes all the time.

For adjudicative or otherwise sensitive decisions, preventing public pressure seems prudent for the same reason we keep juries anonymous.
Not all public pressure is a positive good vital to our democracy.

[Don Nico]

"Not all public pressure is a positive good vital to our democracy."
Again, deflection.
What is good is transparency.

[Don Nico]

BTW,
closed committee meetings are a necessity when there is information with restricted dissemination protocols being discussed.
But would you really propose that committee votes evaluating political appointees be held with secret votes?
Obviously, caucuses hold closed sessions and even there as well as with closed hearings, the votes are open to the members of the caucus, consistent with participatory democracy

[Sarcastr0]

There are costs and benefits to transparency. This is not a controversial statement.

I think the benefits outweigh the costs for most policymaking decisions.

I think the benefits are attenuated for adjudicative decisions. And the costs are about the same, but maybe more because with individuals involved you can get the derangement that comes with cults of personality in a way lawmaking won't.

[Brett Bellmore]

The only "cost" I see is the voters having the information available to them to cast informed votes. Which is only a cost when you want representatives to do things the voters don't like, and be able to get away with it.

Jurors are a terrible analogy, the whole idea is that they can't be selected on the basis of their opinions. They're about as far from representatives as you can get in that regard.

[Sarcastr0]

Why are juries anonymous, Brett? What about Grand Juries?

[not guilty]

Anonymous juries are the exception and not the rule.

[Brett Bellmore]

Juries deliberate secretly, and hold secret votes, and are frequently anonymous, because they're not supposed to respond to public pressure.

Representatives aren't secret, aren't supposed to deliberate secretly, or vote secretly, because, as representatives, they ARE supposed to be responsive to public pressure!

[Brett Bellmore]

"I do agree that all motions short of "unanimous consent" and the like should be roll call or openly recorded and reported electronic votes."

Why make that exception? You do realize, don't you, that "unanimous consent" is a way of avoiding recording the absence of a quorum, right? It's often a case of all three people present agreeing.

[Sarcastr0]

Often, sure. But not always! Those Congresspeople have been getting away with acquiescence while staying off the record this whole time!

[Kazinski]

Courage is voting for things that are unpopular in public.

Cowardice is voting for something unpopular in secret.

We should demand the best of our representatives.

[Queen Amalthea]

Yeah, that's what undemocratic features of the system are for!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Some of them were appalled by Trump's horrific behavior. But, I grant you, some others were merely hoping to clear the deck for their own 2024 run for president...which cuts against my idea and cuts in favor of your "do the deeds in public, so voters can see and judge for themselves.""

The ones who were appalled cut against it just as much, because voters are entitled to try to have legislators who agree with them about what is 'appalling'. Both in a positive AND negative sense.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Another thing you really need to consider here.

Assume the Senate does a "Secret" vote and votes for impeachment. Does Trump accept such a vote? Let's say that 34 GOP Senators immediately come out and say they didn't vote for impeachment.

What happens? You have a secret vote for impeachment, but simultaneously have more than 1/3 of Senators saying it isn't true publically.

That would be a crisis of major proportions.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, that's exactly what would happen: The secret vote is proposed because it would have been political suicide for almost all Republican Senators to vote to convict. It would equally be political suicide for them to fail to claim that they'd voted to acquit afterwards.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed. So you have a "secret vote" saying one thing. But public announcements of another, that it wasn't accurate

Under that type of situation, what president would give up power?

[Sarcastr0]

If it's so obvious to the two of you what happened, who do you think would believe them?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I think there would be a great deal of confusion and conflict.

Some people would believe the President....he has public stated support, he wasn't impeached. Some people would believe Congress. And a lot wouldn't know. Someone's lying...either the Senators who say they didn't vote for impeachment, or the people who tabulated the vote.

The entire situation is set up to create a massive crisis. That's why it's a bad idea.

[Sarcastr0]

I dunno - both you and Brett, not shrinking violets when it comes to protecting Trump - think it's obvious House members would vote one way and then lie about it.

I don't see how that isn't how it would play generally. Democrats wouldn't believe them. You folks wouldn't believe him. The only people you have left are the 2020 truther types, who would already have some fraud theory cooking anyhow.

(I also don't think that would happen - House members lying about such a load-bearing issue is a step beyond the looking away nonfeasance on Trump that they've currently done)

[Armchair Lawyer]

If it's so "obvious"...the then the Senate Majority Leader would have no problem with lying about the vote, because it's obvious they wouldn't be caught. It's a catch-22 there.

Again, if the Senate members publically stated they didn't vote for such an impeachment...and there were more than 1/3rd doing so... But the impeachment somehow passed anyway...I would have major questions.

[Sarcastr0]

You've already caught him, preemptively.

As I said, if *you* think he'd lie, no one would believe who wasn't already deep into believing all sorts of nonsense.

I don't see how you're have major questions when you just explained what you think would have happened.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastro....

You'll note, I never once used the word "Trump"

Let's say, the GOP wins the Senate and House in 2022. Then they hold impeachment hearings on Biden, impeaching him in the House. They then do a secret vote in the Senate to convict. But 40 Democratic Senators come out saying they didn't vote to convict.

Should...or should not...Biden step aside? Why or why not?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Should...or should not...Biden step aside? Why or why not?"

Well, that's completely different. Obviously McConnell is lying.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say Trump either.

As to your flipping the parties hypo, unlike you I don't think House members would lie. Especially not to protect Biden. So I would believe them. As I said at 10:03 am.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" So I would believe them."

So the answer is that we should not accept the results of a secret vote if it contradicted claims made by Congressmen?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastr0
January.20.2022 at 4:00 pm
"I didn't say Trump either."

Sarcastr0
January.20.2022 at 10:03 am
"I dunno - both you and Brett, not shrinking violets when it comes to protecting Trump -"

Looks like SarcastrO is caught in another one of his own lies.

[Sarcastr0]

That wasn't a material part of my argument, it was acknowledging the subtext of why you're caught making such a dumbass argument.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Assume the Senate does a "Secret" vote and votes for impeachment. Does Trump accept such a vote?"

You've hit on the nut of one on the main problems, which is that if the vote is secret, you don't really know the outcome.

[Brett Bellmore]

I half expect that the courts would apply the reasoning behind the enrolled bill doctrine, and just refuse to entertain any claims that the vote reported out by the leadership was accurate.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not legal claims we would be worried about. Its defiance and competing presidents, maybe with each having part of the army loyal to him or her.

[JasonT20]

You've hit on the nut of one on the main problems, which is that if the vote is secret, you don't really know the outcome.

That's ridiculous. I guess we don't really know the outcome of any election then? Do you think it impossible for senators to cast a physical ballot on the question that would be indisputable?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Some of them were appalled by Trump's horrific behavior. But, I grant you, some others were merely hoping to clear the deck for their own 2024 run for president...which cuts against my idea and cuts in favor of your "do the deeds in public, so voters can see and judge for themselves."

This hits the nut of another main problems with the proposal, which is that secret voting will not lead to an outcome based on the conscience of each Senator, but an outcome based on the personal political fortune of each Senator.

And it's not just Republicans, there are plenty of Dems who love having Trump to run against.

[santamonica811]

12,
You (and many others) are giving common-sense responses, where you point out weaknesses and dangers of doing a secret vote. But, really, that is not what I was hoping to find...I raised this mostly as a thought experiment.
"Okay, we're starting this new system. That debate is over. Now, the goal is to find the best way of doing this system. What suggestions do you have?"

My "Fair Witnesses" takes care of some of the above-mentioned concerns. If Senator X denies voting to acquit, then we could decide to (a) let that statement/lie stand, or (b) provide written evidence of that one vote, to show that X is now lying. We were going to release her vote in a year (or 3 years, or whatevs), but we make an exception--maybe!!--for this situation. Or is there a "c"...some 3rd option?

Trump (or a future impeached and convicted judge/president) challenges the secret vote tally. But we have the signatures of the 2 super-conservative and loyal Republican witnesses (plus, the 2 liberal counterparts) on each vote. AND, we have those same people signing the document that gives the final total. Will that stop Trump (Judge Z, etc) from lying and saying that he did not lose the vote? Probably not. But you will have more-reliable and more-trustworthy Republicans on hand to immediately rebut.

A perfect solution? Of course not. I'm hoping that you'll have even better ideas. 🙂

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"because Trump" has generated all sorts of judicial outcomes by our alleged impartial judges.

See the unbelieve ruling yesterday.

[Queen Amalthea]

Sure, all those Trump appointees are part of the lizard people cabal out to get him. Everyone can see that!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey remember how when Trump implemented Obama's policy on immigration security and courts ruled Trump couldn't because it was racist?

But somehow Obama could?

[Queen Amalthea]

1. Who appointed those courts?
2. Maybe there was some difference in the fact patterns? Some things Trump said that Obama didn't?

You're not even a hack. You're a dumb fan boy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wait so a lawful EO by one president can be made unlawful if another president says non-PC words?

You can't be for real. Are you on here shilling for some foreign power?

[Queen Amalthea]

Welcome to discrimination law (where intent matters), fan boy!

[AmosArch]

Confession Time:

I always thought the guy from American Beauty was a bit of an idiot. You have any idea just how rare it is for a young hot woman to show actual genuine interest in a pudgy wrinkled middle age man without any plans on screwing him over? I mean with your wife harboring plots to kill you its not like you have much of a decent life left at this point anyway.

I'd totally bang her right on the spot if she was 18 or at least tell her to catch me at her birthday. And as far as I'm concerned, any normal heterosexual guy who claims they wouldn't at least be seriously tempted is a liar.

What are you looking at me for? She's older than me in RL. I ain't going to be shamed for thinking she's hot lol.

Its ironic how this film successfully pretends to be the epitome of a transgressive story but instead ultimately reinforces cultural norms.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You have any idea just how rare it is for a young hot woman to show actual genuine interest in a pudgy wrinkled middle age man without any plans on screwing him over?"

Actually, it's not all that rare. My own wife is 21 years younger than me, and I was indeed a pudgy wrinkled middle aged man when we met. 14 years happily married so far.

Now, if you'd said, "young hot American woman", you might be right. My first wife screwed me over, and she wasn't even all that hot.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I'd totally bang her right on the spot if she was 18 or at least tell her to catch me at her birthday."

I thought the whole point of the movie was that it because clear that the girl wasn't emotionally equipped to handle the interaction (which would have been obvious to any middle-aged man who's not thinking with his dick) and that a middle-aged man usually isn't going to fuck over a nice, trusting young girl just to get his rocks off.

I mean, I suppose there are situations where an encounter between an eighteen-year-old and a middle-aged man might work out, but in the movie the old guy was fooling himself to believe that this was one of those situations.

[AmosArch]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I thought the whole point of the movie was that it because clear that the girl wasn't emotionally equipped to handle the interaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Eh, who ever is?

I get what you are saying but the lesson of letting go of the forbidden is the modern day equivalent of the knight slaying the dragon and getting the princess. Its been done to death and thoroughly inculcated into everyone as much as it can be when base instinct opposes it. If it was the truly transgressive movie it put on airs to be he would have ditched the gay marine and the murderous wife and taken off with the hot girl, made a family, and lived happily ever after.

[Kazinski]

Well let me give you some advice, it's not that hard to find younger very sexy women if you keep yourself in good shape, and you travel where there are single women, especially when there is an sex ratio imbalance, especially economic. A successful man can and will find mates in any economic tier, successful women don't want to date or marry down so they have fewer options.

Of course that's women in their late 20's to late 30's not 18--19 year oolds, the younger ones are way to cynical and worldly for me.

I met my current wife when she was 28 and I was 58, and she was not the first in that age range by any means.

I found the older the woman, usually the more set on getting married they are. Younger women are much more open to a fling.

[Kazinski]

There is a peer reviewed study out that shows ivermectin is effective in preventing covid.

“ A new, peer-reviewed study from Brazil of over 150k subjects finds regular prophylactic use of IVM “was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates." https://cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

It got me wondering why some people are so emotionally invested in disputing just about any covid treatment or prophylaxis repurposing existing drugs.

[Michael P]

Is that paper any more credible than previous ones involving Flavio Cadegiani? (See the discussion at https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted .)

[David Nieporent]

The other problem with ivermectin studies is that so many of them have been done in the third world, and ivermectin is good at treating parasitic infections which are common in the third world. And of course parasitic infections are bad for one's health, so people who suffer from them are more likely to die / people who are cured of them are more likely to live. But that doesn't mean ivermectin is curing the covid per se.

By way of example, let's suppose we go to — where's there a current famine? Probably Ethiopia; there's always a famine there — Ethiopia, and do a study in which we give grain and beef to a group of people, while we give nothing to a control group. The people in the first group will be healthier than the people in the second group, and therefore less likely to die of anything, including covid. Does that mean that hamburgers are a treatment for covid? No, of course not. They're a treatment for malnutrition. And non-malnourished Americans will not see any benefit from Big Macs.

(We can use the same logic to "prove" that hamburgers are a good treatment for pretty much anything, from cancer to broken arms.)

Now, obviously a well-designed study will pre-screen its subjects/controls to make sure they aren't suffering from other conditions that would confound the data in this way. When a pharmaceutical company submits a drug for FDA approval, the FDA requires that kind of attention to detail. But I've seen nothing to indicate that these studies that people tout have undertaken that kind of care.

(And that, by the way, is why peer review is important. Anyone with a modicum of mathematical knowledge can look at the topline numbers from a study and see whether the results are statistically significant. But one must have SME to be able to tell whether a study controlled for what needed to be controlled for.)

[Michael P]

Scott Alexander discussed the possible confounding effect of parasitic infections at length, and came to the conclusion that it probably does not explain all of the positive results (among probably-not-fraudulent papers). But maybe parasitic infections plus publication bias does -- most places do not publish negative results.

Still, the effects of parasite+COVID-19 co-infection seem to be considerably worse than the combination of the two alone, so ivermectin is arguably a good thing for COVID-19 patients in third-world countries who might have an undiagnosed parasite.

[Queen Amalthea]

Scott Alexander? Well, if someone with his extensive record of experience and accomplishment in the study and treatment of such diseases says it, it must be true!

[Michael P]

I know it's hard, because you apparently have no other mode, but you should try to not be such an asshole all the time. So much snark makes you look even more petty than you normally do.

[Queen Amalthea]

Every accusation really is a confession with you guys, isn't it?

But, hey, if you are having mental illness issues I for one wouldn't advise you to go see an infectious disease expert. Likewise if you want the best word on infectious diseases I wouldn't go to a psychiatrist. I get YMMV.

[I Callahan]

Mental illness? Maybe you should try harder not to be an asshole.

[Queen Amalthea]

You should try harder to know what's being discussed and understanding analogies (I'll give you a hint: Alexander is a psychiatrist). So who's the asshole now, I Callahan?

[Michael P]

It was not wise to double down on your ad hominem attack against somebody smarter than you. Especially when most slime molds are smarter than you.

[Queen Amalthea]

So you would consult an infectious disease expert for your mental health issues? Good to know!

[Kazinski]

Maybe you don’t understand why they started looking at ivermectin and hydroxycloroquin in the first place.

They take viral cell cultures and then test different drugs on the culture to see the effect on viral replication.

So they already know the drug candidate has a shot at working on a specific virus, and often why it would work before human tests.

And they do this with drugs that have already passed safely testing and FDA approval so they can be deployed rapidly and safely.

It’s not like it’s a total crap shoot..

[JasonT20]

One of the problems I've seen multiple sources mention with that approach to ivermectin is that the amounts that inhibited viral replication in vitro were at least 50 times that which is present in the blood under the approved doses for parasitic infections. So that is not really evidence that ivermectin "has a shot" at affecting COVID.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Its peer-review process involves asking experts to review a given article in a few days, which results in its peer reviews taking much less time than those of most other journals do"

I'd say this should make you wary but I get you're emotionally invested in confirming some ideological bias here...

[M L]

Kazinski - You pose a good question. One that we should all ponder long and hard.

For me it was this unbelievable argument between a Yale epidemiologist and an incredibly brazen, smug, and capable CNN propagandist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_v-IVmy5wQ

[swood1000]

It got me wondering why some people are so emotionally invested in disputing just about any covid treatment or prophylaxis repurposing existing drugs.

It’s impossible to make sense of. The pro-ivermectin scientists interviewed on the Joe Rogan and Darkhorse podcasts sound credible enough to give one pause, yet so are the scientists on the other side. Why should it be so difficult to have some definitive studies acceptable to all? Until then it’s mud-slinging all around.

[Queen Amalthea]

"he pro-ivermectin scientists interviewed on the Joe Rogan and Darkhorse podcasts "

Jesus Christ.

[Kazinski]

Well a more reputable forum with a much larger audience than CNN or MSNBC.

[Queen Amalthea]

Next you'll cite Piper's Pit no doubt!

[swood1000]

In evaluating responses from people, I have found it useful to try to determine how much a person’s position seems to be influenced by visceral or knee-jerk dislike of those on the other side. Often, it’s possible to determine this without very much difficulty.

[not guilty]

A petition for certiorari has apparently been filed with SCOTUS seeking review of the Supreme Court of Virginia which authorized removal of a statue of General Robert E. Lee which was owned by the Commonwealth. https://apnews.com/article/business-george-floyd-ralph-northam-supreme-court-of-virginia-richmond-d80d424fd126c97a61de4e0f288def3d

I haven´t been able to find the cert petition online. What is the federal issue? And how is the matter not moot, with the statue now having been removed?

[Brett Bellmore]

"SECTION 10. Clause 1. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

From your own link: "“If this Virginia decision is followed, every contract entered into by a state government can be abrogated when a governor or a court — not the legislature — decides that the contract violates public policy. This would leave those who contract with state governments at the mercy of judges and executive or administrative officials who have no legitimate role in setting the Commonwealth’s public policy,” the petition states."

The argument was that states are constitutionally obligated to comply with contracts they enter into, while the state court had held that the state could violate any contract that the state decided was contrary to public policy.

[not guilty]

Was that presented to the Virginia Supreme Court as a federal constitutional issue?

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court of Virginia described the plaintiffs' pleadings in the Circuit Court as follows:

In their complaint, the Taylor Plaintiffs contend that Governor Northam has no authority to remove the Lee Monument because the 1889 Joint Resolution binds him to perpetually maintain the Lee Monument on the Circle. They argue that Governor Northam's order violates the Constitution of Virginia because his violation of the 1889 Joint Resolution encroaches upon the legislature's powers, violates the doctrine of separation of powers, and defies the Commonwealth's current public policy as expressed in the 1889 Joint Resolution. Additionally, the Taylor Plaintiffs assert a property right to enforce the 1887 Deed and the 1890 Deed, which they claim requires the Commonwealth to perpetually maintain the Lee Monument on the Circle. Finally, they aver that removing the Lee Monument would violate Code § 2.2-2402(B), which they contend prohibits the removal of state-owned structures like the Lee Monument.

Taylor v. Northam, 862 S.E.2d 458, 461 (Va. 2021) [footnote omitted].

No federal issue appears to have been presented to the trial court. Supreme Court Rule 14(1)(g)(i) requires that a petition for writ of certiorari must contain:

(i) If review of a state-court judgment is sought, specification of the stage in the proceedings, both in the court of first instance and in the appellate courts, when the federal questions sought to be reviewed were raised; the method or manner of raising them and the way in which they were passed on by those courts; and pertinent quotations of specific portions of the record or summary thereof, with specific reference to the places in the record where the matter appears (e. g., court opinion, ruling on exception, portion of court's charge and exception thereto, assignment of error), so as to show that the federal question was timely and properly raised and that this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment on a writ of certiorari.

In other words, a SCOTUS litigant can´t just make shit up as he goes along.

[Brett Bellmore]

There not being a federal issue, and raising it being barred on account of it not being raised earlier in the litigation, are different things.

There absolutely is a federal issue here, even if the litigators screwed up by not raising it early enough. And if the obligation of contract clause were actually being enforced, even the legislature could not cure this issue.

[not guilty]

Unclear on what review by writ of certiorari entails? Preserving the issue in state court is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction.

[Brett Bellmore]

Unclear about the distinction between merits and procedure?

[Sarcastr0]

It's been a while since I took Federal Courts, but if there's a federal issue not preserved by the litigants, the litigants can't insert it midstream; they will need to go back to trial court and try again.

I'm also not convinced there is a federal issue under current Contracts Clause precedents. That's not an area I ever studied, but I understand it's a pretty narrowly applied clause.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah, "And if the obligation of contract clause were actually being enforced,".

It's one of those clauses everybody in government would rather not have to comply with, so the courts oblige.

[Sarcastr0]

You can think something is not the way it ought to be without deciding that it's due to bad faith, you know.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastro, the obligation of contract language is as clear as can be. So, why is it scarcely enforced at all?

[Sarcastr0]

Not my area, but cursory research finds the following:

1) Original intent - it was created to combat a specific practice- 'bills of relief.'
2) post-Lochner departure from broad readings of economic rights
3) How rights actually operate and have operated since the Founding - shall make no law had never meant literally no law (except for the Lochner era and a bit post Civil War); so too here.
4) Thus, the proper inquiry is a balancing test, as is the case for most other rights as well. Since before the Founding, since that is how rights operated in England.

Live by the originalism, die by the originalism.

[Sarcastr0]

And to be clear, this is in the hypothetical that the issue was properly raised.

[Brett Bellmore]

"2) post-Lochner departure from broad readings of economic rights"

Post-Lochner pinched reading of economic rights.

[Sarcastr0]

...you think Lochner was the Constitutionally correct reading? What about like, pre-Lochner? What was up with that?

Your hidebound, myopic textualism does not operate as not a functional way to run a country.

It does let you yell a lot about the status quo being corrupt, so it gives you that. But a working theory of jurisprudence it is not.

[not guilty]

The issues in a lawsuit are framed by pleadings. Like it or not.

[David Nieporent]

In any case, the petitioners don't have standing, so it's moot.

[not guilty]

And the statue itself is no longer standing. I don´t know what exception to mootness in that regard would arguably apply.

[David Nieporent]

IIRC, the statue has actually been destroyed, so it's like extra super duper moot.

[Noscitur a sociis]

According to news reports (which I found while unsuccessfully searching for the cert petition), the plan is to send it to a black history museum.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/richmond-confederate-monuments-headed-to-black-history-museum-180979319/

[Queen Amalthea]

The federal issue is 'My Confederate Fees Fees is Hurt.' Thomas and Alito will probably at least vote for it, maybe Gorsuch.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, a totally 'not legal' post. Today, I wanted to mention the exciting topic of life tables published by the IRS for calculating your RMD.

Good news! Our life expectancy has increased. Ok, now the bad news. Consequently, your annual RMD has decreased, and you do not need to start RMDs until the year you turn 72. There is a quirk in the law for 2022 (won't get into that) that allows you to use the old lifetime table 'una mas tiempo'. Lest you think this is some kind of game changer...uh no. We are talking maybe a 3%-5% relative difference upfront (age 72) that gets bigger as you age. But I really like the move to age 72 for RMDs.

The implication for 'higher net worth' VC Conspirators? I would look into Roth conversions (of pre-tax accounts), even at the 24% marginal bracket. Yeah, the tax bite upfront sucks, but if you have a longer time horizon (20+ years), you will make out just fine (actually better than fine if you invest in low cost index funds). Consult a tax professional for this! (I did)

BTW, if you pair the Roth conversion strategy with a strategy to delay SSA benefits to 70, it helps mitigate longevity risk.

[Kazinski]

I have a pretty decent strategy, marry a wife much younger than you and start throwing your RMD into her IRA, if you are filing jointly then not only are you netting out your tax obligation, but funding her retirement.

[bernard11]

Good news! Our life expectancy has increased. Ok, now the bad news. Consequently, your annual RMD has decreased, and you do not need to start RMDs until the year you turn 72.

Why is this bad news?

I don't exactly understand your Roth strategy. Let's say you are 72. The RMD is about 4% of the value of the IRA. So I convert a $100,000, say, IRA to a Roth. It looks like I pay tax on $100,000 to avoid tax on $4000. Plus, the $100K is likely to be taxed at a higher rate than the $4K, since it will often be in a higher marginal bracket.

That doesn't look so great to me. What am I missing?

[Commenter_XY]

What am I missing = Market returns on tax free money for 20 years (I am assuming the money is invested, not spent)

[bernard11]

Still not totally following.

If I leave the money in the IRA I get tax-free returns on it, less the tax on the RMD. So I lose about 1% of the total account each year that way.

Put it in the Roth and I don't lose the 1%, but I lose 25-30% up front. (Don't forget the higher bracket.) That is going to be a lot more than the PV of what I save by doing the conversion.

And isn't 20 years an optimistic time horizon for a 72-year-old? If you don't live that long the deal gets worse.

[Kazinski]

It's never worth going to a higher tax bracket to do an IRA conversion. If you want to convert your ira, then every year figure out what you can convert without bumping yourself.

And then your assumption about a higher return tax free is wrong. If you have a 100000 in an IRA and invest it 20 years at a 10% return then pay 25% tax rate on it you end up with 504562.49.

If you convert the 100k to a Roth, pay 25% then invest 75k for 20 years then you get $504562.49.

The tax rate you pay is what counts, whenever you pay it, and your more likely to get a lower tax rate taking it out incrementally.

But one strategy with a Roth should work for you. Obviously your portfolio should have a variety of different risk profiles. Use the Roth for the higher risk higher return investments, but keep your overall mix the same.

[Moderation4ever]

So, I just finished reading Nicole Hannah Jones book "The 1619 Project". The book is a collection of essays and was a follow-up the work published by the NYT Magazine in August 2019. I read the book because I did not see the NYT piece and I wanted some idea of what was in this controversial work.

I found it a good book, easy to read for an average person. It does a good job of at examining American history from the prospective of the African American. It is well annotated to support its views with facts. I think it applicable to the views of a web site like VC and Reason; as it examines what it means when Constitutional rights are simply ignored; when laws can be ignored where people deemed the "other" are concerned; it asks what does capitalism mean to the person subject to slavery or Jim Crow. Will it make you uncomfortable, at times very likely, but that should not be a reason to avoid the book.

Who would I recommend this book to, anyone who is a student of American History. Who should read it, anyone teaching American history at a high school or college level. As for students, at a high school level it should be available, for a high school AP history a recommended supplemental text. For college history definitely a supplemental text.

If you have read the book or the original NYT piece, I invite your thoughts. If you do comment and have not read the book please note this also.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have not read either, but just as a general note, it's easy enough to make a case look solid if your reader only hears one side of it.

Just as I'd suggest anybody who wants to read the Federalist papers should also read the Anti--Federalist papers, if you're going to read "The 1619 Project", you could probably also read one of the books that have been published claiming to rebut it.

1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project, or Debunking the 1619 Project: Exposing the Plan to Divide America, might be paired with the book you propose.

[Queen Amalthea]

Sigh. Yes, it's always a good idea to get both sides of a debate, but I'd not have a book by an Anthropologist or an English teacher to rebut a work claiming history. Something by a historian would probably best. This is of course a defining difference between Brett (and folks like him) and me.

[Michael P]

Yes, one should probably not bother reading a history book written by an investigative journalist who claims to not be a professional historian and who claims the Civil War started in 1965.

[Queen Amalthea]

IIRC she's the editor of the book, it's got parts written by different authors many of whom are professional historians.

[Queen Amalthea]

FWIW, yeah I wouldn't come to a conclusion on any historical debate from referencing a newspaper like the Times.

[Brett Bellmore]

Something by historians.

My personal book recommendation on slavery would be "Conscious Choice: The Origins of Slavery in America and Why it Matters Today and for Our Future in Outer Space"

Rather than tarring the whole county with the same brush, it actually goes into the reasons why slavery became so predominant in some of the colonies, and never did in others. Because, remember, they weren't ALL slave states.

[bernard11]

it actually goes into the reasons why slavery became so predominant in some of the colonies, and never did in others. Because, remember, they weren't ALL slave states.

Just curious, but what were some of those reasons? I assume it was partly, maybe mostly, due to the nature of agriculture in the south. Tobacco and, especially, cotton, apparently lent themselves to large-scale labor-intensive operations.

But why not hire laborers? More expensive, I suppose, but that does raise the question of how much of that cotton and tobacco production would have been profitable using free market labor.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Northern colonies were colonized by families that planned to settle down and live there, producing complete, functional societies with churches and schools, and children to raise. They concentrated on producing food and becoming self-sufficient. Those colonies ended up free states.

The colonies that became slave states were mostly colonized by a mix of wealthy men out to make a fortune and go home, and indentures whose status wasn't much better than slaves. They were focused on cash crops, and had high mortality rates. Those were the ones that ended up slave states.

Apparently the family life helped retain civilized society, while indentureship required institutions that made the transition to outright slavery quite easy.

[Queen Amalthea]

"indentures whose status wasn't much better than slaves."

Remember, being a modern conservative means that making meaningful distinctions is hard and that thinking of people not like you is *really* difficult. Brett here handwaves distinctions that would be *huge* to someone like him were people like him involved. Indentured servants had it bad, but they were *far* better off than slaves in many very important (well, not quite 'I had to wear a mask and stand six feet away for thirty minutes while buying my chicken fingers' level important, I grant!) ways. Servants were people, not property under law. Servant entered under contract, slaves not so much. Etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

I literally distinguished between indentureship and slavery in the comment you're responding to.

Indentureship was similar to slavery in some regards, different in others, and the degree of difference depended on how strictly the terms of the indenture were enforced. If poorly enforced, it became very similar to slavery.

But either way, it required institutions which made switching to slavery easy.

[bernard11]

But was that distinction a consequence of opportunity - land well-suited to cash crops, especially, at first, tobacco and the availability of slave labor?

If not, what drove the distinction?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's quite possible that the difference in the land/climate drove who went where, but that the nature of the colonists drove whether they became slave states.

I really suggest reading the book, it's good, and goes into great detail about the differences between the various colonies.

[Jimmy the Dane]

A book by a historian ought to be authoritative eh? So what qualifications does the author of the 1619 project have?

No need to answer. My work here is done.

[Queen Amalthea]

"she's the editor of the book, it's got parts written by different authors many of whom are professional historians."

You have to love Jimmy's comment comes hours after this!

[Sarcastr0]

It's not the only narrative of the America Founding. But neither is it a plan to divide America.

Paranoid ranting is not a great countervailing source. Sources that are direct refutations of one another are okay, but not as useful as sources that tell their own story. Sources that impugn the motives of one another are useful largely as soap opera, not as history.

Read 1619. Also read a bio of Washington. And Zinn. And a British take on the Revolution. And Founding Brothers. And Frederick Douglas.

[Jimmy the Dane]

If you want to study history, find a book published before WWII generally, for a broad survey. That was before the commies started really taking over stuff so it will probably be good.

But, if you really want to understand it beyond the dates and things that happened, just read the primary source documents. It will take you longer but it is the only way to gain a full understanding of the "why" behind the dates and events.

[Queen Amalthea]

"find a book published before WWII generally"

The 'good old days' for people like Jimmy.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, back in the sexist segregation days, that's when American history was best.

And going to primary sources alone won't get you much other than confused.

But since you so very rarely seem to read sources yourself, I presume you're just lying again.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yeah reading the Federalist Papers will give you absolutely no idea about the Founders intention. To divine that you need the magical, mystical powers of a leftist professor who can tell you how to see it through the lens of who is really the victim here.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No, you actually need the magical, mystical powers of a rightist professor to pick and choose from conflicting historical sources, and fashion together a bad faith justification for reaching an ideologically conservative outcome. Or else invent methods of constitutional interpretation out of whole cloth, when even selective and misleading historical analysis fails to serve.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I guess you prefer the "let's make up some shit" school of constitutional interpretation with all of its penumbras and such.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Prefer it to what? My point is that conservatives are doing exactly what you describe.

[Sarcastr0]

The Federalist Paper without any historical context or analysis would indeed not be very helpful.

[Jimmy the Dane]

As opposed to our morally superior gender bending kids, reality denial, criminal ass kissing ways now....?

[Sarcastr0]

America was less free and less good in the 1950s. Just because you don't care about minorities and women doesn't mean that isn't true.

The fact that you went to trans stuff, which is a much smaller proportion of the population, shows how much you don't have the moral high ground.

[Queen Amalthea]

This book sounds like it might create discomfort in some kids and therefore should be recommended to no one and banned from all discussion at every school ever.

At the very least recommend it with a trigger warning and providing of a safe space from it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would actually not have a problem with it being presented in school, if, as I say, it was paired with one of the books claiming to rebut it. It would be highly educational for the students to be confronted with the fact that one of the books must be wrong, and that "I read it in a book" is no guarantee something is true.

[Queen Amalthea]

That's to your credit. Unfortunately I think the spirit, if not the letter, of many of these 'anti-CRT' bills will keep something like that from happening in places where they're ushered in.

[SimonP]

What a childish way of thinking about it.

You can read two books with conflicting views of history, without having to concede that "one of the books must be wrong." Indeed, if they're both rigorous historical works (which your other comments indicate you don't view as an actual requirement here), they'd probably both have good points to keep in mind.

Certainly, it would be useful to teach students how to read critically and use varying sources to get a better perspective on what the truth is most likely to be. Strange, though, that you don't seem to have taken your own advice (i.e., never having read the 1619 report yourself, but seemingly very informed on various rebuttals of it).

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I'm clear enough on the fact that, by the time of the revolution, not all the states were slave states, but all the states DID revolt. That kind of puts the end to any notion that we revolted over slavery.

[Moderation4ever]

What you missed is that the slave states may have joined the non-slave states in the rebellion because of a fear of losing slavery. The book makes the case that the southern slave states had stronger ties to England than the northern states. England growing opposition to slavery may have tipped southern colonies to a rebellion they may not otherwise have joined.

[bernard11]

What you missed is that the slave states may have joined the non-slave states in the rebellion because of a fear of losing slavery.

Yup. While Brett may be right that the revolution was not entirely over slavery, it may easily be argued that the revolution succeeded only due to slavery, because that was the issue that motivated the southern states to join in. At one margin, it was about slavery.

[Brett Bellmore]

If we're to accept that the Northern states didn't revolt due to slavery, then you have to accept that preserving slavery was, at most one of the reasons the Southern states revolted.

[Sarcastr0]

A cause may be not the sole cause, but still the but-for cause.

I honestly don't know if slavery was the but-for cause, but it was pretty front in a lot of southern planters' minds at the time.

[SimonP]

This doesn't follow, not that it's a relevant observation anyway.

[SimonP]

That is, in fact, what the essay in question argues. Also, that the wealth that the slave trade allowed the states to accumulate put them in the position of believing they could even pull the Revolution off.

[SimonP]

So, you're picking on a single inartful statement, since corrected, in a single essay?

Here's the NYTimes' correction:

We stand behind the basic point, which is that among the various motivations that drove the patriots toward independence was a concern that the British would seek or were already seeking to disrupt in various ways the entrenched system of American slavery. Versions of this interpretation can be found in much of the scholarship into the origins and character of the Revolution that has marked the past 40 years or so of early American historiography — in part because historians of the past few decades have increasingly scrutinized the role of slavery and the agency of enslaved people in driving events of the Revolutionary period.

That accounting is itself part of a growing acceptance that the patriots represented a truly diverse coalition animated by a variety of interests, which varied by region, class, age, religion and a host of other factors [...].

If the scholarship of the past several decades has taught us anything, it is that we should be careful not to assume unanimity on the part of the colonists, as many previous interpretive histories of the patriot cause did. We recognize that our original language could be read to suggest that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for all of the colonists. The passage has been changed to make clear that this was a primary motivation for some of the colonists. A note has been appended to the story as well.

[Ridgeway]

You might say that a single, inartful statement was corrected.

You might also say that the central thesis of the entire work was completely wrong, and that the authors only partially relented, and even then only after extensive pressure from scholars across the political spectrum.

It would be like someone writing a paper claiming that the sole motivation of the Holocaust was anti-Slavic ethnic hatred, and claiming that almost all victims of the Holocaust were Slavs. Would you give a pass to the authors if they backtracked and said, "well a lot of the motivation was anti-Slavic hatred, even if there were some other victims and motivations as well"?

[SimonP]

You might say that... if you hadn't bothered to read the essay in the first place.

[Ridgeway]

I read the piece in the NYT Magazine when it came out. The whole point was to denounce the American Revolution as an attempt to maintain slavery. It was not subtle.

[SimonP]

This is entirely incorrect. The piece spans the entirety of American history and traces the legal and social oppression of African Americans throughout that time. The assertion about slavery being a motivating factor behind the Revolution played only a small role in the larger picture.

[rsteinmetz]

In 1776 slavery existed in all 13 of the original colonies. It wasn't outlawed until 1777 in Vermont and 1780 in Massachusetts. in 170 Pennsylvania began a gradual emancipation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, and it was outlawed because, although it existed, it was hardly common, and on its way out.

[Moderation4ever]

Reminds me of an exercise our class did in my Catholic elementary school. The class was asked to read two accounts of the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. The accounts were from eyewitnesses reports in newspapers. On from a Soviet perspective and on from an American. The object was to critically read both narratives and find the commonalities in both articles that we can assume were facts and avoid subjective that were different in each of the articles.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Nicole Hannah Jones "

Race baiting grifter. Phony as her hair color.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you capable of disagreeing without being hateful?

[Ed Grinberg]

Ms. Jones and the "woke" crowd pushing her 1619 narrative are pretty damn hateful themselves...

[David Nieporent]

To a black person? I don't think he is, no.

[Bob from Ohio]

Very libertarian to play a race card, you twit.

[Queen Amalthea]

Bob: 'The true libertarian must not ever notice racism!'

[swood1000]

So, I just finished reading Nicole Hannah Jones book "The 1619 Project".

What response do you have to the historians who find fault with the book? You can find them listed in many places.

[Moderation4ever]

What I have noted is that those who find fault often don't disagree with the overall idea of the project. They may disagree with on how the fact are interpreted, but isn't that what written history is all about? How many biographies of George Washington have been written? Do you think they are all identical, of course not.

A book like the 1619 Project challenges you to think about American history. It offers a different prospective on the facts. It is an out-of-the-box look at our history.

[swood1000]

I guess we need to take account of what Nikole Hannah-Jones herself said:

I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and, therefore, the national memory. The project has always been as much about the present as it is the past.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems that's what Moderation4ever said.

[swood1000]

He referred to it as a "written history," which seems to conflict with her statement that it "is not a history."

[Queen Amalthea]

Can the Bills beat the Chiefs? That was an amazing performance in Buffalo last week, but the Chiefs have so much firepower.

Also, can the Rams beat the Bucs? They also looked great at home and the Bucs are pretty beat up.

My personal preference is not to see a Bucs-KC Super Bowl, or either of them in there this year.

[OtisAH]

They beat them in KC back in October, handily. But that was then. Bills D is solid and one of the better ones the Chiefs have faced this year. And Bills offense has some potent weapons their own selves. Yes, Bills can win.

Similar response re: Rams. They’re offense has oomph. And if the Bucs can’t handle Aaron Donald it could be a very long day for Brady and a pretty hilarious game for me.

[Moderation4ever]

The important game is Saturday night Green Bay and the Forty-Niners.

[Queen Amalthea]

If the 49ers had a good shot I'd agree, but I don't see it.

[BrianL.]

I'm just trying to figure out why they would schedule a night game in Green Bay in January. Trying to have another Ice Bowl?

[Moderation4ever]

Because it is Wisconsin and that's how we roll.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Knock back another Spotted Cow and enjoy the game, you lucky bastard!

[Commenter_XY]

The Rams will not beat the Bucs. The line is -3 and I expect it to be -5 by Saturday morning.

Can the Bills defeat KC at home.....? Highly doubtful; the Chiefs are very tough to beat at home. The line is -2, which is a little lower than I would have thought.

I have not watched much NFL since the kneeling bullshit. This weekend, I will be tuning in. No yardwork or errands to run, so I will chill out and hook up my projector to my digital TV converter box and watch life-sized players (have a 6.5 * 10 viewing screen).

[OtisAH]

“I haven’t watched in five years but here’s my opinion” is top shelf Volokh Conspiracy-ing.

[Commenter_XY]

Meh, I follow along in ESPN. I am a 'Big Blue' fan. As you might surmise, last weekend was glorious for me when both the 'Iggles' and the 'Cow-chumps' lost their games.

Daniel Jones....sigh. The jury is still out. And it should not be.

[Queen Amalthea]

I can't for the life of me get why someone would stop watching a sporting event they enjoyed because of some political stance by a tiny handful of the participants.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You probably aren't a disaffected, dispirited, delusional, dejected culture war casualty, consumed by perceived grievance and flailing bitterly against modern society as you await replacement and watch your political preferences fail throughout your entire life. How could you understand that guy's perspective?

I wish Aaron Donald and Patrick Mahomes -- each the best on one side of the ball -- good fortune. I see the Chiefs and Bills as entertaining performers. Tennessee's season deserves respect and Henry's return is interesting. Green Bay is an endearing franchise (with a jerk at quarterback) and winter games in Wisconsin always seem right. I hope to watch exciting games with limited injuries.

[not guilty]

I am a Titans fan. I'm not sure who I want to see win between the Bills and Chiefs. The Titans beat both during the regular season, but a rematch is always tough.

[Commenter_XY]

The Titans are my pick to go all the way. Solid team; no glaring weaknesses. Really good defense.

Besides, I will be relocating to TN in the coming years, so might as well stock up on orange (U of TN) and blue (Titans) jerseys and become a fan. 🙂

[LawTalkingGuy]

What is Shakespeare trying to accomplish in Henry V by making Henry sometimes dip into villain territory? Discuss.

[bernard11]

Ok. Good question.

IMO Henry is simply not an admirable character, "mirror of all Christian kings" notwithstanding.

And Shakespeare just shows him as such - maybe a complex character but certainly not saintly. (I tried to watch that recent movie based on those plays, but couldn't stand the saintliness.)

Remember, we first meet "the nimble, madcap Prince of Wales" as he participates in a robbery. Later, he dismisses his lifelong friend, Falstaff. Then he goes to war with France for no good reason. After Agincourt he has prisoners of war killed.

This more than the occasional dip into villain territory. Harold Bloom refers to Henry as "an amiable monster," which is not unfair, IMO.

[Ben_]

Biden gave Putin the go ahead to invade Ukraine yesterday: https://nypost.com/2022/01/19/joe-biden-admits-russia-will-prevail-over-time-if-it-invades-ukraine/

No mean tweets though.

[Sarcastr0]

That's...a take on how to parse that. Especially given the subsequent clarification.

You do love the NY Post, though. Seems your main source of news.

[Ben_]

Yeah, sending unclear messages to Putin about whether he can invade his neighbors is awesome. Bravo.

That’s a good way to accidentally get the US involved in a war that could otherwise possibly have been prevented.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not how foreign relations work. There was already a clarification.

You're performative outrage is such obvious nonsense; I don't believe a word of it.

[Ben_]

Putin knows a final decision will be made to counter him or not, and that decision will fall to Biden. And Putin (and everyone else) knows Biden is weak.

[I Callahan]

And the clarification wouldn’t have been necessary if Biden wasn’t such a bumbling fool and had thought about what he was saying.

[Bob from Ohio]

According to Politico, the former president said: "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f... things up."

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, Presidents never misspeak.

This is not a real outrage.

[Bob from Ohio]

"There was already a clarification."

By the press secretary.

Tell me, how many dead Ukrainians are a "minor incursion"?

[Sarcastr0]

How many dead Ukrainians are there?

Waving a bloody shirt without blood is extra lame.

[Bob from Ohio]

Lame is dismissing Biden's blunder.

[Sarcastr0]

Or maybe lame is this forced melodrama over a misstatement that was walked back.

This isn't the early 1900s; such things do not start conflicts.

[OtisAH]

Providing context isn’t actually walking back, either. Reading the full quote he mentions minor incursion, distinguishing say a skirmish from a full invasion, in the context of “That might not justify a full response from NATO.” He most certainly was not calling a Russian invasion of Ukraine “minor.”

[John F. Carr]

Biden's apparent grant of permission for a "minor incursion" made news outside the Post.

I don't know what would be "minor" considering we already have a major incursion. Most likely he means it's OK for Russia to take the lower part of the Dnieper. Russia wants to get water flowing through the North Crimean Canal again.

[Sarcastr0]

“President Biden has been clear with the Russian President: If any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that’s a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe, and united response from the United States and our Allies,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement. “President Biden also knows from long experience that the Russians have an extensive playbook of aggression short of military action, including cyberattacks and paramilitary tactics. And he affirmed today that those acts of Russian aggression will be met with a decisive, reciprocal, and united response.”

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Clean up on Aisle 7!

President Poops-His-Pants needs a clean up on Aisle 7!

[John F. Carr]

"What the president meant to say was..."

The more polite term is "walking it back" or "trial balloon".

[Bob from Ohio]

"White House press secretary Jen Psaki"

LOL a press secretary statement. Biden was in bed before that was released.

[Sarcastr0]

Why does that matter for your original supposed concern for the Ukrainian People?

[Bob from Ohio]

A hastily crafted statement by staff is meaningless. Less than meaningless.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Because the statement is self-evidently false: President Biden has decidedly not been clear, either that "any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that’s a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe, and united response from the United States and our Allies,” or that lesser "acts of Russian aggression will be met with a decisive, reciprocal, and united response.”

[Sarcastr0]

Right...I said it was a misspeak.

But how does that connect to all this caterwauling about hypothetical Ukrainian dead?

I'm not saying it was a perfect statement, the best statement, everyone's saying it. But the outrage over this seems...fake, honestly.

[Don Nico]

It does seem that the Ukrainian president was outraged and that the NATO allies were at best confused.

But move on. Is the "corrected" statement credible?
'decisive, reciprocal, and united response.'
Do you think that the US would launch a military counter-strike?

[Sarcastr0]

Biden's original statement was correct - had been correct for the past decade. But not something Presidents should say. Diplomacy is not much about honesty.

I don't see America responding as direct military action. But they'd provide material and probably do some special forces stuff under the table.

A new Afghanistan. An occupation that would bleed Russia little by little. Putin knows this, though he may feel obligated to try anyway for internal nationalist reasons.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That's...a take on how to parse that. Especially given the subsequent clarification."

Lol. You think the subsequent clarification happened in a vacuum?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You do love the NY Post, though. Seems your main source of news."

From CNN:

"The remarks prompted near-immediate outcry in Kyiv, where officials had been meeting with Biden's top diplomat, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, as Russian troops amass on the country's border. High-level attempts to clean up the comment soon followed at the White House, including a Wednesday evening statement from press secretary Jen Psaki, and subsequent media appearances by Psaki and Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday morning."

I mean, I'm not sure where you have to get your news to think that this is some sort of bullshit take. From what I've seen, everybody except reality-denying partisans agrees that Biden fucked up.

[Sarcastr0]

Causing a diplomatic kerfuffle is not the same as 'all these dead Ukrainians' a number of posters have imagined into existence.

This is, in fact, part of why diplomats exist.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Biden caused a diplomatic kerfuffle by appearing to greenlight an incursion into Ukraine, which you described as a "take" that could only appear in the NY Post.

[Queen Amalthea]

"appearing to greenlight "

Those are such weasel words they'd make any fowl worried if they were within a football field.

Ah, I guess for the days so little ago when we had a President whose daily rantings didn't need such qualifications...

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Those are such weasel words they'd make any fowl worried if they were within a football field."

Well, that's how it appeared to many people, including the Ukrainians. CNN quoted a Ukrainian official as saying, "This gives the green light to Putin to enter Ukraine at his pleasure..."

And that appearance is what led to the admin's extensive clean-up last night and today.

[Ben_]

The desolate survivors and grieving families from the upcoming Russia-Ukraine war can have the consolation that the feelings of the very special people are no longer at risk from words that might make them feel bad.

[Sarcastr0]

There are places to write your bleak fan fiction other than here.

[Ben_]

People here need to own their choices. You care about feelings (hurt by words) and not about real lives lost and real people hurt.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to care a lot about the speculative lives in a future you've made up.

Not really; you're just performing.

[Ben_]

Your willingness to ignore destruction and death for the sake of feelings about words —- that’s not about me.

[Sarcastr0]

Your willingness to write about destruction and death and then act like it's true is some kind of bad outrage addiction, and you should cut it out.

Stick with the real world, not the scenarios you make up.

If Russia invades someone, then maybe we can talk.

[OtisAH]

He’s just playing the game on the table. If Biden had committed troops we’d likely be reading “Biden is a warmonger!”

[Ben_]

It’s a lot worse than that. Biden doesn't "commit troops". Biden blunders. If Biden sends troops it will be the right number and type and rules of engagement to ensure a decisive loss for the US.

[OtisAH]

I was commenting to Sarcastro. I have no interest in anything you have to say, even if someday you have something interesting to say.

[Ben_]

Great. I wasn’t asking for your interest.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If Biden had committed troops we’d likely be reading “Biden is a warmonger!”

Almost no one wants US troops. Brits are sending planes of anti-tank weapons. We could send weapons and ammunition too.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If Russia invades someone, then maybe we can talk."

They already invaded Ukraine in 2014. Who was vice president then?

Putin has a good understanding of how weak Biden and the Obama second team is. Maybe Blinken can release more songs on Spotify? That reset button from Clinton is probably still at State as well.

[Sarcastr0]

Vice President?

Jesus, you're lame as hell.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, let me ask this: Did POTUS Biden handle the question about Ukraine badly, in your estimation?

Keep in mind that...people are human. They goof. They mean well, but sometimes gets mangled in translation from brain to mouth. Did that happen here?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not like Biden was the lead diplomat in Ukraine for the US in 2014, right?

Oh wait...

[Bob from Ohio]

"Not like Biden was the lead diplomat in Ukraine for the US in 2014, right?"

That was the whole thing with the infamous Trump phone call, Biden was the point person with Ukraine in 2014. Foreign policy expert that he is.

Gaslighto expects us to have Biden's memory.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Commenter, he messed up the question.

No, it is not a 5 alarm fire like the people in here are claiming.

They'll forget about this tomorrow; it's a game to them.

[Sarcastr0]

Like AL appears to be blaming the 2014 incursion on Biden.

Which no sane person would do. But AL is not a serious person, so why not indulge in some ginned up blame?

[Don Nico]

C'Mon S_O. Biden has the same coterie as was in power then.

[Sarcastr0]

Blaming VP Biden for what happened in 2014 is ridiculous. And his national security staff is not the same, I don't know why you'd think that.

[Ed Grinberg]

People here need to own their choices. You care about feelings (hurt by words) and not about real lives lost and real people hurt.

You nailed it in your previous comment. It's all about whose ox is being gored. Some people's feelings matter more than other people's lives.

[John F. Carr]

As long as western Europe needs Russian gas, Russia can do what it likes.

[Ben_]

Greens empower Putin.

[Ben_]

They actually doubled down on empowering Russia for the Earth Just this month:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/01/biden-admin-withdraws-support-from-israel-europe-eastmed-gas-pipeline/

[Bob from Ohio]

"No mean tweets though."

Impeached for a phone call, no dead Ukrainians though.

[TwelveInchPianist]

He also preemptively declared the 2022 election illegitimate.

[Ben_]

But that’s totally cool now.

Same for Biden not being able to admit mistakes. Big problem two years ago. Now? Crickets.

[Sarcastr0]

He didn't do this, TiP.
Right wing parsing is not real life.

Anyone could see he was referring to GOP efforts to overturn election results.

You really love your bad faith readings.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? We don't even have election results yet.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It's never good for [a] president to sow seeds of doubt in the legitimacy of American elections unless he has some sort of overwhelming reason ... and I do not see that." @jaketapper
says after President Biden said elections could be "illegitimate" without voting rights reform.

Even Jake knows.

[M L]

CDC: Prior Covid-19 Infection Offered Better Protection Than Vaccination During Delta Wave

[Sarcastr0]

Always glad to see science march on.

Of course, you need to get Covid for that to work. Risky proposition.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not pleasant, as I can testify from personal experience, but one feels rather aggrieved when you've gone through that, gotten your immunity the hard way, and the government insists on pretending that you don't have immunity.

This has very real medical implications. The booster shot dosage is half the normal dosage, and isn't given until six months after you've completed the original series of shots, to minimize the chance of adverse reactions.

If you've had Covid? They recommend you wait TEN DAYS, only to avoid you still being infectious. Not because getting the shot that soon is medically contraindicated for the exact reason it's a bad idea if you just got vaccinated.

And then you won't actually qualify for the half dose booster shot if you previously had Covid, that's only available to people who've been vaccinated. No, you have to get the full dose shot that they don't give to people who've been vaccinated because it might cause an adverse reaction. And then they want you to come back in a month later for another full dose shot that they wouldn't be giving you if you'd been vaccinated because of the risk of adverse reactions.

Essentially, they're refusing to protect people who've had Covid from adverse vaccine reactions, because all their recommendations are predicated on natural immunity not being a real thing.

[Ben_]

Prediction for whether they continue that exact policy given the new study information?

I’d say it’s 50/50 whether they completely discount this new info and continue the same policy for at least another couple months.

[Longtobefree]

All their recommendations are predicated on controlling the population, not the virus. Viewed that way, it all makes sense.

[M L]

I understand they're also saying that vaccination after infection provides no benefit.

[Sarcastr0]

Not according the the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/vaccine-benefits.html

[M L]

I haven't delved in to confirm, but this page describes it thusly: "people who were unvaccinated but recovered from an infection were about as well-protected against hospitalization and death as people who had double protection from vaccines and prior infection." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/vaccination-plus-prior-infection-provided-strongest-protection-against-delta

Your link predates this new study and is irrelevant to the discussion of its findings.

[M L]

So in addition to indicating that natural immunity is superior to vaccine protection for the Delta variant -- "Rates among vaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were consistently higher than rates among unvaccinated persons with a history of COVID-19" https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w -- it appears the study also suggests that there may be little or no additional benefit from the "double protection" of prior infection + vaccines.

[M L]

They also note that this study largely concurs with the results of previous studies from other countries.

[Sarcastr0]

This says nothing about the differential of being vaccinated among those who had previously had Covid.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As the Delta variant prevalence increased to >95% (97% in Region 9 and 98% in Region 2 on August 1), rates increased more rapidly among the vaccinated group with no previous COVID-19 diagnosis than among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis (Supplementary Figure 1, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/113253) (Supplementary Figure 2, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/113253). For example, during the week of October 3, compared with rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, rates among vaccinated persons without a previous diagnosis were 6.2-fold lower (95% CI = 6.0–6.4) in California and 4.5-fold lower (95% CI = 4.3–4.7) in New York (Table 2). Further, rates among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were 29-fold lower (95% CI = 25.0–33.1) than rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis in California and 14.7-fold lower (95% CI = 12.6–16.9) in New York. Rates among vaccinated persons who had had COVID-19 were 32.5-fold lower (95% CI = 27.5–37.6) than rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis in California and 19.8-fold lower (95% CI = 16.2–23.5) in New York. Rates among vaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were consistently higher than rates among unvaccinated persons with a history of COVID-19 (3.1-fold higher [95% CI = 2.6–3.7] in California and 1.9-fold higher [95% CI = 1.5–2.3] in New York) and rates among vaccinated persons with a history of COVID-19 (3.6-fold higher [95% CI = 2.9–4.3] in California and 2.8-fold higher [95% CI = 2.1–3.4] in New York)."

So, yeah, it did. Having had Covid was 2-3 times more protective than having been vaccinated, while the advantage of getting vaccinated after having had Covid was relatively minor.

[Sarcastr0]

'Relatively minor' is not what ML said.

[M L]

"This says nothing about the differential of being vaccinated among those who had previously had Covid."

Try reading again.

Natural immunity = "about as well-protected" as natural immunity + vaccination.

[Bored Lawyer]

You do understand that millions got Covid without meaning to, and now have immunity, right?
And yet the government treated them as though they did not have immunity, right?
And that is an anti-scientific stance, right?

[Sarcastr0]

This is new science, chucklehead.

[Bored Lawyer]

Medical experts were saying this for some time. The notion that it is "new science" is simply a dodge. Not to mention that the vaccines are as much, if not more, "new science" than the notion that contracting a disease grants one immunity going forward.

[Sarcastr0]

Medical experts are not a peer reviewed study.

This is new science, for the proper view of science as multiple, peer reviewed studies agreeing.
Not some random single authority you like.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is not new science, Sarcastro. Getting a disease gives you immunity to that disease. Vaccines actually rely on that, they simulate your getting the disease, so as to provoke the immune response diseases cause.

Look, it's better to get your immunity from a needle, because your chances of dying that way are a lot lower. But it's flatly unscientific to start from the assumption that having had a disease doesn't give immunity. Rather, the starting assumption has to be that it DOES.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett. That grade school understanding of immunology won't get you where you want to go.

How does your body pick an antigen? What about the vaccine? Is that different? How does this scale with antigen load?

And probably lots of other stuff I don't know.

No one started from the assumption that having Covid didn't give you immunity. They just didn't make the assumption you are making, that having it rendered a vaccine redundant. THAT remains unclear.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't have a grade school understanding of immunology, I spent 4 years in college pursuing a dual degree in engineering and human biology. Admittedly I had to drop out before graduating to take care of my mother after a bad car accident, but my grades in college level human biology were excellent, and I've followed the literature since.

No, they were not stupid enough to come out and SAY that getting Covid didn't give you any immunity. But they set out policies which were utterly irrational and destructive if they were not based on such an assumption.

For instance, if you've been vaccinated, they recommend you wait about 6 months before being boosted. Why? Because there's no point in boosting when the immunity is at its peak, and because boosting while it's at its peak increases the chance of an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

What's their recommendation if you've had Covid? Wait ten days before getting vaccinated, to avoid any chance you're still contagious. That's a recommendation that makes no sense AT ALL unless you're assuming having had Covid doesn't cause immunity. If you accept that natural immunity is a thing, it's utterly irresponsible to suggest that somebody who had Covid less than two weeks earlier get vaccinated for it.

Not one policy they've promulgated that I have seen makes sense unless you're starting from the assumption that natural immunity doesn't exist. Apparently official policy at the CDC is that natural immunity is to be totally disregarded.

[Sarcastr0]

Immunology is still a largely phenomenological science. Using a generalized model to predict how it'll operate is bad science.

Whatever degrees you got, you're not using them now.

Your sloppy conflation of immunity with resistance with contagiousness is also doing you no favors.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
That is VERY old news, before any population had been vaccinated.No new S-O.
The only thing new is that the CDC is stating to catch up with high quality public health officials elsewhere in the world.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sure you have your personal expert analysis.

But I don't think the CDC taking a while to be sure is a big scandal.

[Don Nico]

I completely disagree. CD used to be a world leader. Now it is a follower, often contradicted by many competent agencies worldwide and even then mealy mouthed many months later.
Why might that be? Don't tell me there is no political influence. I have seen that in agency pronouncements for decades.

Why are you so invested in defending the indefensible?

[Ben_]

Everyone who insisted that natural immunity was inferior to vaccine immunity can use this thread to apologize for being wrong and endorsing policies that hurt people.

You can write those apologies below here.

[Bored Lawyer]

My wife and two daughters are taking a trip to Israel. Their immigration policy for tourists treats persons who had COVID as the equivalent to being vaccinated. You still need a test at the airport, and a quarantine of the shorter of 24 hours or a negative result from that test.
If you neither had COVID nor were vaccinated, then you have to quarantine for 5 days (recently reduced from 10).
So they, at least, recognize that having COVID grants immunity at least equivalent to a vaccine.

[Commenter_XY]

Bored Lawyer, I hope your wife and daughters have a wonderful time in Israel. Here is the Traveler's prayer to say upon leaving your home (Tefilat Haderech).

Y’hi ratzon milfanecha Adonai Eloheinu ve-lohei avoteinu she-tolichenu l’shalom v’tatz’idenu l’shalom, v’tism’chenu l’shalom, v’tadrichenu l’shalom, v’tagi’enu limchoz cheftzenu l’chayim ul’simha ul’shalom. V’tatzilenu mi-kaf kol oyev v’orev v’listim v’chayot ra-ot ba-derech, u-mi-kol min-ei pur’aniyot hamitrag’shot la-vo la-olam. V’tishlach b’racha b’chol ma’a’se yadeinu v’tit’neinu l’chen ul’chesed ul’rachamim b’einecha uv’einei kol ro-einu. V’tishma kol tachanuneinu ki el sho-me-ah t’fila v’tachanun ata. Baruch ata Adonai sho-me’a t’fila.

[Sarcastr0]

Recent scientific discoveries do not travel back in time, Ben.

Lets talk about future Covid policies, not some 2020 hindsight fallacies.

[M L]

There have been many studies evidencing this same claim.

[Sarcastr0]

Single studies are not what you base public health policy on.

[Commenter_XY]

Funny....how many studies was the 6' social distance guideline based upon, Sarcastr0?

[Queen Amalthea]

Why do you think so many health agencies recommended distancing?

[Sarcastr0]

Here is a decent review:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/03/commentary-covid-19-transmission-messages-should-hinge-science

[Don Nico]

A decent review from the stone age of this pandemic.
CDC has not done itself proud. Just admit the obvious for a change.

[Sarcastr0]

That was the answer to Commenter's question.

I don't think the CDC has done great, but I also think these lines of attack are partisan. Demanding the CDC move quickly, but also agree with them. That's just an excuse to hate on the CDC.

The partisan pushback on Covid policies has been incredible, death-cult like tribalism. I don't pretend the origin of these objections comes from anywhere other than the GOP's irresponsible resistance to anything that could be seen to help Biden.

[Don Nico]

"but I also think these lines of attack are partisan."
You can conveniently think that as a way to defend a government agency.
But that thinking is shallow at best.
Competent people admit when they are wrong.

[not guilty]

My partisan instincts are glad that Republicans are resisting being vaccinated. My humanitarian instincts, not so much.

[Ben_]

You can still apologize for endorsing a punitive policy before the data was available.

[Ben_]

I don’t think anyone will apologize. Just like Trump:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/opinions/trump-can-never-admit-he-made-a-mistake-isenberg/index.html

Which is supposedly shameful and dangerous. Or something.

[Queen Amalthea]

As I've said, being a modern conservative generally means an inability to make even basic distinctions. Here Ben equates someone not apologizing about a specific view with someone refusing to say they've ever made a mistake.

[Illocust]

You are doing the equivalent of demanding a study that red cups still obey the laws of gravity. The immune system and its study is not new. The claim that natural immunity does not provide greater than or equal to protection of a vaccine is in fact the claim that would need a scientific study to disprove, as all our research up to this point has shown no reason to believe that Covid is any different than any other disease we catch.

[Sarcastr0]

That's flatly untrue.

I've talked to Covid researchers, and they absolutely thought that the relative immunity levels needed study.

[Ben_]

Punishing restrictions first. Maybe study sometime to see if they were ever necessary. That's the Democrat way.

(And no apologies when you were wrong and all the punishing restrictions were unnecessary.)

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, one does not generally apologize when new information is uncovered nearly 2 years later.

[Ben_]

Just like Trump

[Sarcastr0]

?

[Ben_]

Dems believe they shouldn’t have to apologize for their own harmful policies of the last two years when it turns out they were wrong.

They also think Americans should have to apologize for actions that other people did decades or centuries ago.

As long as Americans are treated badly, that’s satisfactory.

[David Nieporent]

Yes. They also found that before Delta, vaccination offered better protection than prior infection. And that prior infection plus vaccination offered better protection than prior infection, meaning there was still no reason not to get vaccinated.

[Don Nico]

Correct David and please add that those statements were accurate immediately after the vaccine had reached full effectiveness and the the efficacies both decayed in their own separate manner.

[Sarcastr0]

Which is not a distinction anyone is making. The objections by the commenters here are as though the CDC was making stuff up the whole time. Because they don't care about what's true, only owning the libs.
Covid's risk is a small price to own the libs, it seems. Amazing.

[Don Nico]

Get off the partisan BS, S_O. As always you sidestep facts to try to advance your political idea. I'd call that a sleezy. trial-lawyer practice that most people can see right through.

[bernard11]

Who was that idiot - oh yeah, Dennis Prager, RW genius - who said he tried (and succeeded) to get Covid because he wanted the natural immunity.

"I wanted to get Covid so I wouldn't get Covid." This guy apparently has an audience, to, what with Prager "University" and all.

[Ben_]

Congrats on finding something to be a jerk about. Was that your goal for today?

[M L]

Silicon Valley Big Tech CEO billionaire Chamath Palihapitiya: "Nobody cares about what's happening to the Uyghurs, okay?"

https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1483124014381993985

[John F. Carr]

He's right. Look at South Africa in the 1980s. The Israel-Palestinian conflict in the past 15 years. There were protests and boycott movements. I don't see the same level of anger now.

[Brett Bellmore]

A lot of South Africans fled South Africa, after the ANC took over, so they're not still there to be angry. I've got a friend who was one of them, he didn't care to stick around, the ANC was pretty vicious.

Part of what keeps the Israel-Palestinian conflict simmering is that the surrounding Arab states wouldn't let the Palestinians leave. They're not welcome in the surrounding Arab states.

[John F. Carr]

I'm talking about the boycott/divest movement of the 1980s in America. For example, it was fashionable to build symbolic shantytowns on college campuses. The students did more than click a "like" button. They went camping. Mocking aside, it was a real investment of time. It's much better to look at what people say than what they do. Where are the symbolic destroyed mosques on campuses in this century?

The ANC, apart from Mandela, demonstrates what we saw in this century a few thousand miles to the North: toppling an evil government does not create a good government. But like we declared victory in the Muslim world we declared victory and moved on from South Africa.

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, I'd like to see the symbolic destroyed mosques by conservatives in sympathy with the Uyghurs.

It's all bad faith with these people.

[Queen Amalthea]

There really is no line in the conservative extremist playbook that you won't parrot is there? I mean, you are very anti-refugee and yet peddle the old 'the Arab states won't just let the Palestinians come live with them' line.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, why is it the wall between Gaza and Israel gets all the attention?

[Queen Amalthea]

1. This is a deflection. Saying 'the Israel-Palestine conflict simmers because it's the Arab neighbors that won't let the Palestinians in' coming from an ardent-anti-refugee person is the point. It can't be the Arab neighbors fault for not allowing the Palestinians to relocate there given *you wouldn't* in their place. If someone said 'the problem with Mexicans fleeing cartel violence lies with the Americans for not letting them in' you'd rightly laugh.
2. I'm not sure it gets 'all the attention.' I've heard quite a bit about the Egypt border (which, of course, is part of an agreement *with Israel* brokered by us).

[M L]

He then goes on to explain that some people including the interviewer do indeed care, but it's just that he personally does not care.

[Queen Amalthea]

This is, of course, monumental bad faith. M L doesn't care about Uyghurs, he wants you to hate China (and, likely, the Chinese).

[Ed Grinberg]

"The Chinese government is putting people in concentration camps."
"Racist!"
QA is a piece of work...

[hobie]

I don't see how the top Republican players in the states that sent fraudulent electors ballots to Congress can avoid criminal conviction for that. Or can anyone credibly argue that what they did was simply a symbolic act of protest? In my opinion, if all this plays out, it will mean an end to the republican party in America.

https://www.thebulwark.com/its-long-past-time-to-prosecute-phony-gop-electors/

[John F. Carr]

Depending on the specific charge it might be necessary to prove that the people who signed the documents subjectively believed they were false.

[Brett Bellmore]

Further, even some anti-Trump Democrats will admit there's actually precedent for such actions being legal, in order to preserve a challenge beyond the point where the EC meets. When Kennedy beat Nixon in '60, Hawaii had been certified for Nixon, but the Kennedy electors sent in their votes anyway, and they ended up being counted because a recount reversed the outcome after the EC had met.

[hobie]

Brett, that Hawaii thing was televised, in chambers, and voted on in public by the members. These cabals in the five states lied and said they were the defacto electors representing the voters of their state. And this is not fraud how?

[bernard11]

Don't destroy Brett's whataboutist delusions.

He will never admit these people did anything wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am reasoning off this article, by a guy who (To say the least!) is hardly a Trump supporter, but who IS a law professor specializing in election law.

What should happen to 2020’s renegade presidential electors?

"Back to 2020. Were presidential electors simply trying to “preserve” their legal challenges in the (extremely) longshot event that they won them? Some legal challenges were pending in some states. They were less serious than the recount in 1960. Should that be the standard, the likelihood of success to determine whether unofficial electors can cast ballots and send them to Congress, even if they have no power to do so? In some states, there were no legal challenges pending (to my knowledge)–should electors in those states face sanctions, as opposed to others where legal challenges were pending. Are there First Amendment implications in asking (petitioning?) Congress to count these votes and not other votes?

Maybe an answer is, Hawaii 1960 was a terrible precedent and should not be emulated–and, in fact, maybe Congress got it outright wrong. If you don’t have a certificate of election, you don’t get to send a certificate to Congress purporting to be an elector.

This, of course, places additional pressure on the certification process and raises additional questions about Congress’s power to adjudicate multiple certificates, including if one lacks the imprimatur of a state official. (One can go back to Reconstruction to see additional disputes on the matter, too.)

In short, I don’t have easy answers about how to square these matters. I know states are investigating how to prosecute these claims. Congress might be investigating, too. Some are much more obvious falsehoods, like purporting to meet in the Capitol when they didn’t. But others look more like “preserving” challenges a la 1960. How much that matters in 2020 remains an open question (as is what lessons it might yield for Electoral Count Act reform before 2024)."

[hobie]

Looks like you are grasping at straws here, Brett. I mean it is beyond question that these ballots are criminally illegal, but the big takeaway is that they fit into the broad scheme by Eastman/Clark to steal the entire election. It is amazing to me that all these people actually filmed themselves doing this and signed their own names on these documents

[not guilty]

The plot thickens. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/electors-giuliani-trump-electoral-college/2022/01/20/687e3698-7587-11ec-8b0a-bcfab800c430_story.html Rudy Giuliani was into this crime/fraud up to his eyeballs.

[hobie]

'Don't destroy Brett's whataboutist delusions.'

I see that. I love having few reactions to my posts. When I say something, it is irrefutable, so trolls like Brett usually avoid it.

[Allutz]

In at least one of the states referenced by that article, Arizona, I know that the bulwark has misrepresented what was done. So I doubt the veracity of their claims regarding the other 5...

[hobie]

The lawyer who wrote the article in the Bulwark cited several articles that included photographic evidence of the fraudulent electors signing their own names on these documents. In other articles there is video evidence of these people admitting to actually doing this crime. Anything else?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Turns out that it was in fact coordinated by the Trump campaign.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/trump-campaign-officials-rudy-giuliani-fake-electors/index.html

Prison is too good for these people.

[Ben_]

Biden casts doubt on upcoming 2022 election legitimacy:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/harris-dodges-on-whether-biden-cast-doubt-on-election-legitimacy/

But he’s not orange so the people pretending to care about that aren’t interested. It’s really bad when Orange man does it, totally cool when Dems do it.

[OtisAH]

Yes, all things are exactly the same all the time. And everyone knows it, too.

[Ben_]

Very similar things are earthshakingly outrageous and bordering of treason when Orange Man says it and no problem at all when Dems say it.

[SimonP]

Trump claimed, without evidence, that the election would be stolen from him. After he lost, he claimed, without evidence, that the election had been stolen from him. As he brought legal claim after legal claim to try to get the results overturned, he kept losing, because there was no evidence.

The story would have been different, had their been evidence.

The sorts of election subversion techniques Democrats are worried about are plain as day. Even in states with no particular issues on Election Day, like Florida and Texas, Republicans are looking for ways to make it harder to vote and harder to have your vote counted, if you vote the wrong way. That is what Biden is concerned about, and why he's hedging here.

What are you going to say, the first time an election administrator overseeing an electoral district in an urban, black community decides to throw out their votes as uncertifiable? What are you going to say, the first time a state legislature decides that a vote tally is so tainted by fraud that they need to send their own slate of electors to Washington?

[Ben_]

Is the 2022 election legitimate?

[SimonP]

I hope and trust that it will be. But whether it is or not isn't up to me. It's up to the people administering the elections.

[Ben_]

So unlike in 2020, it's ok to predict that the election might possibly, somehow not be conducted fairly.

It was hair-on-fire dramatic when that talk happened in 2020. Huh.

[SimonP]

Well, I can tell the difference between a whining man-baby who would do anything to avoid admitting that he might lose just because people don't like him, including fabricating entire conspiracies against him, and a career politician trying to express his concerns over an objectively worrying trend that is happening right before our eyes.

I'm not bound, like you are, to draw false equivalences in order to support "my guy."

[Ben_]

Just pointing out the double standards.

Everyone who pretended this was a taboo discussion in 2020 has an opportunity to show they’re not a complete phony partisan. I expect most will show their true phony partisan colors instead.

[SimonP]

There's no double standard here. Biden isn't out holding rallies about how illegitimate the 2022 election is likely to be. He was asked a question by a journalist and attempted to respond to it, in light of the broader push to do something about election subversion - which is the true threat here.

[Ben_]

You know what works better than pretending similar things are categorically different?

Not lighting your hair on fire and howling at the moon the first time. No melodramatic pretense the first time, no need to continue pretending the next time.

[SimonP]

I fail to see how pointing at Trump's repeated claims, prior to both the 2016 and 2020 elections, that any loss by him would be illegitimate, constituted "histrionics," particularly when history has shown concerns expressed at those times to be 100% correct.

[Ben_]

It’s just politicians being politicians. We can agree it never meant much and doesn’t mean much now. And we won’t pretend it means much next time either.

How about that?

[Brett Bellmore]

"There's no double standard here. Biden isn't out holding rallies about how illegitimate the 2022 election is likely to be."

Well, duh: Biden couldn't get 200 people to show up for a rally if he promised free pizza. Doesn't change the fact that he did predict an illegitimate election if Democrats don't get everything they want in terms of altering election laws.

[Bob from Ohio]

Biden claimed, without evidence, that the 2022 election would be stolen.

No different than what Trump claimed BEFORE the election.

[Bored Lawyer]

How lame. You seriously think something has to be "exactly the same" to be objectionable?

So if I murder someone in some new way (put a deadly spider in his bed), I can get off, because that is not "exactly the same" as what murderers have done before.

[OtisAH]

Damn, you’re stupider than the other guy!

[Ben_]

I feel bad that I lost this competition:(

[Queen Amalthea]

An inability to make meaningful distinctions is, of course, a central feature of most modern conservatives.

Also, the bad faith of those Trumpistas jumping on the supposed huge import of Biden's misstatements is, of course, as evident as a naked Pam Anderson riding a Unicorn in broad daylight on camera.

[M L]

That's different because reasons. Socialist good. Conservative bad.

[Sarcastr0]

The full court press in 2020 is becoming evident.

This is not that.

The lack of shame in the super lame attempts to equate stuff continues to amaze.

[SimonP]

People are running for offices that oversee elections explicitly claiming that they wouldn't have "certified" vote counts showing that Biden won in 2020 - as a reason to vote for them. If you aren't concerned about how that might impact our elections, you're just another fascist trying to overthrow democracy.

[Bored Lawyer]

Source?

And, in any event, that is nowhere near showing that a future election will be "illegitimate."

[SimonP]

I find it hard to believe that you're not aware of this trend in local elections. This is transparently part of Bannon's call to action, to right-wing "stop the stealers." They're all over the place. A couple were just featured at Trump's rally in Arizona.

And no, I'm not saying that, if any of these people get elected, it will render the election illegitimate. But I am certainly concerned that we'll have people in positions of power who would be willing to cast out vote tallies they don't like. I don't have any reason to trust that these people put country over party.

[Sarcastr0]

Google for like 10 seconds, dude.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1070864361

[Bored Lawyer]

Did you actually read that? Not a shred of support to the claim that
"People are running for offices that oversee elections explicitly claiming that they wouldn't have "certified" vote counts showing that Biden won in 2020 - as a reason to vote for them."

So, no, you have proven nothing but your own lack of abilities.

[SimonP]

You're clearly not arguing in good faith. The NPR transcript cites candidates in Arizona and Georgia (among other more general statements speaking to the trend).

You're trying to have a debate over reality, in order to avoid admitting that - yes, you do think these people should be able to decide that a vote was sufficiently tainted by "fraud" (whether can show this or not) to decline to "certify" an election.

[ducksalad]

Simon, your problem is that you used the word "expicitly". AFAICT no quote in that transcript explicitly says they would not certify.

Your underlying argument is that if someone states X then they are stating everything that, in your opinion, logically follows from X.

Well, no. That's exact and entire difference between "implicit" and "explicit".

Unless this is some new Internet thing, where "explicitly" now means "implicitly", the same way "literally" now means "figuratively".

And as a side issue, when some bad guy is wrong - and I agree these are bad people and they are wrong - it's bad strategy to insist they be logically consistent.

[SimonP]

I am not concerned with entering evidence into the record in order to support my comments. People are explicitly stating what I've said they're explicitly stating. Some of the people stating this are referenced in the NPR transcript. If I cannot draw a precise link from the NPR transcript provided by some other person to a statement that I offered, based on my own knowledge, to the satisfaction of some cadre of internet Trump-trolls, it is of no particular concern to me. The point is these people are out there, and I'm not interested in getting into a meandering debate about whether they are or not (or about whether I've sufficiently proven for the peanut gallery that they are).

[Sarcastr0]

What kind of nits are you picking here? this year, 27 states will hold elections for their states' secretary of state position. And in basically half of those races, there's at least one Republican running who either questions the legitimacy of Joe Biden's win in 2020 or outright says the election was stolen from Donald Trump.

You think they're arguing it was illegitimate but they'd have voted to certify anyway?

Jody Hice [Georgia SecState], has already been endorsed by Trump, and he voted in Congress on January 6 not to certify the results.
This is bang on what you asked about, eh?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A majority of Americans believe the last elections was questionable.

We all saw the Democrats cheating and fraud with our own eyes.

The fact that you evil tyrants are now trying to criminalize espousing what we saw further demonstrates how utterly contemptible and irredeemable you people are.

[SimonP]

You all saw this "cheating and fraud" with your "own eyes," yet couldn't manage to win court cases claiming exactly this. There was more evidence of Russian collusion with Trump in the 2016 election than there is of any Democratic "cheating and fraud" in 2020.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We live in literal different universes.

Yours is a made up one created and controlled by evil mindmasters and braintenders.

Mine is empirical and based upon observation, consideration, and reason.

[Queen Amalthea]

This guy is from Bizarro world.

[bernard11]

Yes.

As soon as you see the made-up "sorta" military name you know the guy's an utter asshole who wants to pretend he's some sort of tough guy.

Write him off as another A.L., M.L., etc.

[SimonP]

There were lengthy investigations into Russian interference in 2016, including in Congress and the DOJ, which each produced lengthy reports confirming the degree of their involvement (and the proximity of the Trump clan to Russia's efforts).

In contrast, not even the highly politicized, politically controlled, and incompetent audit of the Arizona vote could turn up a pattern of "cheating and fraud" sufficient to cast the final tally into question. To say nothing of the parade of losses in court.

[Queen Amalthea]

You and your fancy Deep State paragraphs! This guy will respond soon with devastating SENTENCES, the parlance of the awesome common American MAN.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who adjudicated Democrat officials single-handedly altering voting rules? Contrary to the plain language of the Constitution?

Who adjudicated the curious loss of chain of evidence, logs, videos etc of ballots?

The only case I know that was actually adjudicated was recently in Wisconsin and they found what the Democrats officials did in 2020 to be highly illegal. The rest were Democrat judges or Republican cowards who wouldn't hear the cases in court.

Just like SCOTUS. But they had legit reasons to fear, their lives were in probably in danger.

[Queen Amalthea]

Welcome John Birch!

"or Republican cowards"

Lol, Captain Conspiracy Non-Falsifiable Strikes Again!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You can falsify my claims easily.

Find a court case where they went to trial.

https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2022/01/14/wisconsin-circuit-court-judge-rules-absentee-ballot-boxes-illegal-n506690

There's mine.

[SimonP]

You mean, a court case other than one before a Democratic judge or a cowardly Republican?

What's interesting about the case you've chosen to cite is that it has nothing to do with "cheating and fraud." It's about the use of secure, monitored ballot boxes for the collection of absentee ballots. The court held that they weren't specifically authorized by Wisconsin statutes - and they may not be!

But do you know what is still authorized? Dropping an absentee ballot in an unmonitored, unsecured mailbox! They even have a whole section on helping people in retirement communities vote, which includes allowing residents to ask their relatives or election officials to complete their ballots (and the officials are permitted/required to collect the ballots and deliver them within 18 hours of the end of the election day).

This is characteristic of all the dark musings we've been hearing about since 2020. You seize on technical problems - e.g., the use of official ballot boxes rather than mailboxes, healthcare facility workers completing helping residents instead of family - and infuse them with a presumption of fraud. The legally permitted options are less secure!

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, this goofball authoritarively cited the recanting mailman the other day.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You cited "Slate".

lmao get real you delusional whacko

[Queen Amalthea]

I cited the *information* in a Slate article.
But, of course you don't know what that's about. Go wave your red MAGA hat more furiously!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I don't wave my red hat, I don't want the Democrats in the DOJ, IRS, USPS, ATF or any other federal agency to target me for oppression like they have the others.

[bernard11]

You're full of shit.

[DaveM]

What really would have "cast doubt" on upcoming election legitimacy would have been if the so-called voting "rights" bill had passed. The bill was, charitably, court-bait, I'd say. But as we've seen with the CDC and landlords, and then with OSHA and private employers, the fact that a law or an emergency regulation is pretty obviously trampling all over the Constitution has never slowed this administration down.

I especially like the hubris of a party thinking it could take over the election rules of every single state with not one person from the other party. That's really just mental. Forget the legal aspects, just the politics are near-suicidal. What do they think would happen to them had they succeeded?! Wiped off the face of the map for an entire generation.

Fortunately, they lost so now they get to play-act like they suddenly care about election process. I'm sure they're breathing a sigh of relief.

[Queen Amalthea]

How would the voting rights bill involve a 'party' 'taking over the election rules of every single state?' Every provision would be as available to members voting for either or any party.

[Brett Bellmore]

The fact that all the votes for the law came from one party is what makes it a 'party' taking over the election rules of every single state.

Sure, sure, members of the opposing party could have voted for it, what difference does that make if they didn't?

[Queen Amalthea]

That's like saying the GOP tax cut was a 'a party taking over the tax rules of the nation.' It's odd, at best.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the difference is that the GOP tax cut was the federal government changing federal tax laws. The Democrats' law here is the federal government overturning state laws.

[Queen Amalthea]

Uh, for *federal* elections, right?

[SimonP]

Why is it crazy to want federal elections in this country to all play by the same rules?

Republicans are making a lot of noise about states controlling their own elections, as though this was some kind of sacrosanct choice enshrined in the Constitution, but the truth is they prefer local control because it makes election subversion and suppression harder to catch and prevent. If they really cared about protecting elections, they would have come to the bargaining table.

For example, one of the "bipartisan" planks Manchin wanted to offer was national voter ID. Republicans in Congress could have bargained for that, while at the same time agreeing to a fair early voting window; uniform procedures for counting ballots (remember all of the angst expressed when we didn't know who won on election night?); making Election Day a federal holiday; and taking other steps to address whatever concerns Trumpers have been expressing about weaknesses in the 2020 elections.

We could do all of that. It would not take much to get the ball rolling. Centrist Republicans could make up for any Democratic defections (but I'd expect there to be few). But Republicans don't want to deal, because they know they have a better shot at manipulating the states at the local level.

[Brett Bellmore]

Republicans could have agreed to swallow the poison pill if it had a chocolate coating; Why didn't they? Don't they like chocolate?

I see this reasoning all the time for legislation, and it makes no sense: Somebody asks you if you like cherries, you say yes. They then hand you a shit sandwich with a cherry on it, and when you refuse to take a bite, suggest you were lying about liking cherries.

Forget getting the ball rolling. Just take each separate provision and send it through as a separate bill, and the parts that have majority support will pass, and the parts that don't will fail. The only reason for insisting that it has to be one omnibus bill is that you really want to see that shit eaten.

[Sarcastr0]

The Dems are saying they will do that. The broken up bills will all be filibustered. Because the GOP is awful on this issue.
For reasons they would rather not say.

[Bob from Ohio]

"For reasons they would rather not say."

Complete BS. You just won't look.

The provisions largely suck. There, a reason.

The election day as holiday, while stupid, is largely harmless.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it's very easy to say, "All the separate bills would be filibustered." and as long as they don't send up any separate bills, no risk of being proven wrong!

But the fact is that Republican leaders are coming right out and saying they're open to at least some of this stuff, and were specific about reforming the ECA.

[Sarcastr0]

You are not this naiive.

[Brett Bellmore]

Am too!

Look, I know you have a VERY negative opinion of Republicans, but they're not spiteful enough to refuse to vote for measures they approve of, just because Democrats originated them.

OTOH, they aren't desperate enough to change our election laws that they'll vote for measures they don't like, just to get some clauses they do like. They're not going to swallow the poison pill just to get a taste of chocolate. No matter how much you wish they would.

[SimonP]

The only "poison pill" in the proposed legislation, from a Republican perspective, is imposing limits on their ability to subvert elections at the local level.

Obviously, I perfectly understand that no Republican is worried about election integrity, as a matter of principle. They can give fuck-all about that. What they care about is complaining about "election integrity" as an excuse for making it harder for Democrats to vote. What I am saying is that those of their supporters, the ones who actually believe that election integrity matters, could have had what they wanted, if their representatives weren't cynical crooks.

[Josh R]

Does this proposed law violate the First Amendment?

Subjecting any individual, as a condition of employment [...] to training [...] that espouses [an individual should feel discomfort [...] on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin] constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin.

[Bored Lawyer]

I would think such is already illegal under Title VII. Harassing someone because of their race, etc., is a form of employment discrimination. This is just a more formalized harrasment.

[Josh R]

That's an interesting perspective. Is there precedent to support that such employer training is not materially different than what Title VII already prohibits? And assuming we can establish that equivalence, does Title VII violate the First Amendment in some applications? It appears Eugene thought so in 1992.

[Queen Amalthea]

Does espousing feeling discomfort on account of sex constitute a Title VII violation?

[Bored Lawyer]

You think if a company gave lectures telling women they should feel inferior and guilty for not staying home with their children would not run afoul of Title VII?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They will believe whatever they are told to believe.

Consistency or coherence be damned.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Does this proposed law violate the First Amendment?"

You'd think it would, but people on the left just spent a long time arguing that it wouldn't.

[Josh R]

Citation?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Anything about hostile environment law and the first amendment that takes the position that the former trumps the latter. It's really not a sparce category.

Here's an example from a quick google search. There are plenty of others.

[Josh R]

I thought you were referring directly to this law, not to hostile work environment law in general. But given your clarification, does this law create a hostile work environment in the view of those on the left?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"does this law create a hostile work environment in the view of those on the left?"

Well, the opposite position would be inconsistent with so many folks' previous positions, so I would suppose that it does.

[Josh R]

Can you detail why the position that this law does not create a hostile work environment is inconsistent with previous positions?

[TwelveInchPianist]

To clarify, the argument is that the law only regulates speech that creates a hostile work environment (or could be construed as such), and if speech that creates a hostile work environment is unprotected, then there is no first amendment problem with the law.

So the position that the law is prohibited by the first amendment would be inconsistent with the position that the first amendment doesn't protect creating a hostile environment.

[Queen Amalthea]

Does the specific provision at issue meet current tests of hostile environment law?

[TwelveInchPianist]

If it doesn't, it gets a saving construction.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"or if there are other arguments on the left or right that can fairly distinguish the two cases."

I'm not sure why you think courts should distinguish anything. I think courts would figure out what speech is protected, and construe both laws accordingly.

[Queen Amalthea]

"If it doesn't, it gets a saving construction."

Lol, 12" full throated endorsement!

[Josh R]

I think you are saying that courts should accept this law is motivated by preventing a hostile work environment because the majority that enacted it has a rational basis to believe it does. The same applies to Title VII. If we accept this premise, then you have a good point. Those on the left (like Balkin) who believe Title VII is constitutional as applied to preventing hostile work environments must necessarily reach the same conclusion about this law. And those on the right (like Volokh) who believe Title VII is unconstitutional as applied to one-to-many speech that prevents hostile work environments must necessarily reach the same conclusion about this law. Perhaps one side gets to cut the cake while the other side gets to choose which piece to take?

I'm just not sure if your premise is correct (perhaps Queen Amalthea's implied assumption that courts should evaluate whether the law prevents a hostile work environment is appropriate), or if there are other arguments on the left or right that can fairly distinguish the two cases.

[Queen Amalthea]

Josh, that's not my implied assumption. My point is this: conservative politicians were not thinking about this much when they enacted the law, the law is a sop to white backlash. After the fact, sensing some tension between it and lots of recent conservative 'free speech' and 'f*ck your feelings' rhetoric some more clever conservatives like to argue 'well, it's just like hostile work environment' mostly in bad faith. If this law were trying to enforce current hostile work place law it could have easily drawn upon that. It didn't because it's goal was something else: feeding and appeasing white backlash.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"or if there are other arguments on the left or right that can fairly distinguish the two cases."

I'm not sure why you think courts should distinguish anything. I think courts would figure out what speech is protected, and construe both laws accordingly.

[Initially posted in the wrong spot.]

[TwelveInchPianist]

"My point is this: conservative politicians were not thinking about this much when they enacted the law, the law is a sop to white backlash."

The proposed law expressly defines the conduct as racial discrimination, there's zero chance that the authors weren't thinking about hostile environment law when they wrote it.

[Commenter_XY]

So if CRT corporate training makes me feel discomfort, I get to sue.

[Josh R]

I think so.

[Bored Lawyer]

US informs Israel it will not support EastMed gas pipeline

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20220119-us-informs-israel-it-will-not-support-eastmed-gas-pipeline/

IMO, this is nuts. Trump was always painted as a Putin stooge, but if you want to help Putin, this is another thing you would do. God forbid Europe be dependent on energy from anyone other than Russia.

[Sarcastr0]

Amazing to see people suddenly decide Russia is the only salient consideration on energy and pipeline policy.

Some real bad faith attempts to make mountains out of moehills today.

[Bored Lawyer]

Any more straw man arguments you wish to make?

Israel, Greece and Western Europe are all for this. Can you explain why the U.S. should be against it?

[Sarcastr0]

if you want to help Putin, this is another thing you would do

You appear to be made out of straw, I guess. Good luck finding your brain, I guess!

[Bored Lawyer]

Yawn.

[Bob from Ohio]

We got 4 solid years of hysterical PUTIN! RUSSIA!

Now? minimize, minimize, minimize

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, they're like glass figurines shocked and appalled that people can see right through them. Bad faith all the way around.

[Bob from Ohio]

No invasion of Ukraine under Trump. Obama, yes. Biden, we'll see.

[OtisAH]

“What are the differences between red and green?”

“There’s no difference. They’re both colors.”

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Tone policing is just another form of gaslighting.

[Queen Amalthea]

1. Nope
2. Not tone policing

[Commenter_XY]

Bored Lawyer, I'll take a stab at it: Turkey, and Incirlik air base. I don't think we want to 'not have' that airbase at the ready, given the covert hostilities between Iran and US.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So, what are some of the good arguments against the pipeline that you've identified?

[Sarcastr0]

Largely speculative. Though I did take a program management course that went deep into pipelines.

Environmental, obv.
Pipeline safety (lotsa variables here; land features, maintenance ability, length)
Opportunity cost
Market effects

[Queen Amalthea]

"Some real bad faith attempts to make mountains out of moehills today."

Yup. But, to be fair, if I felt like I had to defend Trump I guess I'd find myself trying to hyper-focus on anything his opponents did imperfectly to any degree.

[Bored Lawyer]

When your Administration is a complete disaster, then your only defense is "but Trump."

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That would have been a better point if you yourself hadn't brought up Trump in your original comment.

[SimonP]

Actually, part of the American argument against the pipeline is that there are other infrastructure improvements that would be better-made, to protect European interests.

Also, Turkey was strongly opposed to the pipeline. Alienating Turkey may have been more of a benefit to Putin than blocking this pipeline.

[OtisAH]

Erdogan alienated himself just fine, thank you.

[not guilty]

The House January 6 committee has issued subpoenas for Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/18/rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-house-committee-subpoeanas/ I wonder if they, like their colleague John Eastman, will assert their privilege against self-incrimination.

A lawyer for Giuliani cavils about attorney-client privilege, overlooking the principle that that privilege is inapplicable where the attorney assists the client in a crime or fraud.

[not guilty]

Michael Kinsley wrote, “A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth—some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.”

After a vote to move the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to the Senate floor failed Wednesday, Mitch McConnell was asked by a reporter about concerns among voters of color.

"Well the concern is misplaced, because if you look at the statistics, African American voters are voting in just as high a percentage as Americans," McConnell responded. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2022/01/20/mitch-mcconnell-african-americans-vote-much-americans/6590081001/

[TwelveInchPianist]

So African Americans vote in the same percentage as Americans as a whole, eh? Interesting info. Maybe the Hugo Chavez voting rights act is unnecessary.

And did you know that poor kids are just as bright as white kids?

[Queen Amalthea]

Surely this misstatement is worth about fifty back and forths given the upthread on Biden's!

[M L]

"[other] Americans"

[John F. Carr]

An appeals court ruled a man could not be sentenced to probation for having a digital copy of _The Anarchist's Cookbook_ and must go to prison for two years. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60051861

[Brett Bellmore]

Having read it, I'm convinced that it was mostly a guide to competing for the Darwin award.

[hobie]

This is a very disturbing case. Am I missing something, or was the boy given a sentence for simply having right-wing reading material?

[ThePublius]

I agree, it's downright Orwellian.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it's England, they don't have a Constitution or Bill of Rights, so they CAN sentence you to a couple years in prison for having a book they don't like.

[Bob from Ohio]

"right-wing reading material"

Anarchists are not "right-wing".

[susancol]

Agreed, disturbing.

Though one part of your post also disturbs. Right wing material? You *DO* know it was a product of the counterculture and the bombing adventures of Students for a Democratic Society and other left-wing groups, no?

[hobie]

Back in the sixties it was the 'liberals' doing the government overthrow...to be sure. Nowadays, let's be honest...

[gormadoc]

In October China appointed a key figure in Xinjiang as party leader in Tibet. After four years of Uyghur monuments and religious places being destroyed, now Tibetan monuments are being destroyed at an incredible pace. It really aggravated me that for all the old "free Tibet" rhetoric of days past the Uyghurs never really got the same attention but now we'll see if Tibet can recapture all the old attention.

[Queen Amalthea]

Are you arguing concern over the Uyghurs hasn't comparable traction to the 'Free Tibet' movement? I don't think either got much traction outside of some subcultures.

[Jerry B.]

China got the idea from American Progressives, apparently.

[Aemon McGarret]

Good day SarcastrO & Co. "This guy sucks!"
I had to laugh. A. because I agree with you. I do not know where that guy comes from. And I really don't like him either. And B. I have been reading this blog since not long it moved from Breitbart to the Washington Post. And I have always found you to be intelligent, grounded in reality, &one of the clearest voices here. I'm kind of a fan.
I bumped into this site & liked the personality. And it has provided an easy window & understanding of the legal & court system that I wouldn't have otherwise. I try to see things from all sorts of ways, & directions. This leaves me spread thin & broad. And rigorous thinking & expression are a serious casualty. It has also made me aware that all of our words & intellectual understanding made of words, is just stuff we made up. I can tell you that this is not useful day to day. As a broad generalization, ya'll just plain understand & use words entirely differently than I do; part of why I am here. But the phrase, "what would a reasonable person expect in this situation?" makes me laugh as reliably as Abbott & Costello doing "Who's on first". I am very glad that my understanding of Textualism & Originalism, and The Federalist Society came from here over a long period of time. But words & language require the parties to agree to use them with some commonality. Because they are literally made out of nothing that is not subjective. And I am seeing a real 'Tower of Babel' thing going on out there in the streets & media.

[Josh R]

Breitbart? Eugene may get ill thinking he ever agreed to be hosted by Breitbart.

[Sarcastr0]

This is confirmation bias. People do agree on most everything. Some loud people partisanize everything, but most everyone else shops at the same places, watches the same movies, drives similar cars...

Politics is fraught, but that's not existential.

Boogaloo is just buying trouble. If it'll go off, it'll go off; no need to LARP around trying to make it happen.

[Sarcastr0]

But thanks for going in more depth than your last comment. I hope I have met effort with effort.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Oh man I am 400 comments late to the party!

How about that humdinger of a Biden press conference last night? Pretty obvious it is time to 25th Amendment that guy. If I was Harris I would be telling my beta male lackey husband to start measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.

Also, how embarrassing must it be to not be a sycophant in the mainstream media these days and have to watch the conduct of your fellow colleagues live on Twitter? Made me wonder if they are literally on the DNC payroll because their tweets were essentially just copy and paste partisan talking points designed to make Dear Leader look like he was not senile and incompetent.

Hey but we live in clown world, so what else should I expect?

[Queen Amalthea]

"my beta male lackey husband "

Lol, you can tell Jimmy, in contemplating this, was thinking 'heh, this will roil them up!'

Epsilon male weighs in.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You forgot to include the reference to "clown world"...that one usually gets Sarc at least.

[David Nieporent]

look like he was not senile and incompetent.

Um, you support Trump, who sounded like that seven years ago and just got worse over time.

[ThePublius]

You are indeed delusional, David, if you think Trump sounded as senile and incompetent as Biden seven years ago. Wow! Trump never sounded or acted senile. As for competence, check the southern border, inflation, energy independence...need I go on?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Please do. List all of Trump's accomplishments.

Let's see how full of shit you really are.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Um, you support Trump, who sounded like that seven years ago and just got worse over time."

Trump was sociopathic, but perfectly coherent. Biden is senile. There's a big difference.

[Bob from Ohio]

Bide does his first press conference in months and its 24 hours of staff clean up on multiple issues.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Have either you or Publius ever read a transcript of a Trump speech? Not that Trump's psychobabble is a defense of Biden's issues. But remember when all criticism of Trump was met with ...but Obama...?

[David Nieporent]

Trump was sociopathic, and not the least bit coherent. He couldn't manage to get through whole sentences because he forgot what he was saying, and so would just veer towards one of his angry talking points.

[Queen Amalthea]

"but perfectly coherent"

Lol.

Well, this explains a lot about your posts!

[Sarcastr0]

Go back and check out some of those transcripts, TiP. Not that you will; you only read things you can tendentiously parse to own the libs these days.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Trump does not speak in an ideal manner, he'd never be mistaken for a BBC news anchor.

I like to consider what I mean, and then directly say it. Trump just blurts something close to what he means, and then proceeds to qualify it; A kind of verbal successive approximation.

It's a way of speaking that's badly suited to politics, because it makes it very easy to distort what he says by taking part of what he has said out of context.

But, yes, Trump is coherent enough in his own fashion, because you can understand him well enough if you want to. Even if it's also easy enough to misunderstand him if that, instead, is your goal.

[Aemon McGarret]

Yes. This blog was on Breitbart when I found it. Years ago.
I spend too much time alone in the garret chasing words in circles. I really do like this space. But I really did, just recently, see:
"...are they really conservative? Is the Pope Catholic?", go straight to a rabbit warren about Catholicism & the Popes just like comedy routine. Love ya'll.

[David Nieporent]

This blog was never on Breitbart. It was originally standalone, then went to the Washington Post, and now here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"This blog was on Breitbart when I found it."

"This blog was never on Breitbart."

Maybe he remembers Volokh Conspiracy content being featured at Breitbart. The movement conservative media community -- RedState, Instapundit, Fox, Volokh Conspiracy, Gateway Pundit, NewsMax, Stormfront, One America, FreeRepublic, Sinclair, etc. -- tends to be self-referential, befitting its separatist, counterculture, partisan, movement nature.

[Sarcastr0]

Single posts did used to get occasionally linked by some out there places.

[Brett Bellmore]

Still do. Breitbart was actually reproducing large chunks of occasional ones. But it was still clear that the actual Volokh Conspiracy was hosted elsewhere.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Bizarre article from NBC's Tyler Kingkade claiming that free speech advocates oppose K-12 curriculum transparency.

Of course, the claim in incoherent because the K-12 curriculum is government speech, and of course people, and parents in particular, are entitled to use the political process to determine what's taught in government schools.

[Queen Amalthea]

Same for public universities? Censorship and safe spaces for students who the government might think will be harmed by certain speech?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Same for public universities?"

No.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Although one way to extend free speech rights to K-12 teachers is to implement a voucher system to allow students to attend private schools.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, the 'it's legal so it's a good idea' argument.

Parents vetoing math? Why not, they're entitled!

[Krayt]

Apparently Teddy Rooseveldt's statue is being taken down from in front of New York's famed Museum of Natural History, because collonialism bad, yo!

Hold on a moment, Ms. Crane Operator, before you begin.

You people there, working at the natural history museum. A large part of the reason people like you have jobs is because TR was huge on getting national parks created as reserves of set-aside land.

And you progressives, he was the John the Baptist to your later Wilson, and even later, his own nephew, in getting government control of business kickstarted. Among his insane numbers of letters written, he expresses concern some companies were so large they effectively wielded too much power, power that should be reserved for the democratic process.

So have some humility before you shove your concerns du jour skyward as dominating ongoing human history.

Every generation thinks it has the lock on eternally-valid morality, once and for all, finally.

As the soulstone keeper said, "We are all wrong."

[Jerry B.]

Many of the specimens TR collected on his hunting and exploration trips are housed in the New York Museum of Natural History. I had always thought that the statue was him flanked by a Native American and African guide from his various trips. Apparently, since he’s on a horse, and they aren’t, the other figures, who aren’t who the statue is about, are being made to look subservient.

Time to go from the high boots to chest waders. It just keeps getting deeper.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Wait until that crane comes for MLK on the Mall. Wonder how big the lefties will be into ripping down historical statues then....

[Bob from Ohio]

Biden thinks George Floyd's killing was more important, so maybe replace MLK with George.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which of you half-educated right-wing bigots has the courage to try to take on Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? You're nothing but all-talk cowards and losers.

Now open wider, clingers . . .

[Jerry B.]

Several of the commentariat at WAPO think that all statues should be done away with. Maybe you should go chastise them, since they’re your compatriots.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Krayt wrote:
"You people there, working at the natural history museum. A large part of the reason people like you have jobs is because TR was huge on getting national parks created as reserves of set-aside land."

The American Museum of Natural History wasn't founded by the Park Service or any other federal agency, and has never been a part of the federal government. It is a private organization chartered by the State of New York. So I'm not sure how the museum employees' jobs were due to TR's policies concerning National Parks.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not due to Teddy (who was great, but in no way unalloyed). It's due to the specifics of the statue itself.

So have some humility and read a bit before you draft a big post that ends up being an own goal.

[not guilty]

We have encouraging news out of Atlanta. The Fulton County District Attorney has requested empanelment of a special grand jury to investigate Trump´s shenanigans regarding the 2020 election. https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/breaking-fulton-da-requests-special-grand-jury-for-trump-probe/E5HCDM2P75ETRAEUHBK2Q7L3FY/

This special grand jury can can subpoena witnesses and compel the production of documents and information. Jurors can be impaneled for as long as prosecutors need, would be focused on the one investigation and have “an investigatory focus appropriate to the complexity of the facts and circumstances involved.”

Time for a bit more assholus constrictus in Trumpworld. As Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is the best of disinfectants.

[Bob from Ohio]

"sunlight is the best of disinfectants."

Nothing says sunlight like a grand jury, which is completely secret.

You're going to be disappointed here too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Nothing says sunlight like a grand jury, which is completely secret. "

One more element of modern America that a backwater bigot from Pig's Knuckle, Ohio just can't stand.

[not guilty]

Trump can run, but it's becoming more difficult for him to hide. The special grand jury, if empaneled, will be a useful tool in bringing his misdeeds into the sunlight of the adversarial process.

[Moderation4ever]

What we are learning is there was actual attempts to steal the election. This includes attempts to extort votes, false electors, and attempts to stop the election certification. What different from the conspiracies' of Trump-world is that there is actual evidence of the ex-President's attempts.

Hard to argue with evidence.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There are over 100,000 ballots in GA without a chain of custody, and video from ballot drops magically appear worthless.

Is that tolerable?

[Moderation4ever]

Then why wasn't it taken to court? If you have evidence than use it, if not sit down and be quiet.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A parents right to choose the education of their children is a human right recognized world wide.

Why don’t US Democrats know this? They barely think children belong to the parents.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some of our more superstitious knuckle-draggers appear to believe that society must enable parents to refrain from a proper -- reality-based -- education for children.

They are wrong. The state is entitled -- or obligated -- to set educational standards and even delusional, ignorant hayseeds are required to comply.

Society's error has been to recognize accreditation of nonsense-teaching, science-disdaining, ignorance-based schools. I expect America's better elements to correct that situation.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Article 26 Section 3

"Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

The whole world recognizes these parental rights as human rights. Except for despotic authoritarians such as yourself and your communist anti-human brethren.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you believe parents have a right to insist that their children be taught that two plus two equals seven, or denied education altogether, or taught that the sun revolves around the earth, or to be educated just one day each year, or to be taught that evolution is a hoax concocted by someone with a red suit and pitchfork?

No wonder guys like me have had it so easy kicking around guys like you in the culture war.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Guys like you are out there arguing 2+2 can equal 5, achievement in reading and writing is racist and that boys can be real authentic girls if they just close their eyes and wish really hard.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Mask-gate update:

NPR and Totenberg have no idea what their fucking story is about.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't really see how your comment follows from the linked NPR article. Totenberg reported something, and Chief Justice Roberts seems to be denying it. But Totenberg and NPR are standing by the story, and seem to know exactly what their fucking story is about. Which isn't to say that it's necessarily true.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Totenberg told me she hedged on this: "If I knew exactly how he communicated this I would say it. Instead I said 'in some form.' "

They say that the problem was a misleading verb choice, but they can't use the correct verb because they don't know what happened.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This White, male, right-wing
blog has operated for

FIFTY (50) DAYS

without gratuitous use
of a vile racial slur
and for

TWO (2) YEARS

without engaging in partisan,
viewpoint-driven censorship.*

CONGRATULATIONS, I guess.

* ongoing censorship continues, but at least we are unaware of no new impositions of hypocritical, partisan censorship, which is nice.

[Juvenal Satires VI 347]

Wouldn’t it be nice if the government followed its own laws?

I am referring specifically to the fact that federal prosecutors are seeking, and federal judges are imposing, illegally long terms of supervised release on 1/6 defendants.

18 USC 3583(b)(3) specifically exempts petty offenses from the imposition of supervised release (a fact which the federal government has conceded hundreds of times in court filings).

Yet on Wednesday a federal judge sentenced a 1/6 defendant to three years of probation for a petty offense.

Fortunately for such defendants, federal plea deals invariably contain a clause stipulating that the defendant retains the right to appeal their conviction if the Court sentences them above the statutory maximum.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you are referring to delusional, un-American misfit Jacob Wiedrich, it has been reported that Wiedrich's lawyer requested probation as an alternative to incarceration (claiming that this worthless malcontent had taken 'real steps' toward becoming a somewhat functional human being by actually getting a job and apartment).

I sense the lawyer accomplished a favorable result for this deplorable thief and insurrectionist. He could and should have been sentenced to six months in jail -- and should have been required to plead guilty to theft, too, and penalized for that.

Wiedrich is the clinger who declared he would "die for Trump."

So he's a pathetic liar, too.

[David Nieporent]

18 USC 3583(b)(3) specifically exempts petty offenses from the imposition of supervised release

Well, without knowing which people you're talking about, seems hard to evaluate your claim, since the first words of 18 USC 3583(b) are "except as otherwise provided."

[Juvenal Satires VI 347]

§ 3583(b) indicates that supervised release is not authorized in the case of a “petty offense” (Report of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Federal Offenders Sentenced to Supervised Release, July 2010)

[Dan Schiavetta]

“There is a huge difference between asking and suggesting.”

No there isn’t. Particularly since the CJ can’t order the Associate Justices to wear masks, or indeed, do anything.