Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind? [UPDATE: Glitch fixed, comments should now be open.]

Comments

[Eugene Volokh]

Sorry about the comments being closed this morning -- we occasionally and unpredictably get a tech glitch in which comments are closed until the post is updated. All should be good now.

[David Bremer]

Great, now this will be in my head all day.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Shakespeare's Henry VI plays, in particular Henry VI Part 3, are underrated.

[Sarcastr0]

The histories all left me cold when last I did my Shakespeare readthrough, some 20 years ago. Maybe I should revisit.

Plus, all the online 'what Shakespeare character are you' quizzes peg me at Falstaff, so...

[LawTalkingGuy]

I enjoy them. I've been re-reading them while I watch the Hollow Crown, which was the BBC's 2012/2016 adaptations of the history plays (except King John and Henry VIII).

[bernard11]

I love the histories myself, especially Richard II (talk about under-rated) and Henry IV, Part 1.

Been a while since I read the Henry VI plays, but as I recall, they left me cold, though Part 3, which sort of introduces Richard III (do I have that right?) is fine.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. Henry VI Part 3 sets up Richard III and his villainy. Although I think the critical consensus is that Part 2 is the best of the 3.

Agree that Richard II is incredibly underrated.

[Both Sides]

Here's another vote for Richard II being incredibly underrated.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Branagh's delivery of the tennis balls speech is one of the great moments in the recorded Shakespeare archive.

[Rev. O.T. Medal]

Thanks for throwing this topic out for discussion. The Henry VI plays may well be underrated. But I still prefer Henry IV (Parts 1 and 2) and Henry V.

A few years ago, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival put on those three plays. It was a fantastic production.

For those who are fans of Henry IV Part 1, recall the tavern scene in which Falstaff’s speech to Hal concludes, “No, my good lord; banish Peto, banish Bardolph, banish Poins: but for sweet Jack Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff, valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant, being, as he is, old Jack Falstaff, banish not him thy Harry's company, banish not him thy Harry's company: banish plump Jack, and banish all the world.” In Oregon, when Hal responded, “I do, I will,” Falstaff stared out into the audience and let us watch his heart break. It was one of the best moments of live theater I have even seen.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Along with Richard II, that is definitely the better tetralogy. Glad you saw a good performance. I've only ever seen stage productions of Mid-Summer Night's Dream, Twelfth Night, and the Tempest.

[bernard11]

I saw a version of the Tempest a few years ago where Penn (or maybe Teller?) was involved, and set up the various magic tricks. Fabulous work.

[Rev. O.T. Medal]

Hey LTG,

Those are all wonderful plays to see live. Amongst the other works of Shakespeare that get performed the most, here are my recommendations for three other plays you should try to see.

Macbeth -- The story is so strong that almost any production will be interesting and I love seeing what a good company can do with the witches.

Richard III -- It is always worth checking out a show featuring one of the greatest villains in all literature.

Romeo and Juliette -- If the goal is to see live theater at a reasonable price, keep your eyes open for a high school theater department doing R&J. The performances likely will be uneven.
But I can forgive much if Mercutio nails the Queen Mab speech and Romeo & Juliette throw themselves into the balcony scene.

Thanks for giving me a chance to think about Shakespeare instead of the news today.

O.T.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Rev. O.T. Medal, true story. It was Halloween season. A household distraction included plumbing problems. We set those aside, to take my son, age four-and-a-half, and his cousins, on a scheduled Halloween-themed hayride, through a local park. The wagon arrived at one grotesque scene after another, pausing briefly at each, to take it in. One scene was Macbeth's witches.

After the ride finished, my son's grandmother asked which scene he found most scary. "The one where they went, double, double, toilet trouble," he said.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I actually don’t like Romeo and Juliet. But I’d still go to a production (one is coming in my area this fall). One of these days I need to get to the Stratford festival in Canada….

[bernard11]

Thanks for the story.

I like Henry V a bit less than the others, but my attitude toward the play is unfairly colored by my dislike of Henry. "Mirror of all Christian kings?" Really?

[bernard11]

Meant to add that Shakespeare is, unsurprisingly, good at this sort of thing.

Remember the scene early in Richard II, where he reduces Bolingbroke's banishment from ten years to six.

Here is Bolingbroke:

"How long a time lies in one little word.
Four lagging winters and four wanton springs
End in a word. Such is the breath of kings."

Starting to get ideas, it seems.

[dwb68]

Pretty soon the Russian economy will be in such a state of disarray, Putin will approve selling his own equipment to the Ukrainians for dollars. The sad fact is, Putin will have reduced Russia to a vassal state of China. Good for China, I guess, they get oil, gas, coal, minerals, and big buffer between them and NATO.

The question is: When do we start punishing China for helping Russia.

[David Bremer]

China's position is why I think Russia will demand that NATO agree to stop development of intermediate-range missiles as part of any ceasefire.

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which the U.S. exited in 2019, eliminated these missiles. Meanwhile, China and other countries developed them. Russia isn't in position to develop or deploy them (and objected to our leaving the treaty). But China may prod Russia to put that back on the table so it can have dominance in that area.

Of course, bear in mind that I'm not an expert in any of this. I'm just a rando guy who read some articles that made my eyebrow raise.

[dwb68]

Russia is no longer in a position to demand anything.

[rsteinmetz]

Yet they keep doing it.

[dwb68]

No downside to asking.

[Longtobefree]

To democrats. Not so much to Trump.

[OtisAH]

No, they’re doing it to the Ukrainians. Schmuck.

[Michael P]

"In reality, they're not after me. They're after you. I'm just in the way." - Donald Trump

[OtisAH]

That makes as much sense as anything he or you has ever said.

[FourteenFour]

Initially while China abstained from votes against Russia they showed their hand through allowing social media "stars" to declare support for Russia and ridicule Ukraine and its people.

When the sanctions starting hitting and were so extensive as to cross banking lines suddenly the social media "stars" were now against Russia. Even some in leadership have expressed concern and hinted at support for Ukraine.

What they did not expect nor Putin and his cronies was that the West would go after property and money which effectively made wealth outside of Russia nearly worthless. The Chinese oligarchs saw this as did their government leaders who are not much different and realized just how invested they are in the Western world and how little they could do to protect those investments.

As in, money makes the world go around and even turns the Chinese government around. They like the wealth they have and now have realized how fragile it is.

[dwb68]

It's a good fiction story. Actions speak louder than social media stars, and I have yet to see China exert any real pressure. China still wants to play both sides. They need to pick a side.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

China is too busy reverse engineering Russia’s military technology to pick a side. In December 2001 after the Bush administration finished negotiating China in the WTO we thought we would export added value manufactured products to China…instead we hemorrhaged millions of manufacturing jobs over a short period.

[bernard11]

How do you propose to punish China?

[Kazinski]

Looks like the NY times Pullitzer prize reporter who was at the Capitol on Jan. 6th hasn't been reporting on what he really thinks:

NYT National Security Correspondent, Matthew Rosenberg, contradicts his own January 6 reporting: “There were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”

Rosenberg: “It was like, me and two other colleagues who were there [January 6] outside and we were just having fun!”

Rosenberg: “I know I’m supposed to be traumatized, but like, all these colleagues who were in the [Capitol] building and are like ‘Oh my God it was so scary!’ I’m like, ‘f*ck off!’”

Rosenberg: “I’m like come on, it’s not the kind place I can tell someone to man up but I kind of want to be like, ‘dude come on, you were not in any danger.’”

Rosenberg: “These f*cking little dweebs who keep going on about their trauma. Shut the f*ck up. They’re f*cking b*tches.”

Rosenberg: "They were making too big a deal. They were making this an organized thing that it warsn’t.”

Rosenberg RESPONDS: “Will I stand by those comments? Absolutely.”

Which of course exactly what most conservatives have been saying all along. And completely contradicts his reporting in the NYT.

[Sarcastr0]

Project Veritas Video?

Maybe wait to make sure it's verified. They're not exactly a reliable source.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yes, there's nothing less reliable than someone caught on camera saying something in their own words.

[Sarcastr0]

You do know they've been caught deceptively editing a whole bunch, right?

Plus, I see lots of opinions, but few facts. Closest is 'ton of FBI informants...' which is hardly rock-solid evidence.

[Bob from Ohio]

"deceptively editing " also called "editing"

No different than CNN, ABC etc.

They put entire videos up on their site.

Good ole gaslighto.

[Sarcastr0]

You deny they've released deceptive edits before? I'm happy to Google that for you.

Oh wait, you didn't deny it - you just tu quoqued and did your usual 'I'm angry at these other guys, so there's no moral problem with this guy lying.'

You're awful, Bob.

[Bob from Ohio]

Edits are edits.

[Krychek_2]

Edits are not all the same. There's a famous story about a proofreader for a new version of the Bible who changed "Let him who stole, steal no more; let him work with his hands" to "Let him who stole, steal. No more let him work with his hands."

Sarcastro's right. So long as you can find someone on the other side who at least arguably did something bad even if it's totally unrelated, anything your guys do is fine.

[Brett Bellmore]

All you're doing is establishing that it's possible to deceptively edit, which nobody disputes.

Now establish that Veritas actually DOES deceptively edit.

[Krychek_2]

Bob disputes it. He said edits are edits.

[M L]

If they post a highlight reel that doesn't change the meaning along with full videos, that's not deceptive.

The mainstream media on the other hand is consistently deceptive. https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/03/ny-times-caught-using-well-known-deceptively-edited-portion-of-george-zimmerman-911-call/

[OtisAH]

“A highlight reel”

[Insert “Statler & Waldorf” gif here.]

[Social Justice is neither]

I see you ignore the second half of the statement.
Fucking dishonest Leftist.

[OtisAH]

You sound stupid.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You deny they've released deceptive edits before?"

Who? CNN? ABC? I'm sure we can find deceptive edits for lots of outlets.

[Absaroka]

"They put entire videos up on their site."

Thanks! I wanted to watch the unedited version. I wandered around the Project Veritas site for a while without finding it. Do you know where on the site it is?

[M L]

No, they've never been caught deceptively editing. That's just a claim mindlessly repeated and never backed up.

But I'm happy to see your receipts and be shown wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

No, they've never been caught deceptively editing.

Don't be a dumbass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
Easy text search of 'deceptive':

-ACORN video
-NPR video
-Tried to hoax WaPo about Roy Moore
-Planned Parenthood recordings
-Van Jones

Each of these is linked to associated stories with actual reporting in them about how Veritas lied.

[M L]

I've read a lot of total nonsense from the mainstream media where they claim videos are "misleading" or "deceptive" when they are clearly not. The worst example I remember was not Veritas but the Center for Medical Progress.

Just describe in your own words, the very worst instance of deception by Veritas.

[Sarcastr0]

'I want sources'

'Nah, those sources are probably lying. I want you to say what they did!'

What the crap new goalposts are those? No, I'm not going to read a bunch of stories I linked to and paraphrase them to you like a mother bird to her chicks.

If that makes you continue to deny stuff due to some kind of hand-wavy ad hominem against 'the media', that's on you.

[M L]

You seem to be struggling today. I asked for an example of the deceptive editing, not a link to a horribly written wiki entry filled with footnotes to paywalled sources, repetitions of allegations by known left-wing propagandists, and no specific description of any deceit.

Now are you able to describe an example of this deception or not?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I want examples"

...

"but not those examples!"

[M L]

Jason, thanks for joining the discussion. Maybe you can fill us in and describe one of these deceptions, rather than make bare unspecified allegations like the wikipedia entry?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Sure thing. First please let me know which of the 227 linked sources from the wikipedia page you find difficult to parse, or somehow conveniently objectionable.

Once that's been narrowed down, you can then expand upon which court rulings you also find to lack specificity for some reason or another.

[M L]

You only need one example. Tell us the worst one.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm not doing your homework for you until such a time as you list out which of the already-presented links are unacceptable to you and why.

Again, please also include the reasons why you object to the various court rulings also linked to from that page.

I suggest starting soon if you ever want a legitimate response. I suspect it will take even you a substantial amount of time to come up with your boiler-plate excuses for why the evidence already presented is somehow not acceptable to you.

[M L]

So you're not familiar with even a single instance? If you were, you could explain it for me in a sentence. Well, thanks anyway.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'm not doing your homework for you

Oh, FFS. That's a cowardly middle-schooler's retort.

[DonP]

Kind like the Left's other mindless favorite; "That's been debunked". Always without any proof, beyond CNN and MS/NBC anchors (as yet un-fired for "Gropery" or Pedophilia) reporting it breathlessly.

[Krayt]

Yes let's see the whole video, of course. Still, I'm betting it won't show, "Hey, if I were a complete liar, here's a bunch of things I would say...!"

[Sarcastr0]

Probably not. But I don't think it's wise trust Veritas as a source by itself.
The actual story will come out from parallel reporting by folks that haven't repeatedly been shown to be committed liars.

[Michael P]

Let's get Nicole Hannah-Jones and the Russian Collusion crowd right on this story! Get Politifact to check it, just like they checked Maria Bartiromo's claim that US oil imports from Russia doubled under Biden! Mostly false, even though it's literally true!

[Kazinski]

You got any cites on proven lies by project veritas?

I think its just a lot of things you don't want to believe.

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/10/thursday-open-thread-73/?comments=true#comment-9396296

[M L]

The Wikipedia (lol) entry says that the group produces deceptively edited videos, and then goes on to recite left wing freaks claiming that their remarks were taken out of context or something. But there's no description of what was deceptive. What was the missing context and how did it change the meaning, etc.

Come on Sarc. You immediately dismiss Veritas as liars and I seem to recall you've done that in the past too. Surely you must have a vivid example of the deception etched in your memory. Because if you don't, that would seem to confirm suspicions that you don't actually have any clue what you're talking about, and that you were simply programmed to identify Veritas as wrongthink.

[Sarcastr0]

recite left wing freaks
no description of what was deceptive

You didn't click on any of the cited articles, did you?

On November 19, 2009, O’Keefe released an edited videotape of his conversation with Stewart. The released recordings did not include all Giles’ statements regarding the abusive
pimp, her tragic life, and fear for the underage girls, or Stewart’s statements that ACORN could
not help.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110612181707/http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf

[M L]

So you're finally going to do some digging and see if you can actually support your assertions.

First, Project Veritas did not exist in 2009. Do you have an example of Project Veritas deceptively editing videos?

Second. "The released recordings did not include all Giles’ statements regarding the abusive pimp, her tragic life, and fear for the underage girls, or Stewart’s statements that ACORN could not help." OK. And what is the deceptive claim or implication that would have been refuted by this missing context?

Bear in mind I'm completely open to being persuaded that Project Veritas has done something misleading. If we have one example that will be a good start against thousands of examples from mainstream leftist media.

[M L]

I have no idea what this is all about so bear with me.

If I did know what it was all about, it would be easy for me to distill the deceptive aspect of it into one sentence that someone who knew nothing about the topic could easily understand. So should you be able to, if you know what you're talking about.

"The released recordings did not include all Giles’ statements regarding the abusive pimp, her tragic life, and fear for the underage girls, or Stewart’s statements that ACORN could not help."

Implying that the released recordings did include some of Giles' (whoever that is) statements regarding these matters. So what were the ones that were excluded, and how did the exclusion deceive or mislead?

[Sarcastr0]

No, you don't have an open mind.

You're not willing to do any work. And when something is quoted to you, you're like 'Well, What is this excerpt not saying?'

Utter bullshit. Asking to be spoon-fed, and then complaining that the portions are too small.

[M L]

Sarcastro, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you could explain a single instance of deception very easily. But you don't. Instead you are just relying on what MSNBC or whatever told you, that these guys deceptively edit videos. It's ok. You can do that. You don't have all the time in the world to sift through this information, and neither do I. But you should be honest and say, "A lot of sources I find trustworthy say that these guys deceptively edit their videos, so I believe that's true, even though I'm not familiar with a specific example of how something they did was misleading."

[Sarcastr0]

The easy one is ACORN.

They distorted chronology, left out the sob story, and pretended O'Keefe showed up dressed like a pimp.
Vertias, via deceptive editing, ade it look like ACORN gave them advice on how to break the law.

They did not. They in fact called the police.

They got a lady fired under false pretenses.

You're dumb and lazy act is lame as hell, and you are defending some real bad people because you like the lies the serve you.

[M L]

Ok. He was on video with a fur coat and cane so viewers might think he was wearing that when visiting ACORN offices all over the country. I'm confused, was this sort of a quasi-comedy bit or something? This is nothing compared to usual politically motivated misleading journalism that we see every day. And it looks like ACORN fired some of their employees for "unacceptable conduct" not that O'Keefe had them fired. But I guess if the videos were (potentially unintentionally) misleading about what clothes O'Keefe was wearing then you've got one. Congrats I guess?

"via deceptive editing, ade it look like ACORN gave them advice on how to break the law..They did not." Actually, the wiki on the ACORN topic says that the one employee claims she played along with everything and thought it was a joke. So if she was playing along then how is it deceptive to show that? The other person said "he tried to help the fake prostitute because she said that she needed to escape her controlling pimp" but then later called the police. So again if appearances were that he tried to help where is the deception?

This seems like really thin gruel as a basis for you to constantly claim that people can't believe their own eyes about these videos. If you were to be equally skeptical about reporting and audio and video coming from mainstream liberal sources, then this would be understandable, instead it looks like just very ordinary political attacks.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Can you cite exactly what you find deceptive there? You've accused me of not accurately representing your position before, so I want to make sure.

[Sarcastr0]

I provided a list. I linked to plenty of sources.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I see. So, you find the fact that the person was dressed up as a "faux pimp" in extravagent clothing before the hidden conversation (presumably for marketing purposes) but in actuality he was in normal clothing for when ACORN proposed prostituting his "girlfriend" to be "deceptive".

Do you find similar marketing concepts deceptive in news?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The actual story will come out from parallel reporting by folks that haven't repeatedly been shown to be committed liars.

Well, if anyone knows about having been repeatedly shown to be committed liar, it's you.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You do know they've been caught deceptively editing a whole bunch, right?

No, I don't...and based on your follow-up bullshit neither do you.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, it's been verified, Sarcastro, it's a video, and when reached for comment see the last quote:

Rosenberg RESPONDS: “Will I stand by those comments? Absolutely.”

Nice try, but forlorn hope. Not that it means much, because the DOJ and the Jan. 6th committee already know the truth, and don't care.

But now at least some of the fog is clearing, and Jan 6th is not going to save the Democrats from Nov. 8th.

[Sarcastr0]

The right keeps declaring Jan 06 over.

Seems telling how often they feel they gotta do so.

[Kazinski]

Its obviously over because there aren't any leaks.

Of course there was a steady stream of Russiagate leaks, but none of them panned out, now they've even given up on that.

[Sarcastr0]

Obviously.

I mean, if it's not over why do you keep insisting it is, right?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The right keeps declaring Jan 06 over.

Seems telling how often they feel they gotta do so.

I see you're dodging the "it's been verified" part.

[jimc5499]

They are more reliable than most of the MSM. I remember ABC showing a video about fighting on the Syria-Turkish border. It turns out that the video was from a "mad minute" at a gun club in Kentucky.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice anecdote you got there. Shame if you were to massively generalize based on it to ensure no one challenged your worldview.

[VinniUSMC]

Nice anecdote you got there. Shame if you were to massively generalize based on it to ensure no one challenged your worldview.

Says the guy citing Wikipedia.

[Sarcastr0]

I cited to the sources wikipedia links.

[Sarcastr0]

Also, what did he say other than being kinda macho about the violence in the Capitol.

Nothing he said contradicted the actual videos about what was going on, nor the many injuries the police sustained. Nor the legal proceedings.

[Bob from Ohio]

Who cares. Its a Beltway issue fading into nothingness.

A transitory issue, unlike inflation.

[Sarcastr0]

Jan 06 is not a beltway issue, nor is it fading. It won't fade so long as Trump is the GOP standard bearer, no matter how much you may wish otherwise.

[Krychek_2]

If Trump really wanted to help the GOP, he would fade from view as quickly as possible and never be seen or heard from again.

[Brett Bellmore]

He doesn't want to help the institutional GOP, though. Maybe he wants, to some extent, to help GOP voters. (Though admittedly only in the same sense the baker wants to feed you: It's in his interest to please Republican voters.)

Whose interests are different from, and to some extent opposed to, those of the GOP as an institution.

[Krychek_2]

Whatever differences I may have with the institutional GOP, they are the adults in this particular room. It's the GOP voters that are the tantrum-throwing two year olds. Maybe letting the grown ups run things isn't such a bad thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

And there you have it, the reason that GOP voters and the institutional GOP are at odds: The institutional GOP want the left's respect. The GOP voters want policy victories.

[Krychek_2]

Oh, tantrum throwing toddlers want policy victories, and adults want respect. That's not the issue.

[Krychek_2]

Oh, and Brett: Over the years I have repeatedly heard the accusation that this or that moderate Republican was just trying to curry favor and respect from the left. I don't recall ever hearing the mirror-image accusation that a moderate Democrat was trying to curry favor with the right.

Maybe there's a reason for that. Maybe deep down, conservatives understand that their policies are mostly shameful, and they compensate by trying to curry respect. Maybe if they had respectable policies, they wouldn't try so hard to get people on the left to like them.

[gormadoc]

"moderate Democrat was trying to curry favor with the right"
Tulsi, Obama (LGBT), Biden (debt), Hillary Clinton (wars), Bill Clinton (lots of crap) are some of the more prominent recently.
I think you just don't have very good memory.

[Kazinski]

Heh. Pretty hilarious.

First, I'm not going to say moderate Republicans don't exist, a third of the country is independent moderates, why shouldn't A few get elected as Republicans. But the more Democrats show their true colors the less Republicans are inclined to compromise with them.

After all Merrick Garland is a moderate democrat, but he wants to sic the FBI on the PTA, Joe Biden was supposed to be a moderate, but his policies are as far left as he can push them, which seems to be not far at all because of a few moderate Democrats.

[Krychek_2]

Kazinski, in almost all of the rest of the Western world, Joe Biden would be unelectable because he's too conservative. In the US, our politics skews so far to the right compared to everywhere else that Biden may seem like a leftist to you, but that's just because of how far right our politics skews.

gormadoc, I remember the people you mentioned occasionally taking conservative positions, but I don't recall hearing anyone say they were trying to ingratiate themselves to conservatives. What would be the Democratic term equivalent to RINO? If one exists, I've never heard it.

[gormadoc]

Tulsi: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/turns-out-hillary-clinton-said-republicans-not-russians-were-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-2019-10-24
Obama: https://progressive.org/op-eds/obama-lost-mind-reagan/

[Krychek_2]

gormadoc, I looked at both your links.

Claiming that Tulsi Gabbard is a Republican mole is not quite the same thing as saying she's a moderate who's trying to curry favor with the right wing. And saying that Obama has "lost his mind" (their words, not mine) because he praised Ronald Reagan is also not saying he's trying to curry favor from the right wing.

You've vastly re-written my original comment, which was limited to why do moderate Republicans get accused of trying to get respect from Democrats. Finding an article that accuses a Democrat of being a Republican mole, or of having lost his mind, is not on point to that comment. Try to find an example that's actually responsive to what I said.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"After all Merrick Garland is a moderate democrat, but he wants to sic the FBI on the PTA,"

That's a bald-faced lie masquerading as an exaggeration.

[David Nieporent]

That's a bald-faced lie masquerading as an exaggeration.

You're right, but I mostly want to comment to thank you for correctly saying "bald-faced" rather than "bold-faced" as so many illiterate Internet commenters do.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Don't thank me, David. I heard it correctly from People's Court and Judge Marilyn Milian many years ago when I'd previously thought it was 'bold-faced.'

You can thank her. 🙂

[gormadoc]

Clintons: https://progressive.org/op-eds/hillary-right/
Democrats who aren't progressives in general: https://www.laprogressive.com/biden-democrat-or-republican/

The common claim that all US politics is right wing everywhere else is frankly ridiculous. What is "the West?" Does Latin America or the Caribbean get a say at all? What about Westernized countries in the old world, such as Japan, SK, or Taiwan? You should be honest and admit that West just means Western Europe and the white part of the Anglosphere and that "right wing" just means "not a (very large) welfare state."

[Krychek_2]

Well, let's take democracies vs. autocracies as our dividing line. (I'm not including faux democracies that are actually one party rule; Putin goes through the motions of running for re-election but his opponents mostly end up dead or in prison.)

Almost all democracies have some form of government health care, and in most of them it isn't even controversial. Teaching evolution in public schools is a given in most of the world.

The United States is one of only a handful of democratic countries anywhere that still has the death penalty. Excluding Latin America, abortion has stopped being a controversial issue in most democracies; even some Muslim countries have legalized it. And several Latin American countries had gay marriage before we did.

Most democracies have a far better social safety network than we do. Most democracies have less income inequality than we do.

And here's the bottom line: You can find exceptions for all of those -- Japan still has the death penalty -- but the common thread is that the US is the country that is consistently to the right on all of them, particularly if, as expected, Roe v. Wade ends up getting reversed and abortion is banned in much of the country. It's not that the US is a mixed bag like, say, South Korea, which has both the death penalty and legalized abortion. It's that on *all* issues, the US consistently skews to the right.

[Ed Grinberg]

I think this is what they call "concern trolling."

[Krychek_2]

It's actually closer to gloating. I know full well Trump isn't going to disappear, and every time he opens his mouth the GOP suffers.

[Krayt]

The Democrats will let it fade in the same way as the Republicans let Benghazi fade -- when the presidential candidate it is attached to becomes officially irrelevant.

[Krayt]

All the rest of you, thanks for playing!

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Trump still being present is absolutely an important factor in Jan 06 still being important.

It was his mess, and he looks pretty sanguine about firing up the same bullshit again.

Otherwise, yeah, I'd be fine with letting the prosecutions play out and it just be another example of the paranoid style of right wing politics turning violent.

[Bob from Ohio]

"no matter how much you may wish otherwise"

Whatever. Its not moving any votes this year.

[bernard11]

What are you talking about?

He's playing tough guy. That's all there is.

exactly what most conservatives have been saying all along

What, that Rosenberg is a big talker? OK.

[Kazinski]

Just that Jan 6 was not organized, and that it was crawling with FBI assets, and there was no real danger.

That's what conservatives are saying, and now what one well informed observer confirms.

[Sarcastr0]

Jan 06 was *planned* on social media; there are charging documents that lay that out pretty clearly.

But organized, it was not. A buncha guys with guns went there planning to invade the Capitol stop the count. That was the extent of the plan.

The idea that it was an organized coordinated plot is a strawman.

Trump's folks had a whole paper coup planned, but the way the violence popped off didn't go the way they thought it would once they got wound up.

[Brett Bellmore]

"A buncha guys with guns went there planning to invade the Capitol stop the count. That was the extent of the plan."

Aside from the "and leave those guns in Virginia because they'd be illegal in DC" part of the plan.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A buncha guys with guns went there...

...without their guns. I wonder why you left that part out.

[bernard11]

no real danger.

Really. You mean there's nothing dangerous about being attacked with a flagpole, about throwing a fire extinguisher, about a bunch of very angry people, some of them apparently with guns, breaking down doors and yelling about hanging people?

[Brett Bellmore]

As I look at the reporting, we've got 3 people up on gun charges for that day.

A nutso DEA agent who apparently had his duty firearm on him when he entered the Capitol grounds, but never did anything with it.

A big mouth idiot who left his guns in his trailer.

And another big mouth idiot who actually kept his gun on him, but, again, didn't actually do anything with it.

[Ben_]

To be fair, saying what you really think is considered a betrayal in many of these social circles (unless your real thoughts are only about rage and vengeance against Americans, then you’re fine). They don’t typically allow such stuff in their publications.

Here’s Glenn Greenwald being called a "right-wing pundit" by a Washington Post lefty:

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2022/03/09/wapos-philip-bump-is-disturbed-by-right-wing-pundit-glenn-greenwald-sharing-right-wing-misinformation-from-ufc-fighter-bryce-mitchell/

Not wanting to participate in CIA and FBI disinformation campaigns against Trump was what got Greenwald kicked out of the kool kids klub.

[Sarcastr0]

Glenn Greenwald has become a right wing pundit. He goes on Tucker, and does nothing but attack the 'woke left' these days.

[Ben_]

Congrats on alienating him.

I guess Greenwald was one of the very, very few real anti-war guys. I remember when wars were bad and then we had a President who got us out of some old wars and didn’t get us into any new ones and all the "anti-war" guys (with a very few exceptions, like Greenwald) hated that guy and demanded we elect an old timer who voted for all those wars instead.

[Sarcastr0]

Who got us out of Afghanistan? Who got us in?

Seems to me the war hawks are still largely in the GOP.

[Krayt]

So Biden gets credit for leaving, but the terrible job is the fault of the Republican president who set it up and guided his struggling, unwillful hand?

[Sarcastr0]

No, the terrible job was Bush getting us in there, and into Iraq.

[Michael P]

No blame attaches to the guy who had the CIA running drone strikes against weddings, assassinated US citizens, and had an intelligence operation masquerade as a vaccine drive, of course.

[Absaroka]

"No, the terrible job was Bush getting us in there, and into Iraq."

Iraq 2.0, as I said at the time, was a grave miscalculation.

But I'm curious, President Sarcastro, what your administration would have done post 9/11 when we politely asked Afghanistan for Osama's head on a pike, and they replied 'So sorry, Pashtunwali!'?

[Sarcastr0]

The real way to win is not to play that game. We didn't know he was there for sure, so the ultimatum committed us to a war with an unclear goal in a graveyard of empires.

If you've made the ultimatum, then take the black eye from backing down. We've suffered worse blows to our international respect.

Or at the *very least* then leave the moment you have intel OBL has fled.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The real way to win is not to play that game."

You're right! If we hadn't built the twin towers in the first place, none of this would have happened! Brilliant!

[Kazinski]

Of course we knew he was there, he was openly giving interviews for gods sake taking credit for 9/11.

[Sarcastr0]

TiP, I don't think 9-11 made the invasion of Afghanistan inevitable - that's more hawkish than most neocons.

Kazinski - We didn't know any specifics, including how mobile he was - later events made it clear how spotty our intel was.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It wasn't inevitable, I suppose we could have waited for the next attack.

I mean, the aumf passed almost unanimously, it's not like there was much controversy over going in at the time.

[Sarcastr0]

So if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan, there would have been another 9-11.

Gotta fight them there so we don't fight them here, eh? Next to the terror alert levels.

[Absaroka]

"We didn't know he was there"

My recollection is the Taliban admitted he was their honored guest.

But back to the question - what would President Sarcastro done, since he isn't going to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan, there would have been another 9-11."

What do you think happens when you don't respond to things like that?

[Sarcastr0]

Absaroka - answered in my 1:05 pm comment.

TiP - Is invading the only possible response? We have had other terrorist attacks on American soil and managed to not have them repeat without a couple of 20 years wars.

[Absaroka]

" answered in my 1:05 pm comment."

So, do nothing?

[Bob from Ohio]

"terrible job was Bush getting us in there"

Al Gore would have also invaded Afghanistan.

They were harboring the men who caused 9/11. No president was going to just let that go. Not Bill Clinton, not Obama, not anyone.

[Sarcastr0]

Awesome counterfactual. And if he had, he'd also be a dumbass. Lord knows the Democratic Party's history is not free of dumbass warmaking.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oyyy...

Let's review for a second. The Taliban was protecting the terrorists who had just killed over 3000 US civilians, on US soil. You think a president, any president, would have let that stand?

There was just a single vote in Congress against invading. Just one.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-09-13/barbara-lee-aumf-afghanistan-war-vote-2001

[Sarcastr0]

We didn't go after Saudi Arabia, arguably the more responsible country.

I do think 9-11 called out for a response. I don't think that response had to be invading Afghanistan. I *certainly* don't think it called for sticking around for 20 years.

[Bob from Ohio]

"arguably the more responsible country"

JFC. Al Queda hated the Saudi monarchy and government. The fact that private Saudi citizens were Al Queda members and supporters doesn't change the enmity. Zero evidence that the saudi government was involved.

9/11 was planned in Afghanistan, the Taliban refused to surrender Bin Liden et al. It was an easy call to attack. Its delusion to think that any politician to the right of Sam Webb would not have launched an attack.

[David Nieporent]

They were harboring the men who caused 9/11. No president was going to just let that go. Not Bill Clinton, not Obama, not anyone.

That's the nicest thing you've ever said about Joe Biden.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, the terrible job was Bush getting us in there, and into Iraq."

How about Obama getting us into Iraq?

[Sarcastr0]

That's an interesting characterization of Obama's Middle East policies.

He didn't cover himself in glory, but he also didn't re-invade Iraq. His anti-ISIS policies proved quite effective in the long run, while managing not to be an escalation in our occupation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

We were out, he sent us back, and Trump ended up wrapping up the anti-ISIS mission.

[Sarcastr0]

1) So the story you're telling is Obama pulled troops out of Iraq and then put them back in, and that counts as a new war in Iraq? Don't be a clown, no one thinks of it like that.

2) Your definition of being out is...a bit questionable. Not counting contractors is quite the dodge.

3) Trump changed none of Obama's anti-ISIS policies, one of the only things he didn't reverse. His watch, and that ain't nothing, but Obama's policies. Which the GOP roundly criticized him for, BTW.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"1) So the story you're telling is Obama pulled troops out of Iraq and then put them back in, and that counts as a new war in Iraq? Don't be a clown, no one thinks of it like that."

Why wouldn't it count as a new war?

By your logic Bush II didn't really do anything new, just continued Bush I's war.

[Sarcastr0]

Your semantic game is dumb. No one thinks Obama re-invaded Iraq. No one says that.

You've really become an unserious person.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No one thinks Obama re-invaded Iraq. No one says that."

Of course not, he was invited by the Iraqi government. But he still got us back into a war there.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You've really become an unserious person."

Your whole point is unserious. It doesn't matter who started the conflicts, Bush owns his time in office, Obama owns his, etc.

[Ben_]

"Who got us in?"

Lots of people. Here’s the Senate roll call. I seen Biden and Clinton on there saying yea.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1071/vote_107_1_00281.htm

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty of blame to go around, but we all know whose wars those were.

[gormadoc]

Sebastian Cremmington's wars, or so I've heard.

[Ben_]

Not Trump's.

[Sarcastr0]

...Yeah, not Trump's war.

What's your big point there?

[Ben_]

"Anti-war" guys lost interest in being "anti-war" when there was no more opportunity for Dem partisan advantage.

And they lost Greenwald partly because apparently Greenwald's "anti-war" stance wasn’t just phony play-acting for tactical partisan advantage.

I thought that point was clear.

[Sarcastr0]

The anti-war left is still very much present on the left.

Greenwald is not with them.

[Ben_]

They just aren’t interested in opposing wars when they can’t use it for partisan gain.

They’re as committed to being anti war as TV actors are committed to their characters when the director says "action".

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Plenty of blame to go around, but we all know whose wars those were."

For Afghanistan? If you think that was a bad idea, you've got pretty much the whole country to blame.

[Bob from Ohio]

He just hates Bush.

[Sarcastr0]

I just hate the wars his administration enthusiastically pushed us into.

Congress enthusiastically acquiesced, but our 2 decades of Middle East adventurism was a Bush initiative.

Yeah, I think that's enough to not like the guy much.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Congress enthusiastically acquiesced, but our 2 decades of Middle East adventurism was a Bush initiative."

Well, 2014-21 Iraq was an Obama initiative. Do you dislike him too?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think that was a great move by Obama, though I would note the different footprint we chose in going back in was a lot more effective than Bush's full court countrybuilding.

And, again, Obama didn't like re-invade Iraq. Your parallels between what Obama did and what Bush did is ridiculous.

[Cheerio]

"Glenn Greenwald has become a right wing pundit."

Good grief. Many people who have (mainly) progressive viewpoints have also become very concerned about certain excesses on their side. Sometimes they focus a lot on those particular issues. That doesn't mean they somehow switched sides in general.

For example: I really don't like how much Liz Cheney focuses on her hatred of Trump, but that doesn't mean that she isn't still a conservative overall. Vice versa for woke-mob-ism and Greenwald, Maher, Turley, McWhorter, Gabbard, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

Greenwald is not only concerned with the excesses of the left. Attacker the left is all he does now, and that's the right-wing brand.

His most recent tweet:
"Democrats have been blaming Russia and Putin for pretty much everything since mid-2016. No reason to stop now."

That's a right-wing talking point; no other way to see that.

Plenty of other examples, if you care to look. He's a regular on Tucker Carlson, FFS.

He didn't used to be, but he's indistinguishable from a right-winger now.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Maybe it's not Greenwald who shifted.... Maybe it was the "liberals"...

[Sarcastr0]

Tucker Carlson is not a liberal lion who the party left behind.

[Jmaie]

You can say, "He says things right wingers say, ergo he is a right winger."

Or, you could point out what's saying that's incorrect.

[David Nieporent]

For example: I really don't like how much Liz Cheney focuses on her hatred of Trump, but that doesn't mean that she isn't still a conservative overall. Vice versa for woke-mob-ism and Greenwald, Maher, Turley, McWhorter, Gabbard, etc.

Liz Cheney consistently votes conservatively on every single issue. She just doesn't support Trump, which is not a benchmark for conservatism. Greenwald, on the other hand, is solely focused on bashing liberals/Democrats. There is no content to distinguish him from Tucker Carlson.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

Saw Bob Dylan in concert last week in a fairly small venue in Tucson. Took my teenage sons. A major Bucket List item for all of us. Still going strong at 80. Voice was strong; acoustics and the band were top notch. Ended the show with Every Grain of Sand, a favorite of ours. We won’t see the likes of Dylan again. Can’t thank him enough for 60 years of great music.

[Kazinski]

I saw him 15 years ago, he did half an acoustic set, including "Don't think twice", which was a highlight.

[OtisAH]

A theater is the best venue to catch him. Never seen a bad show of his in theaters. His performances struggle to my ears when outdoors or indoor stadiums. I’ve never seen a good show of his outdoors or indoor stadiums.

[Michael Masinter]

I first saw Dylan at the old Forest Hills tennis club in 1965, and his show was excellent, though a center court stadium is a far cry from a football stadium. The concert was his second (Newport was first) with electric instruments, with the first half strictly acoustic and the second half electric. It still ranks as one of the five bests shows I've ever seen, even with audience booing during the electric set.

[Sarcastr0]

In the Baude thread, Hendo posted:
"After reading Julian Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley (Delegation at the Founding - Columbia Law Review), I'm not sure that courts should take non-delegation seriously.

The authors provide some pretty compelling evidence for a substantial history of delegation and--perhaps more significantly--they also make a pretty strong argument that the recent rise of the non-delegation doctrine is founded on some incredibly threadbare and shoddy legal history."

I got to that thread late, so I thought I'd post some excerpts, since some folks were asking for what examples there were.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3202&context=articles

*[T]he Constitution at the Founding contained no discernable, legalized prohibition on delegations of legislative power, at least so long as the exercise of that power remained subject to congressional oversight and control the First Congress delegated the entirety of its police power over federal lands to federal officers and judges....
Whenever early Congresses created new territories, they routinely empowered governors, judges, and territorial legislatures to pass “Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory,”

*In its very first patent law, Congress gave the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Attorney General (“or any two of them”) the power to grant patents to new inventions

*The President’s regulations thus specified who could trade what and where, including within the borders of the United States. These were rules that Congress chose not to fashion itself—indeed, it declined even to hint at what their content ought to be. Yet there is no evidence in the historical record that anyone at any point raised anything resembling a nondelegation objection to the arrangement.

*[The first] Congress authorized the President to identify any of his soldiers who were “wounded or disabled while in the line of his duty in public service,” and put them on “the list of the invalids of the United States, at such rate of pay, and under such regulations as shall be directed by the President of the United States, for the time being."

*Congress empowered the President to borrow up to $12 million to pay off the foreign debt, with the choice of prioritization among lenders left entirely up to [Washington]

[LawTalkingGuy]

And yet the people who matter simply don't care. In Gorsuch's OSHA mandate concurrence he cited to Wurman's rebuttal of Bagley/Mortensen (and Parrillo and Chabot) but didn't engage with their evidence at all. And he likely won't in any case. Because "originalism" has no standards whatsoever and if it did, no one exists to hold judges to those standards. Doesn't really matter what the historical evidence shows, an originalist can just ignore it and or say it isn't relevant to determining "original public meaning" (unless of course it supports their position, like founding era execution methods for instance, in which case it becomes incredibly relevant).

Founding era practice matters if it supports their proposition and if it doesn't totally do that...they simply ignore it and go to abstract founding era political theory. Or the dictionary. Or something else.

Somehow, the originalist judge can declare that the public definitively understood the document to mean a particular thing...even if the public never totally behaved as if that was the case.

[Sarcastr0]

Both Gorsuch and Thomas have disappointed me of late on their internal consistency. I have issues with both their jurisprudential views, but thought they at least were zealots, not tools.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Assuming for the moment that they’re both sincere and good faith actors, I don’t think such consistency is even possible. Which is why I think originalists shouldn’t make the claims they do about definitiveness and legitimacy.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure - and I allow some give in one's jurisprudence; I think that's good judging in fact.

But they've both shown themselves to be full Alito now.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Idk. Alito is something else: changing his mind on Purcell and maps within a span of three weeks depending on what the outcome would be is a level of hackishness that even the most committed ideologues can only aspire to.

[Kazinski]

Well let me ask you one question, say you are right about originalism, its just made up out of whole cloth, how is that any worse than what the progressive wing is doing? Just going with an outcome based approach?

But really the truth is the progressive wing has acknowledged originalism as the basis of legitimacy for constitutional interpretation. Take for example.NYRPC2, in the oral arguments it was conceded that there is a right to bear arms outside the home, most of the discussion centered around the premise that most of NY was a sensitive area , not that NY could really pick and choose who is worthy to exercise their constitutional rights.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"[H]ow is that any worse than what the progressive wing is doing? Just going with an outcome based approach?"

Accepting this characterization of progressives as true, originalism is worse because it's proponents are still going with an outcome based approach but are also lying about it by claiming to be constrained by this "methodology." But since there is no actual methodology to it, it doesn't actually constrain them in any meaningful fashion. So it's fundamentally dishonest.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I should add that certain scholars appear to actually sincerely believe originalism is some kind of constraining methodology (Kerr, Baude, maybe Adler), and I shouldn't characterize them as "dishonest" per se. But many clearly are (or were*) just promoting a political project disguised as scholarly detachment. The judges/justices who are expert politicos certainly are, and people like Barnett and Blackman are too. For instance, Barnett claiming that the original meaning of the necessary and proper clause prohibits court packing is ahistorical nonsense that if accepted wouldn't constrain judges at all (it would actually empower them by letting them decide they can't have their individual power diluted). But it will obviously be a useful political argument for him for the next twenty years or so because he wants the outcome of no court packing yet he can still claim he's only saying this because "originalism" has forced his hand.

*some voices have moved on from textualism/originalism to "common good constitutionalism" because they recognized that while originalism is and can be outcome oriented (which is why they promoted it)....it wasn't outcome oriented enough for their tastes so it has to now be abandoned.

[bernard11]

The whole non-delegation business is yet another example of what I have previously criticized.

Come up with a far-fetched argument on some constitutional point and try to use it to achieve (ridiculous) outcomes that you like, all the while claiming that you are engaged in serious intellectual work, when it's all about throwing some crap out there and hoping the RW radicals on the court will make it stick.

Disgusting stuff.

[Cheerio]

Perhaps...but for decades when that kind of thing led to various liberal rulings, we were all just told "suck it up / independent judiciary / rule of law / judicial activism isn't so bad / etc."

[Sarcastr0]

No one said you can't criticize incorrect decisions. I mean, Bush v. Gore and all that.

And no one said 'judicial activism isn't so bad' that I heard.

[Krayt]

The President’s regulations thus specified who could trade what and where, including within the borders of the United States. These were rules that Congress chose not to fashion itself—indeed, it declined even to hint at what their content ought to be. Yet there is no evidence in the historical record that anyone at any point raised anything resembling a nondelegation objection to the arrangement.

Ergo casting off regulations insanely large, completely unenvisioned, or multitudinous and small and little different from some little European village's competition stifling regulations hundred of years ago is a-ok?

Skipping voting on contentious stuff is considered a feature of delegation. How embarrassing for umich to push this.

"Ha ha ha we cast it off, sucks to be you!" This is not good stewardship of the democratic trust.

[Krayt]

"We love democracy! Until we don't."

[Sarcastr0]

By that logic, having judges is undemocratic.

[Krayt]

How so? I am the opposite of vox populi vox dei.

This is mockery of those who justify any and all power so wielded is therefore just and proper because The Vote.

Until it gets in their way.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know many who say that. The closest I know is saying elections matter, which is clearly true.

What's your thesis here? I took your comments to say that you believe the administrative state is unconstitutional because it's undemocratic. Now you say that's not true. Good - that is a silly argument.

But what is your argument? It doesn't seem to be originalism...

[bernard11]

I'm not following your complaint.

On the one hand you seem to object to regulations that are undemocratically put in place. On the other you disparage democracy.

Seems inconsistent.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the OG Constitution didn't envision modernity.

That doesn't mean it forbids application of it's doctrines in the modern context.

There are plenty of reasons to delegate beyond political convenience. You conveniently left all of them out to make your attack on the practice.

[Krayt]

We see the same old corruption and attempts to increase government power that have been going on since ancient times.

If the Constitution is an anachronism, vox populi vox dei is the massively repeatedly proven ancient path to tyranny and death, rearing its ugly puss over and over by fools fantasizing they, yes they themselves, can finally wield it rightly and safely!

Yes, you dear reader! You will get it right unlike billions over thousands of years!

Finally!

[Sarcastr0]

Who is making this vox populi argument?! Certainly not someone who likes the administrative state!

[Michael Ejercito]

Has anyone noticed that there is more sympathy for the Ukraine today than there was for South Vietnam in 1970?

[Sarcastr0]

You mean we didn't want to think about the shameful mess we had made of a country, but are happy to be horrified when other countries do it?

I cannot believe you are shocked by that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"shameful mess we had made of a country"

The North Vietnamese made the mess, comrade. We were invited by the South Vietnamese government.

No enemies to the left.

[Sarcastr0]

We sure did a bang-up job of destroying that country and a lot of our own boys in order to save...nothing.

Whatta great war.

[Bob from Ohio]

"order to save...nothing."

Your ideological ancestors made sure of that.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't try the dolchstosslegende nonsense about Vietnam. It's not a good look.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its true though.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes killing civilians in Mai Lai was totally the North Vietnamese’s fault.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Mai Lai wasn't the North Vietnamese's fault. The killing of millions in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge a few years later, OTOH...

[Sarcastr0]

Funny, I don't recall anyone here arguing the Khmer Rouge were virtuous.

[Kazinski]

It didn't have much to do with the North Vietnamese, in fact you have to give them a lot of credit for invading and putting an effective end to the Pol Pot regime, although of course they had their own reasons. Its enough that their invasion and installation of Hun Sen ended the genocide.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Yes killing civilians in Mai Lai was totally the North Vietnamese’s fault."

They started the war. Atrocities happen in war, even by the good guys.

"The Chenogne massacre refers to a mass execution committed on New Year's Day, January 1, 1945, where at least 25 German prisoners of war were killed by American forces near the village of Chenogne (also spelled "Chegnogne"), Belgium, thought to be in retaliation for the Malmedy massacre. "

I guess the Germans were not at fault for starting WW2.

[LawTalkingGuy]

People are actually responsible for their own messes. "They started it" is a child's moral logic. So, yes, the US is responsible for the messes we made over there. And in WWII.

[Krayt]

"They shall be known for their fruit."

Continue kibitzing over awful incidents the US wrings its hands over.

"Come draw near, lesser countries, to my protection, and let us live free and protect together!" 29 nations: Zoomer zoom zoom! Still more grab the pant leg. Ukraine: LEMME IN, I AM SORRY LEMME INNNNNNNNN!

Who wants Russia? Nobody. Who wants China? Nobody. Not even a part of China. Maybe a few squeedunk countries with dictatokleptocrats. Rotten fruit.

[Kazinski]

We had war fatigue, as in Afghanistan, we gave South Vietnam all the tools they needed to hold off the North, if they had the commitment to do so, finally we decided we couldn't do it all, or mostly on our own.

But in the end we mostly won, Vietnam is a capitalist economy run by communists, but allied with the US against Chinese expansionism. Overwhelmingly the Vietnamese people prefer aligning with the west over China and Russia. A lot of that is almost everyone in Vietnam has relatives in the US, so they know capitalism works in Vietnam, and it works even better in the US.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think you can lay the current politics in Vietnam at the feat of the Vietnam War.

Maybe they would have become a Chinese satellite, maybe an independent communist regime, maybe not.

[gormadoc]

"Chinese satellite"
There was virtually no chance of that happening outside complete occupation, which clearly hadn't worked for the previous series of occupiers. Cambodia and Vietnam were allies when the Khmer Rouge began purging Vietnamese in their ranks due to paranoia about Vietnamese strength. Even through the next few years they emphasized their close ties, which ended when nu-Cambodia attacked. Vietnam decided to end them and China invaded in response. The wars with the Khmer Rouge and China had little to do with the Vietnam war and everything to do with paranoia about hegemony. Those are the reason for the lasting distrust towards China.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for this - I'm not too up on the post-Vietnam War history of the region.

It seems interesting, but also horrifying. I don't know if I have the stomach for even a wikipedia binge.

[gormadoc]

It's rather sad. Our involvement may have somehow been the high point for "decency" in regional wars there. The Khmer Rouge were just as brutal towards their neighbors as they were to their country.

[Kazinski]

Your not too up on post way vietnam history, but you certainly know that the Vietnamese war has nothing to do with the current dynamic. The biggest war related factor to good relations with the US is the millions of Vietnamese with relatives in the US, that visit Vietnam prodigiously, and the constant stream of new family preference green card applicants that are lining up to join them.

The 2nd of course is China, thinking it could move into the vacuum formerly occupied by the US-USSR and dominate Vietnam like they used to.

The third factor is they 'won' and then totally proved to their own citizens and the world that communist economics is a total failure and free market economics is their only path out of well, serfdom, as someone else called it.

I've been to Vietnam at least 8 times, and I've been in SE 2 month and counting right now. I've traveled extensively in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand for months at a time. So it's not a total blank to me that I run over to Wikipedia to grab some factlets to enlighten myself.

[Michael P]

Joy Behar did, and she has exactly the kind of explanation that you might expect from her.

[Stephen Lathrop]

How the West can win in Ukraine.

The West needs to start by losing. The loss should come as quickly as may be seemly, to minimize the size of Putin's win. A win which Putin must absolutely be accommodated with.

So make it clear to Putin that he has won, and should take his victory, and minimize the long-term economic detriments otherwise lying in wait. He has apparently indicated that he would accept as victory a guarantee against NATO membership for Ukraine, plus recognition of the Crimea as Russian territory, along with the two contested enclaves in Eastern Ukraine, to also be absorbed into Russia. Give those to him, as of the moment his last troops pass across their borders, and out of the rest of Ukraine.

Thereafter, do nothing but plan, and plan quietly. What will be necessary to stabilize a slightly-smaller Ukraine as a member of the European Union, but not part of NATO? It must never be attacked again, of course. And its economy must get what it needs, particularly including access to Black Sea ports for agricultural exports. Those must be defended securely, even against attack by warships.

How to assure those conditions, long term? Build on the newfound European unity the present crisis has coalesced. And also build on the heightened anxieties of nations including Poland, Romania, Moldova, and Hungary.

Remnant Ukraine will need greatly-improved defensive capacity, sufficient not merely to inflict pain on a Russian invasion, but to deter one. But it would be unwise if a strengthened Ukrainian military looked like it posed an offensive threat against Russia, or implied intent to take back Crimea, etc.

Balance those needs, while addressing the aforementioned anxieties. First, build an alliance, separate from NATO, and outside it, encompassing those newly-nervous nations I mentioned above—the NNN alliance, if you will.

The aim should be a standing defensive army, numbering somewhere in the range of 400,000 to 600,000, possibly more. With the combined population of those NNN nations, that should be supportable economically, especially if other European nations kick in for some of the expense. The troops should probably be mostly Ukrainian, for tactical simplicity, and to avoid political complications involving possible combat by troops from NATO nations. Ukraine can be encouraged to accept that as provision of the international support they should have had long since.

Then let the the U.S., and other large nations, including at least Britain, France and Germany, develop and supply weapons optimized to deny any future Russian invasion of Ukraine any prospect of survival. Put heavy emphasis on developing short-range, highly-effective, highly-mobile, relatively inexpensive anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. Supply them in profusion, to be held in arsenals throughout the NNN Alliance.

Otherwise, minimize airplanes, helicopters, or anything else which suggests offensive capacity capable of projection across borders. Make defensive intent redundantly obvious. Stay way from the borders of Putin's new-won enclaves.

Develop also a tactical plan of resistance. De-emphasize fortification, except at the Black Sea ports. Emphasize mobility. Then develop infrastructure—airfields for transport planes, roads, railroads, transportation geometry, to optimize defensive tactics and vary maneuver options, all with an eye to support for the kinds of short-range-but-deadly weapons mentioned above.

In short, give Putin what he demands, and then turn what he doesn't get into a self-capable, non-aggressive, lethally-indigestible region, fully at peace and newly organized, with the Ukrainian part of it outside NATO.

Maybe give some thought to whether Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia ought to have their own places in such a plan.

[Bob from Ohio]

ah, the Sudetenland gambit.

[Commenter_XY]

The man is an idiot if he thinks Putin will 'bank' the win and do nothing more. Utterly bereft of reason or logic or historical awareness.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, Putin will not do it immediately. He will have his hands full consolidating his new-won gains. There will be internal resistance to suppress, for instance, two kinds of it—first in the annexed Ukrainian territory, but also in Russia.

Also, Putin will want to fortify his new borders. And he will be barred by force from doing anything more shortly. It took Putin 8 years from the time he invaded Crimea until now. If the U.S. and Western European nations embark on a crash program of arms supply and development, and Ukraine responds with urgency akin to what it has already shown it can do, Putin will not get 2 years before a new Ukrainian-centered alliance can be in place, armed to repel whatever Russia can throw at it.

For now, Putin is Russia's indispensable man. But as the old saying goes, the graveyards are full of indispensable men. Putin's perch is precarious already.

[Commenter_XY]

Putin will not stop. He will coordinate with China. In fact, he is already is economically, having signed the largest coal agreement ever negotiated with China (and get this - for coal-burning electricity plants). Moldova is in danger right now, considering the fighting right on their border with Ukraine.

Have you considered the possibility that both Putin and Xi are impatient to implement their respective legacies, simultaneously?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I wonder if Chinese leaders with economic interests across the Western Hemisphere, and in Europe, would consider it wise to join with Russia to do whatever Russia might decide to do.

[Longtobefree]

Peace in our time.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Longstobefree, excoriation of Chamberlain depends on a historical counter-factual no better than a guess. Whatever criticism historical Chamberlain deserves, he cannot be excoriated for the loss of WW II. That gives him a notable advantage over counter-factual Chamberlain, for whom that possibility cannot be ruled out.

[OtisAH]

I vehemently oppose this line of thought that holds The West must allow Putin to “save face.” The idea that he’ll settle for some half-loaf in Ukraine is wholly unsupported. Putin could’ve been satisfied with Donbas and Luhansk without otherwise crossing the Ukrainian border. He wasn’t and for good reason. He wants Ukraine under his thumb and he’s fully committed to that goal. Period.

And he has no face left to save anyway.

[Commenter_XY]

OtisAH...The United States should think about the various 'exit ramps' that Putin may wish to take vis a vis Ukraine. It would be in our interest 'not' to obstruct those exit ramps unless our (America) national interest is compromised. I don't call that 'saving face'.

Our national interest is not served by a European war. Nor is our national interest served by involving America in Ukraine.

I don't see Ukraine as a vital US national interest.

[John F. Carr]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/opinion/putin-ukraine-russia-war.html

Thomas Friedman: "Putin Has No Good Way Out, and That Really Scares Me".

[TwelveInchPianist]

But it's not clear what out means, or what we do with Putin once he's out.

And it's not clear that he wants out. He's not the one getting bombed. And what he's doing is popular in Russia.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Among some in Russia, extremely unpopular. And destined to grow more so, if sanctions drag on. By contrast, the ability to claim internationally recognized redemption for the most Russified parts of Ukraine will seem a Roman triumph. And he is always free to dream of his next double-cross, whether he can pull it off or not.

[David Nieporent]

So your solution to Putin doing something unpopular is to make him more popular, by rewarding him for his acts?

[Stephen Lathrop]

As Carl von Clausewitz said so famously, "War is just a popularity contest, by other means."

[Commenter_XY]

John, the real question to me is whether Ukraine is a vital American interest. The answer (to me) is no. Friedman thinks otherwise; he is wrong. Ukraine is a European problem, and Europe should address the problem in their backyard.

It is one thing to back your allies (by formal treaty, ratified by the US Senate). Quite another to involve yourself in a conflict that isn't yours. And Ukraine/Russia isn't our conflict. That aside, I don't consider Ukraine a worthy partner to the US; Ukraine's corruption is endemic. There is a reason the EU and NATO slow-walked Ukraine's application (only for 20+ years or so...) to join.

It is in our interest to bleed Russia of military capacity to wage war in the remainder of Europe. Forestalling Russia's ability to keep moving west is a vital US national interest. What I expect to happen here is that POTUS Biden will be content to 'fight' the Russians down to the last Ukrainian. Or until Russia decides to declare victory and keep the parts of Ukraine they will probably keep (i.e. Ukraine east of Dnieper river).

POTUS Biden has emphatically and explicitly stated that America will not intervene militarily in Ukraine. And stated that 'every inch' of NATO soil will be defended militarily. Those are very important markers to lay down. He was right to do this.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, there is barely a word of this comment with which I disagree. Indeed, it seems to me you have just said more generally what I already proposed specifically. I am having a hard time reconciling this comment by you with your hostile response to my previous one. What have I missed?

[OtisAH]

His only “off-ramp” is withdrawing his troops and telling everyone back home his “special operation” was a resounding success. But he’s not likely interested in taking it. That’s all.

And if you cannot see the US interests in trying to severely curtail Putin’s years-long war against democratic governments, there’s little I can say to clear things up for you.

[Don Nico]

It seems rather clear that Putin wants the remnant Ukraine cutoff from the Black Sea. There is little reason for him to want the portions of Ukraine that were formerly part of Poland.
What we don't want to happen is having Putin frustrated enough to use 1 to 2 kT nuclear devices.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico, my guess is that Ukraine east of the Dnieper river is becoming Russian when this is all over with.

The new wrinkle is the coordinated economic and technological action. That is something to watch.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, combat history from WW II teaches that the west Bank of the Dnieper is not likely a formidable defensive barrier on its own. Retreating Germans anticipated an effective defensive line there, but in the event barely paused, because pursuing Soviets got over the river everywhere.

A chance to make the river a real barrier, and thus reinforce a useful national border farther east, might depend on holding considerable territory on the east bank, to disorganize and foreclose river crossing efforts. It was partly that consideration that led me to urge a quick exit from the current combat, before the Russians seize that east bank territory in its entirety. Then they would likely try to negotiate from facts on the ground, and win.

Of course, that might be a wan hope already. None of us has real-time information sufficient to justify our many speculations.

[David Nieporent]

While you're generously dividing up Ukraine and serving up half of it to Putin, you might note that the Dnieper river runs right through Kyiv.

[Commenter_XY]

David, would you send Americans to fight and die so that does not happen = Russia occupying Ukraine to Dnieper river?

I would not. It is not a vital US national interest.

[Jmaie]

"It seems rather clear that Putin wants the remnant Ukraine cutoff from the Black Sea."

May I ask why you say this? Let's say he does end up absorbing everything east of the Dnieper, that would leave Odessa as a major port and a decent amount of coastline.

Now if you said cut off from the Sea of Azov, that would make sense.

[Don Nico]

"May I ask why you say this? "
Indeed you may. 1) That is where his Army is attack. 2) It leaves Ukranie a basket case needing transfusions from Russia (if Russia has any blood left after the blood-letting through sanctions.

[Jmaie]

I hadn't heard of fighting in Odessa (although plenty of chatter that an attack is likely). Accurate information is difficult to come by, can you provide a link that shows attacks in that area?

[Don Nico]

Don't ask me for a link. Just follow the news. That is all anyone can do. Already one can see that the news media have a definite bias, justified or not. But they will report large scale fighting or bombing.

[Jmaie]

"One city that has not yet caught in the crossfire is Odessa in Ukraine's far southwest on the Black Sea."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/ukrainians-fight-to-hold-the-port-city-of-odessa-as-exodus-out-of-the-country-persists#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20says%20more%20than%20400%20civilians,in%20Ukraine%27s%20far%20southwest%20on%20the%20Black%20Sea.

[ThePublius]

'O.K., here's the plan, guys. We just give up! Then they'll just leave us alone.'

That post is absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, Peace in Our Time, as another commenter said.

[David Nieporent]

It's dumber than Peace in Our Time. At least that was said before Germany actually attacked its neighbors. This is like waiting until September 15, 1939 to negotiate that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I take heart from your response, Nieporent. I offered a proposal based on a notion that with the right planning, Europe and the U.S. could reap a strategic victory, at the near-trivial cost of a tactical defeat already lost. But like any lawyer with a cliched analogy, you are pleased to claim a rhetorical advantage, this time undermined by reliance on nothing better than a historical counter-factual. Weak stuff indeed. And you are a smart guy.

If my plan were tried, maybe Europe and the U.S. could get lucky, and find Putin no smarter than you. If so, he might take the bait, and find himself cornered long-term by his own success. Before he could bring himself to disparage his own glorious victory, he would likely be out of power or dead.

[OtisAH]

One of the biggest issues is that your proposal assumes far too much in favor of Putin being a rational actor operating in good faith. That is, your proposal relies on a Putin who doesn’t exist.

[Stephen Lathrop]

OtisAH, my proposal assumes bad faith constrained by force. You apparently disapprove a suggestion that to organize that force the West must buy a bit of time. To me, that plays out a little bit like a finesse in the game of Bridge. You guess whether the card you need to be on your left is there, and if it is, the play pays off. If it is not, you were fated to lose anyway.

If Russia does not fear to pay the cost of a full conquest of Ukraine, then it is too late now to deter that outcome. If Russia now estimates that cost is high, or worries that it might be too much, then maybe the play I suggest could pay off. So the logical thing to do is to suppose the cards fell our way, and Russia can be induced to cease fire and draw back, in exchange for an apparent victory. If that happens, we get time to prevent a repeat. If not, the world becomes notably more dangerous for everyone, including Russians.

[bernard11]

How much time should Mark Meadows serve for vote fraud?

[Brett Bellmore]

Whatever the law calls for.

Was it just vote fraud, though? Or even vote fraud? More of a fraudulent candidacy, wasn't it?

[OtisAH]

No, that was Kanye.

[David Nieporent]

Was it just vote fraud, though? Or even vote fraud? More of a fraudulent candidacy, wasn't it?

No. It's amazing how you have so much time to comment here, but never enough time to read about the things you're commenting on.

[not guilty]

What is your question, Brett? If Meadows registered to vote giving an address where he did not reside, that's registration fraud. If he voted pursuant to such a registration, that's vote fraud. Isn't that obvious?

[Kazinski]

Nope. It's extremely common for public officials residing in Washington to use an address of convenience in their homes states, he was in Congress until March of 2020, then briefly served as Trump's chief of staff.

If he voted twice, that is fraud, if he still considered himself a NC resident even though serving in Congress and the Whitehouse in 2020 he faces no jeopardy whatsoever.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Before making such conclusive statements, you should probably actually know the laws in question related to Meadows' conduct.

North Carolina law requires that you actually reside at the address for at least 30 days before the election. There is no evidence that he ever resided, or so much as spent a single night present at the property.

So he quite clearly committed a Felony, and your conclusion otherwise is, as usual, bullshit.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You sure about that? Can you link to that specific law about 30 days. That you have to be at the ADDRESS and not a resident in the county?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

By all means, provide his other address in the county - the one in which you're alleging he actually lived.

Note that he claimed on his registration form that he'd be moving in on the very next day, which he never did.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So...you can't provide a link to that specific law then?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're quite correct that he must actually reside in the county, and not the specific address.

Which only matters at all if you can provide the actual address he DID reside at within that county, and not the address he swore with the registration that he was going to move into, and live in, on the very next day, which we now know was and is a lie.

Either provide the address which satisfies the law, or admit he committed a felony.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Absolutely. His previous residence.

You see, the house he rented was down the street from the house he sold. Same county. Same State. He easily satisfies the residence requirements.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So we have a house which he sold that he was no longer living in, and a mobile home which he swore he'd move into, which he never did and never stayed even a single night at.

Residency requirements are satisfied by actual residency. Thank you for confirming the felony charge would be legitimate.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Also, fuck off with the 'down the street" bullshit you fucking liar.

His old residence looks to be about twelve to fifteen MILES away from the mobile home he decided to use for his registration fraud.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/08/mark-meadows-his-wife-debra-their-trailer-home-voter-registration/

[Armchair Lawyer]

So...He actually was in residency in the same county. For the previous 30 days. Through your own link. (I was using the New Yorker's language).

Geez, you don't have much of case, do you.

1. You get the law wrong...despite criticizing others.
2. You don't understand the residency requirements for living in the county. Because he had residency in the county for the previous 30 days. Because he moved within the county.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Previous house sold six months prior.
They moved into a condominium in VIRGINIA.
Swore new residence was going to be the mobile home in North Carolina.
Alleged new house never lived in, even for a single day.

Twist and turn all you want - he was not currently a resident of the county as he swore he was, and did not move into the home as he swore he would.

Let's just cut all the bullshit and admit that your fundamental argument is "It's ok if you're a Republican."

[Michael P]

Jason, the law about domiciles does not work the way you imagine. The state's actual law about voter registration specifies the residence "in which that person's habitation is fixed, and to which, whenever that person is absent, that person has the intention of returning". That is what the registration form means by to "live at" an address.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And yet it is a reasonable conclusion that if one is absent from the property 100% of the time, then the statement of it being their home is false.

The entire premise of "...whenever that person is absent, that person has the intention of returning..." relies on the person at least sometimes - if not generally, actually being present, otherwise there cannot be any "returning."

[Kazinski]

Now how can he move into the trailer, when he is Chief of Staff at Whitehouse? Sending ones wife, checking it out that its an acceptable temporary residence when he has one of the top ten most important jobs in the nation, which he quit Congress to accept at the Presidents request, seems perfectly acceptable. There is certainly no mens rea there for voter fraud.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So he quite clearly committed a Felony"

Yet he will never be prosecuted. Let alone convicted.

Maybe its not so clear.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yup....

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed.

There's also an interesting part of North Carolina voting law.

"Elected officials who move—to D.C., for example—are allowed to remain registered in their home county or state as long as they don’t register to vote in the new location."

[Cheerio]

How much time? No more than anyone else, lest we let bloodlust for our enemies turn into the criminalization of politics (a.k.a. banana republic stuff).

Whether it's Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, or Hunter Biden or anyone else, this all really has to stop. SCOTUS should draw a line in the sand and say if there's ever a whiff of political motivation then the whole prosecution fails.

[bernard11]

Well, a woman in Texas was sentenced to five years, as I recall, as was another in Memphis, though the latter case is apparently being reconsidered.

Still, that's far too harsh, especially since both have an argument that it was an honest mistake. For Meadows, I think a felony conviction, maybe a one year sentence with all but 90 days suspended, some probation, would be about right.

[santamonica811]

B,
That seems about right. I'd be fine with the entire prison sentence suspended. House arrest, perhaps. BUT, also with a lifetime ban on voting in federal elections . . . that has a certain symmetry to me.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Should Martin Heinrich, Senator, New Mexico have the same penalty?

[santamonica811]

Yes

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bernard...

What did Meadows do exactly that was wrong? Rent a place after selling his house, and have his voter registration there?

[David Nieporent]

Register to vote, and actually vote, from an address where he never actually lived.

[Armchair Lawyer]

What do we know.

1. He lived in the county in March, 2020
2. He sold his house in March 2020
3. He rented a house nearby in March 2020
4. He registered at the new address in March 2020.
5. He maintained that rental, until at least the fall.
6. He was registered to vote nowhere else in 2020. He voted no where else in 2020.

Did he "live" there? That's depends.

Let's say he did exactly the same thing, but instead moved overseas. Could he vote as an Ex-Pat? Why or why not? What address would he need to use?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What you think you know, and what has been reported as facts are not the same things.

Items 3 and 4 are false. After selling their house, they lived in a condo in Old Town Alexandria, in Virginia. They lived there until the mysterious mobile home declaration as their new residence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/08/mark-meadows-his-wife-debra-their-trailer-home-voter-registration/

I have reason to believe my source is far more reliable than whatever yours is, but let's find out.

[Kazinski]

He is serving as White House chief of staff, is he supposed to telecomute? Use zoom for everything?

He's is serving his country in a temporary capacity, is the court supposed to take no notice of that.

I can see him.testifying to a jury of his peers in the county and being asked:

Q. Just what were you doing in Washington that was so important, that you couldn't help your wife move?
A. I was keeping Gas prices below 2.50 a gallon.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Those sentences are so fucked up it’s hard to believe anyone with a conscience could defend them or impose them. It’s an insane level of cruelty. It’s also insane that we’re stuck litigating the underlying offense rather than the sentence itself because there’s no such thing as a sentence that’s cruel or unusual in America (although this is certainly both). I really wish this conversation was less about voting rights and more about how some very very sick people want to physically and mentally abuse a person for years to make a political point.

If you actually described what you were doing to the person, you’d sound like some deranged psychopath and people would actually be wondering how long you need to be in prison to keep society safe:

“because you wrongly submitted an uncounted provisional ballot or voted on the instruction of your probation officer, I’m going to do the following to you:

You will spend longer than you spent in high school in a small cell you share with a roommate who may or may not be incredibly violent. You will be cut off from family and friends who will also suffer trauma from this disconnect. Your naked body will be under constant supervision, your oral and anal cavities will be searched. You will eat a diet that is high and fat in low in nutrition and will cause long term health damage for that entire time period. You will be at increased risk of physical or sexual violence from both government employees and fellow roommates. You will be charged exorbitant amounts for everything you do: read a book (when I let you do that), call a family member (when I let you do that and oh I’m listening), or have a snack for once (when I let you do that). Your medical care will be neglected, you may even die of cancer while no one takes you to the doctor. No one will take your complaints seriously. The tiniest infraction will result in a form of psychological torture known as solitary isolation. You may be driven to commit suicide. If you are, I will likely let it happen. When you do leave you will be subject to crushing debt and onerous restrictions on your life to the point it becomes almost impossible to reintegrate in society. You will do all this with the knowledge that many people who have done similar or worse things have received much better treatment.”

[Armchair Lawyer]

What do you think the penalty should be for fraudulent voting then?

Or illegally preventing someone to vote?

Just curious.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Misdemeanor. Fines. Probation (which also sucks). Certainly not years and years of prison (which is an extremely bad place in America)

Maybe felony if there are actually a large number of votes involved or it happens a lot. Even with felony, custodial sentence shouldn’t be longer than a year max.

One illegal (and for Mason uncounted) vote amongst millions does far less damage to human society than it letting a group of people work in concert to brutalize someone for 5-6 years in a manner that would be utterly revolting to us if we discovered a private person had done it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, just to review, you actually think that illegally preventing someone from voting should "just" be a misdemeanor offense? Just a slap on the wrist with a fine?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. Do you think someone should be at an increased risk of rape, assault, or not getting cancer treated in response to illegal voting?

[Armchair Lawyer]

1. You need to read better. I said illegally preventing someone from voting.

2. But to use an example.... The KKK get together and form a human chain around polling stations to prevent African Americans from voting. Only letting white people through. And you think the appropriate response is a "misdemeanor" and $500 fine?

[Michael P]

2. The New Black Panther Party post a (uniformed) paramilitary guard outside a polling station in Philadelphia... oh, wait. The appropriate response is dismissing a lawsuit against the offenders that was already won by default!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Would you be personally willing to look into someone’s cavities in response to illegal voting?

[santamonica811]

Having gone to the law library and perused the Anals of Justice . . .

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/annals-of-jurisprudence

[LawTalkingGuy]

Just to be clear you want people to miss the formative years of their children’s lives in response to this. You want kids to go parentless for the formative years of THEIR lives in response to this crime? You want six missing Christmas’s? You want missed weddings? Funerals? Graduations? Just destroying the parent-child relationship in response to this?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Gosh. You make a strong case for people not to be illegally voting.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You just don’t understand prison. It’s abstract in your mind. Not a real thing that happens to real people.

Imagine a time you screwed up some bureaucratic thing based on what someone told you. Do you want your every bowel movement to be in public?

[Michael P]

Gosh. Now you make a strong case for dismissing all the charges against 1/6 rioters.

[David Nieporent]

The phrase "fraudulent voting" covers a lot of ground. Like, what Leslie Dowless did — an organized scheme to concoct hundreds of fraudulent votes — is serious. Voting when you're still on probation (even if you do so knowingly), while illegal, is not.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Illegally voting isn't serious?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Just curious...when does it become "Serious"?

If you illegally vote twice...it is serious? What about 3 times? 4 times? 10 times?

When does it become "serious" for you?

[David Nieporent]

When does it become "serious" for you?

When it becomes part of an organized scheme to steal an election.

[Social Justice is neither]

If Republulicans win and not in any other circumstance.

[Ridgeway]

Vote fraud is like counterfeiting. Both are punished disproportionately severely (as compared with other crimes) not so much because of the harm the individual offense causes, but rather the damage to the overall system caused by lack of trust.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I think you've been fake news-ed here Bernard.

[Jimmy the Dane]

If you wanted to know how much water the corporate media would carry for Democrats, we are finding out that extent with the whole gas will be $6/gallon soon enough and it is your fault for not buying an electric car.

[Ben_]

We’ve seen steady momentum in people deciding enough is enough and pushing back against elites intentionally making Americans' lives worse. Perhaps this year’s election will be an inflection point.

Gaslighting doesn't work when the prices are printed everywhere. I guess we’ll see if misleading people is the only play in their playbook between now and the November election.

Good government and public service isn't a position you can pivot to in a few months.

[TwelveInchPianist]

On Biden's first day in office:

"President Joe Biden on Wednesday signed a series of executive orders that prioritize climate change across all levels of government and put the U.S. on track to curb planet-warming carbon emissions.

Biden’s orders direct the secretary of the Interior Department to halt new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters, and begin a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Psaki on the Keystone Pipeline:

"We're already getting that oil, Peter..."

I bet you get it cheaper through a pipeline.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The pipeline is just a delivery mechanism. It is not an oil field. So it does not provide more supply into the system."

She doesn't understand that delivery is a component of supply? Drilling is also "just a delivery mechanism".

Yeesh. Our schools need to teach better economics.

[Michael P]

That's okay, she and her boss also have no idea on where to start cutting red tape for getting oil to consumers. "What red tape needs to be cut, when they have the permits?"

[rsteinmetz]

Actually we're not getting that oil.

The pipeline was designed to connect Canada to the US pipeline system and allow the oil to flow south. At present it is flowing east and west in Canada or worse being transported by rail, both more expensive and more dangerous. With the Pipeline the Canadians would be able to further develop their resources.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem at this point is that at this point, even if you got approval to finish the pipeline, who would rationally trust that it wouldn't be shut down again in a few years, after the investments in Canada to exploit it had already been made?

Industrial society requires a high trust environment, to enable investments with longer term returns. Once that trust has been destroyed, restoring it isn't easy. Canceling Keystone, as Biden did, destroyed that trust, for all that it wasn't the only cause of that destruction. Numerous other investments in the energy industry have also fallen prey to last minute regulatory cancellations, after money had been spent. How many nuke plants, for instance, started construction, and had to be abandoned partway through for no good reason?

We're becoming the sort of low trust society that can't maintain a functioning industrial economy, and I suspect not by accident. It's the unspoken weapon of people who don't WANT America to have a functioning industrial economy.

[rsteinmetz]

Many of the people opposing this and other projects have no interest in an industrial society.

[Social Justice is neither]

Or humanity at all.

[Kazinski]

Even more hilarious, now they are reporting that gas prices aren't a record, adjusted for inflation.

So you got a year of record inflation thanks to the Biden Administration, so gas price inflation turns out not to be real, if you adjust it for inflation.

Genius.

[M L]

Don't know this is right, but interesting article. Written before the invasion. https://www.globalresearch.ca/crisis-ukraine-not-about-ukraine-about-germany/5770269

The Crisis in Ukraine Is Not About Ukraine. It’s About Germany

“The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars– the First, the Second and Cold Wars– has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” George Friedman, STRATFOR CEO at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs

The Ukrainian crisis has nothing to do with Ukraine. It’s about Germany and, in particular, a pipeline that connects Germany to Russia called Nord Stream 2. Washington sees the pipeline as a threat to its primacy in Europe and has tried to sabotage the project at every turn. Even so, Nord Stream has pushed ahead and is now fully-operational and ready-to-go. Once German regulators provide the final certification, the gas deliveries will begin. German homeowners and businesses will have a reliable source of clean and inexpensive energy while Russia will see a significant boost to their gas revenues. It’s a win-win situation for both parties.

The US Foreign Policy establishment is not happy about these developments. They don’t want Germany to become more dependent on Russian gas because commerce builds trust and trust leads to the expansion of trade. As relations grow warmer, more trade barriers are lifted, regulations are eased, travel and tourism increase, and a new security architecture evolves. In a world where Germany and Russia are friends and trading partners, there is no need for US military bases, no need for expensive US-made weapons and missile systems, and no need for NATO.

There’s also no need to transact energy deals in US Dollars or to stockpile US Treasuries to balance accounts. . .

[Ben_]

Sometimes things are about exactly what they seem to be about.

[bernard11]

See my reply below. Sorry I misplaced it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's starting to look like the US is stringing the Ukrainians along with respect to the MIGs.

[John F. Carr]

I remember a scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark: Asps. Very dangerous. You go first.

Poland won't send the fighters for fear of offending Putin. Biden won't send the fighters for fear of offending Putin. Nobody wants to be the first to cross an imaginary red line by allowing a military aircraft to cross the Ukrainian border. Even though Putin has already said the economic sanctions are an act of war, we cling to the notion that there is a carefully calibrated scale of escalation agreed upon by both sides. We can send these weapons but not those weapons.

[John F. Carr]

There is an alternative explanation, implied by one story yesterday: Ukraine can't effectively use more MiG-29s and nobody wants to call attention to that fact. It is possible, at least. Suppose Russian air defenses are too good over enemy territory and Ukrainian SAM operators too trigger-happy over friendly territory. My inclination is to call Biden a gutless coward but I acknowledge the possibility it is all staged. No shortage of propaganda and acting in this war.

[Commenter_XY]

John, I don't think it is a smart move for the United States to send weapons directly to Ukraine. This is bad policy.

[David Nieporent]

Well, we have been sending weapons directly to Ukraine, so that's water under the bridge.

I think the problem is how we get these particular weapons there.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes David, of course you are right. The US has sent weapons directly to Ukraine. Regardless, it is still bad policy, and one we can change. I think we should. It is a pet peeve of mine that we do not have much creativity and thinking in foreign policy, and have not had much of that for at least 30 years or so.

Getting weapons into Ukraine.....well David, all I will say is that the Poland border (roughly 250 miles) with Ukraine looks mighty porous to me. Lots of hills, forests, and concealment. The Russians seem to have some difficulty with night-time operations....

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I think the problem is how we get these particular weapons there."

It's hard to believe that that's a real problem.

I mean, the dude's bombing maternity hospitals and nuclear power facilities. Do you really think he's worried about some technicality over whether we fly planes to Ukraine or drag the planes over the border?

[gormadoc]

There is significant risk to NATO personnel flying Soviet planes in Ukrainian airspace. It doesn't really matter what Putin's feelings are, the thing that matters is the skill of a Russian pilot in a more modern fighter.

[TwelveInchPianist]

IIUC Ukraine has sent pilots to Poland to pick up the planes.

But folks were reporting that is would somehow be less escalatory to drag the planes over the border than to fly them into Ukraine than to fly them from Polish airspace. That doesn't make sense.

And the US and Poland haven't been giving a firm answer until just now. It seems like we're stringing them along somehow.

[Don Nico]

12", it does not matter what you or I think. What matters is what Putin perceives (or thinks that he perceives)

[David Nieporent]

If "we" (meaning the U.S., or NATO) fly planes to Ukraine, then we risk the Russians shooting down our own pilots, which would force us to respond, which is exactly the direct shooting war we've been trying to avoid.

And while I am admittedly not an expert, it seems to me that dragging them across the border might leave them a bit vulnerable. (Unless of course we provide air cover to protect them, in which case see above.)

[Bored Lawyer]

Something like that happened in WWII. FDR wanted to give Churchill some planes, but the Neutrality Act tied his hands. So they flew them to near the Canadian border, and then horses dragged them across.

https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/why-britain-pulled-aircraft-with-horses-and-trucks-ddd2dbd2aaa4

[TwelveInchPianist]

It may or may not be a smart move or good policy or militarily effective.

But whatever it is, we should just say it and move on.

It's hard to chalk up our inability to shit or get off the pot to mere incompetence.

[Bored Lawyer]

Never underestimate the power of incompetence.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You should read better sources if that's the theory you're being exposed to.

Nobody says "You can't have planes because the targets you'd attack with those planes might shoot you down and your own people are incompetent."

A little knowledge of SEAD, DEAD, and air warfare in general would serve you well.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" Even though Putin has already said the economic sanctions are an act of war, we cling to the notion that there is a carefully calibrated scale of escalation agreed upon by both sides. We can send these weapons but not those weapons."

This. There's no escalation ladder. If Putin thinks it's in his interest to attack NATO, he will. If it's not, he won't.

[Cheerio]

Well, there's something to the notion of not wanting to actually give him any plausible/colorable cause...so, determining what would classically be considered an *actual* act of war is important.

But we can't let ourselves get blackmailed to the point where he simply gets to decide what we can/cannot do by arbitrarily declaring that he would deem something as an act of war...

[Kazinski]

Politico is reporting Blinkin gave the OK, but Biden killed it:

"But skeptics inside the Biden administration pushed back on the idea of green-lighting the transfer of Poland’s MiG-29 fighters to Ukraine, and President Joe Biden sided with those skeptics, three U.S. officials said."

[bernard11]

In a world where Germany and Russia are friends and trading partners, there is no need for US military bases, no need for expensive US-made weapons and missile systems, and no need for NATO.

Because there is lots of trust and love between the two countries. They are, or have been, trading partners.

There’s also no need to transact energy deals in US Dollars or to stockpile US Treasuries to balance accounts.

Huh? Germany and Russia have always been free to transact energy deals in euros or whatever else. Are the doing them in dollars? They probably are, because oil tends to be priced in dollars on the world market and that may make it easier to use dollars. Among other things it's probably easier to hedge against price changes if the deal is in dollars.

The business about stockpiling US Treasuries "to balance accounts" doesn't seem to make any sense at all. What are they talking about?

[Sarcastr0]

I know folks deep into RT. The 'Russia is being belligerent to push back on the ever-imperialist US blocking Germany's deal on Russian oil' was floated a couple of weeks ago. Alongside 'NATO is an offensive alliance, and Russia is right to push back against it.'

I am...unimpressed.

Also, did you see the top 10 on Facebook are no longer nearly so purely right wing nonsense now that Russia is distracted. I can't prove causation, but that is a heckuva evocative correlation!
https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10?

[Life of Brian]

Also, did you see the top 10 on Facebook are no longer nearly so purely right wing nonsense now that Russia is distracted.

It's actually not clear there are any particularly strong trends. Looking through the past several weeks, the focus of the top 10 throughout that period seems to vary widely depending on what's going on in the media on a given day.

For example, here's the most recent list from your link:
1. CNBC
2. Ben Shapiro
3. Dan Bongino
4. The Other 98%
5. Ben Shapiro
6. Ben Shapiro
7. The Wall Street Journal
8. Washington Post
9. Occupy Democrats
10. New York Post

Seems pretty right-heavy to me.

Compare that to this left-heavy example from Feb. 14:
1. HuffPost
2. The New York Times
3. HipHopDX. com
4. Occupy Democrats
5. Occupy Democrats
6. KCCI
7. TMZ
8. USA TODAY
9. TMZ
10. Stereogum

And a mixed bag from Feb. 18:
1. Kid Rock
2. The Other 98%
3. Occupy Democrats
4. CNN
5. Dan Bongino
6. NPR
7. Occupy Democrats
8. Sean Hannity
9. NBC Washington
10. NPR

There are of course right-leaning days in that period as well, but I don't see a blatant shift in the overall distribution between then and more recently. I suspect you're focusing on the particular days that reinforce your priors and downplaying the others.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice cherries you picked. Now do the past 2 weeks.

I don't believe you read only today and then skipped down to Feb. You know the past 10 days look like, and you decided to cherry pick to make it look like I was wrong.

March 09

1. Forbes
2. allkpop
3. Franklin Graham
4. Variety
5. Occupy Democrats
6. Occupy Democrats
7. Thinkarete lifestyle
8. TMZ
9. Reuters
10. NPR

March 08
1. Dan Bongino
2. BTS (방탄소년단)
3. Ben Shapiro
4. Matt Fraser [some psychic guy]
5. Dan Bongino
6. Dan Bongino
7. TooFab
8. Sean Hannity
9. The Daily Caller
10. Charlie Kirk

March 07
1. ComicBook. com
2. Ben Shapiro
3. Dan Bongino
4. The Political Insider
5. The Dodo
6. Ben Shapiro
7. Oprah Winfrey
8. Peachy Sunday
9. 11Alive
10. Ben Shapiro

Mar 06
1. Breitbart
2. NPR
3. Occupy Democrats
4. HipHopDX. com
5. Business Insider
6. Ben Shapiro
7. Fox News
8. CNN
9. The Dodo
10. HuffPost

Mar 05
1. Ben Shapiro
2. Ben Shapiro
3. Franklin Graham
4. Delish
5. Daily Wire
6. Dan Bongino
7. Fox News
8. TMZ
9. ComicBook. com
10. Business Insider

Mar 04
1. Breitbart
2. NPR
3. Ben Shapiro
4. Reuters
5. Sean Hannity
6. TWICE
7. Fox News
8. Ellen DeGeneres
9. New York Post
10. Franklin Graham

[Life of Brian]

Nice mass cut and paste. Now explain what pattern you think you see, much less how that pattern differs in any material way from the examples from last month I provided. I'll wait.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It's actually not clear there are any particularly strong trends. "

He's not interested in discussing it. He has non-provable correlation to assert.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I know folks deep into RT."

Its always nice to have unverifiable personal knowledge to bolster an argument.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think I'm lying, Bob?

It's a pretty clear and ordinary comment about being unimpressed with the argument in the OP.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you think I'm lying"

How would I know? Its not verifiable.

You do have a pattern of claiming personal knowledge to prove or rebut a point. Talk to a lot of college students, know a lot of non-tenure professors, for instance.

[Sarcastr0]

What point am I rebutting in that comment? 'I am unimpressed' is not exactly a factual debunking.

I have a pattern on not weighing in on stuff I don't know as much about, like section 230 or guns. You seem to have mistaken that abstention for lying about my background.

[David Nieporent]

Lots of far leftists claimed that Bush's decision to attack Iraq was because Iraq was going to start doing oil transactions in Euros instead of dollars; this seems to me to be an extension of that nonsense. (Even staunch Bush- and Iraq war-critic Paul Krugman mocked that idea.) No, it doesn't make any sense, but it's not an argument being made by sensible people.

[John F. Carr]

If Putin stops the war soon, Russia's foreign exchange will be sufficient to pay reparations. The damage so far has been estimated around $100 billion.

[Ben_]

Only the conquered pay reparations. Russia won't be surrendering, regardless of what happens.

[John F. Carr]

We aren't talking about gold bars in Moscow. If the money is outside Russia, the West can wave a magic wand and take it.

[Ben_]

Unlikely though. It’s a lot more useful to freeze assets and hold them hostage with a promise to return them if behavior improves.

[Illocust]

Yeah, because that could never have any unintended consequences of people refusing to invest in countries that steal money.

[John F. Carr]

I think investors will understand the difference between Iran and Russia on one hand, and France and Germany on the other.

[Social Justice is neither]

And Russia could refuse to do business or honor contracts with the west until it's returned. Nice of you to sacrifice the EU for your virtue signal.

[F.D. Wolf]

Crippling reparations, by all means. The Treaty of Versailles taught us those won't have any consequences. That's definitely the way to go if you want another Hitler in a few decades, except this time he'll possess a nuclear arsenal.

[not guilty]

Guy Reffitt has been found guilty by the jury on all counts.

One down, hundreds to go.

[John F. Carr]

Were the facts seriously in dispute? The big question is how broad the laws are. There is some chance the Supreme Court tosses a lot of sedition and obstruction convictions because the laws don't reach the conduct charged.

[not guilty]

The scope of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) has been litigated on defense motions to dismiss before several U.S. District Courts in D.C. One outlier has ruled in favor of the Defendant and dismissed that count of the indictment. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.227582/gov.uscourts.dcd.227582.72.0_2.pdf All of the remaining judges who have ruled have opined that the conduct alleged in the January 6 indictments constitute an attempt to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding of Congress.

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will soon have two opportunities to opine on the question -- the DOJ appeal of the linked decision and Reffitt's appeal from his conviction. IMO, the decisions declining to dismiss indictments are more soundly reasoned. Judge Nichols strained to find the word "otherwise" to be ambiguous and ruled in the Defendant's favor.

[not guilty]

Judge Friedrich, who presided over the Reffitt trial, had previously declined to dismiss other Defendants' indictments. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.227256/gov.uscourts.dcd.227256.63.0.pdf

[not guilty]

Likewise, Judge Mehta. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.226726/gov.uscourts.dcd.226726.558.0.pdf

[Bob from Ohio]

2 ruled one way, one the other way.

Calling 1 of a sample of 3 an "outlier" is disingenuous.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's 7 to 1, I believe.

Judge Nichols is, so far at least, a strong outlier with respect to this issue.

[not guilty]

I have linked to three detailed opinions denying motions to dismiss 1512(c)(2) counts. Other judges have similarly denied defense motions to dismiss. Judge Nichols's decision is very much an outlier.

I am curious, Bob. Have you read the linked opinions? Nichols strained to find ambiguity in the statute where other judges did not.

[Bob from Ohio]

There are too few to decide that one is an outier. Maybe its right and the others wrong? Your reading of the opinions are hardly objective, your lust for vengeance is well known.

Let's let the DC circuit decide. Or the Supreme court.

Trial courts routinely issued opinions in federal bribery convictions that were later overruled in the Bob McDonnell case.

[not guilty]

Your dodging the question of whether you have read the opinions is duly noted.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh noes, not "duly noted".

I'm not retired like you.

[not guilty]

There is no substitute for original source materials. How can you opine on which court's reasoning is preferable when you haven't read the opinions?

This is a law blog, and IOKIYAR is not a maxim of statutory construction.

[not guilty]

Here is a list of eleven District Court judges who have upheld application of the obstruction statute to January 6 Defendants. https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/03/08/judge-carl-nichols-upends-dojs-january-6-prosecution-strategy/

Judge Nichols is very much the outlier.

[not guilty]

Likewise, Judge Kelly. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21170582-211228-kelly-deny-motion-to-dismiss

[Bob from Ohio]

12 democrats found him guilty. Wow, nobody saw that coming.

[not guilty]

How do you claim to know the party affiliations of the jurors? Did you get it from Otto Yourazz?

[bernard11]

This is a retreat to the grounds Bob and others have been preparing for some time. It's a DC jury, hence certain to convict honest, peaceful, conservative tourists, who were merely looking at the paintings.

They simply can't accept that the insurrectionists did anything wrong.

[Bob from Ohio]

They weren't "insurrectionists".

[David Nieporent]

They were insurrecting. That makes them insurrectionists.

[Bob from Ohio]

"How do you claim to know the party affiliations of the jurors?"

Well, I don't know but its a guess based on the fact that Trump got 5.40% in 2002 and 4.09% in 2016 and DC has voted for a Democrat by 90%+/- for 50+ years.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You really gotta hand it to Putin, though.

Not many leaders would think of adopting "Z" as their military symbol, and then claim that they're fighting nazis.

[Commenter_XY]

TIP...I would like to understand better the cultural and social significance of the letter Z and D for the Russians. It is clearly something meaningful to them since it gets prominent mention in social media posts from the Russian Defense ministry. Russian athletes now sport the 'Z'.

Why?

[Michael Masinter]

They're fans of Costa-Gavras films? Seems unlikely.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I don't know. NPR has some theories.

[Commenter_XY]

It could be very important = cultural, social significance.

[dwb68]

I'd like to see statistics on Russian VPN use. Has Russian censorship and strangulation of "independent" media created a Streisand effect for western news on Ukraine?

[gormadoc]

Having talked with Russians (and Chinese) about it here's what I can tell you: the only people who really use VPNs to view western news are people who are already interested in western news. Everybody else just uses it as a way to consume western or otherwise banned entertainment. It skews heavily towards younger people (the US idea of boomers and technology is applied to people in their 50s in Russia) and most people have been disinterested in the news for years now. Maybe it will change, but Russia still offers plenty of news orgs and the whole point of media control is that you don't see that it's controlled, so most people don't notice it.

[not guilty]

The State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline is seeking professional discipline of Sidney Powell for, among other things, filing frivolous lawsuits alleging that election fraud had occurred in the presidential election of 2020. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/texas-bar-v-powell-complaint-dallas-county.pdf

The petition looks to be bare bones, but it gets the job done.

[M L]

Jen Psaki posting on twitter warning of a false flag operation probably means the US is planning a false flag operation?

[dwb68]

Make up your mind. Either the Biden administration is so incompetent that they can't fasten the velcro on their shoes, or they are playing 7 dimensional chess on Twitter.

[M L]

Neither really, but more on the incompetent side. 99% of the federal government doesn't change when a new president is elected, so this really isn't about Biden. I just think it's a bit odd and unsettling that a bizarre tweetstorm by an unhinged redhead liar is at the center of world events between nuclear powers right now.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, America-hating wingnuts are among my favorite culture war casualties.

Try to enjoy the rest of the culture war, M L. I know I will enjoy watching the liberal-libertarian mainstream continue to shape our national progress against the wishes of conservative, Republican, faux libertarian bigots.

[Brett Bellmore]

This would have to do with the rumor of a Ukrainian bioweapons lab financed by the US government?

I would find enormously less plausible if it hadn't turned out we WERE financing gain of function research at Wuhan, after spending a couple years lying about it.

And if the denials weren't so oddly specific.

And if an administration official hadn't publicly confirmed they were concerned about "research materials" from Ukrainian biology lab falling into Russian hands. What sort of non-bioweapon "research materials" would prompt such concerns?

[dwb68]

So what if we were? The rumor of a Ukrainian bioweapons lab is nothing more than Putin apologist propaganda designed to justify and prepare his use of chemical and biological weapons. Like a toddler "he did it first."

[M L]

Obviously there is a Putin propaganda angle here and nobody should be buying that. But there's more to it.

"On Tuesday, the US government’s Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland testified before a Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearing on Ukraine in Washington, DC, and said that the United States was working with Ukraine to prevent invading Russian forces from seizing biological research material. The State Department also stated that it was concerned that Russian forces are trying to gain control of biological research facilities within Ukraine. The committee was set to examine Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the worldwide response.

At the hearing, State Department official Victoria Nuland was asked whether Ukraine has bioweapons. “Ukraine has biological research facilities, which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to gain control of”, she stated to the US lawmakers on March 8. “We are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach”, she added."

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus, Brett, you don't need to fall for everything.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The evidence indicates he does.

Look at the bright side: Would you rather have Brett Bellmore on your side in a debate?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastro, you not only fall for official denials, you never seem to get up again.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I do believe we landed on the moon.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Russia is, has long been, and seems destined to continue to be a shit-rate country.

Russia evokes a boorish, drunken, indolent uncle who inherited some money (making him vaguely respectable, especially to dullards) and is, after all, still family, so he continues to be invited to family dinners despite a record of being a disruptive, needy, jerk who constantly whines about not receiving enough respect.

Alex Ovechkin's Instagram page still features Putin with Ovechkin. Ovechkin should be scorned and mocked by every decent person. The Capitals whimpered about how their Russian players are in a "difficult position" and can't be expected to do the right thing. Un-American, lying cowards.

[Bored Lawyer]

How many of your family are in Russia?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

None of which I am aware.

[Bored Lawyer]

Does your enlightened brain think that having relatives back in Russia might afffect a person's willngness to condmem the president of Russia? Or is concern for family an outdated clinger notion that the arc of history will sweep away?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I should have expected you to cuddle Ovechkin. Character-deprived, obsolete, right-wing losers need to stick together — huddling for warmth —in the modern world.

Does your Instagram page lead with Putin, too?

[Bored Lawyer]

So the answer is, yes. In your world, it is more important to virtue signal than to avoid endangering your family. Got it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Russia is, has long been, and seems destined to continue to be a shit-rate country."

Shit-rate country... shit-hole country... It never occurred to me before, but Kirkland is basically a left-wing Trump.

Well, a less successful left-wing Trump.

[santamonica811]

But all available evidences indicates he has raped far fewer women than Trump, so he's ahead on the "no sexual assaults" chart.

[Social Justice is neither]

So we're back to the Leftist standard of unverified allegations of anything vaguely sexual = rape, but only for some. Nevermind the dozens of rapes, by this standard, by Clinton or a host of other Democratic luminaries.

[santamonica811]

Oh, you'll get no defense of Bill Clinton from me. But, of course, it's possible (in the existential sense) that the DOZENS of women, over the course of DECADES, alleging various kinds of sexual misconduct by Trump are all lying. All of them, including far right Republicans, moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats, far left Democrats, and entirely apolitical accusers.

But that's not where I'd put my money. Just like, after the 3rd or 4th or 5th woman made accusations against Bill Clinton, he lost any rational "They're all a bunch of loons and/or liars." argument.

[Cheerio]

Despite much left-wing hand-wringing, it seems like SCOTUS has been fairly restrained in its conservative trend. Some data points:

- During Barrett's confirmation, Democrats assured us that she would be a vote against the ACA and that she would side with Trump in any election dispute. Of course, neither of those got support from her or the court overall.

- SCOTUS upheld nearly every lockdown, including for churches, so long as churches aren't being actively discriminated against by being shut down when other places could be open. (The ruling even allowed for different capacity limits, if warranted; it merely said the number in a church can't be capped at ZERO when various other places are non-zero...)

- The court also upheld nearly every vaccine mandate, including essentially all non-federal ones and even some federal ones. They even said the OSHA one would've been OK if it had been at least somewhat tailored to the actual risks involved with particular jobs.

- The court refused to help to GOP in their current redistricting battles, citing timing concerns...and showing consistency in their reasoning for why they also recently declined to intervene in a case brought by Democrats. (The net effect of these rulings actually cuts against the GOP.)

- The Fulton case was unanimous, and on very narrow grounds, saying merely that the Catholic Church and Catholic organizations can't be actively discriminated against for their views...so long as they're not imposing those views on anyone else, and nobody was being deprived of equal opportunities.

- The "website designer" case was granted cert solely on speech grounds, not religious grounds. Hence, any rule out of that will apply equally in all directions.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Don't forget allowing SB 8 to persist for months, despite being prima facie unconstitutional.

[OtisAH]

While I don’t think this court was guaranteed to uphold the legality of public health laws, they were expected to. Also, public health laws actually benefit everyone, even assholes.

And the court’s actions/non-actions on redistricting favor the gop by a wide margin. Even where it favors Dems, the relevant laws still disenfranchise voters.

[Nisiiko]

Here are my open thoughts. The left is an evil collection of people who are completely full of crap. Their latest "outrage" is the Florida "Don't Say Gay" bill, which really just prohibits discussing sexual issues in the classroom.

But they don't actually oppose a ban on discussion. They only want teachers to be able to talk about how great transgenderism is. If a teacher wanted to talk about how he thought it was a mental illness, they'd be throwing a tantrum about that.

So their issue is not with not being able to talk about it. It's with not being able to be in support.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"which really just prohibits discussing sexual issues in the classroom."

It requires age-appropriate instruction.

They're really just trying to prevent kindergarten teachers from telling little girls that they're boys, and vice versa. Which is completely reasonable, kindergarten teachers aren't qualified to diagnose gender dysphoria.

[Nisiiko]

Exactly.

[Ed Grinberg]

Same with their outrage over anti-CRT bills. They don't actually oppose a ban on discussing race. They only want teachers to be able to talk about "systemic racism," how if you're black you're by definition "oppressed," and if you're white you're by definition "privileged." If a teacher wanted to talk about how he thought the whole "systemic racism" narrative was bogus, they'd be throwing a tantrum about that.

[Nisiiko]

Yes.

[Cal Cetín]

OK, what was the constitutional status of slavery before the Civil War? Did Taney have the right idea, or not?

[Bored Lawyer]

Allowed; No.

[not guilty]

Judge David Carter in California is going to review John Eastman's e-mails of January 4-7, 2021 in camera to determine whether Eastman's assertion of attorney-client and work product privileges have any validity or if they should be disclosed to the House January 6 investigating committee. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-70bb-dea5-afff-f3fba1960000

[not guilty]

Professor Eastman's reply brief in support of his assertion is surprisingly weak tea. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-66e5-d8c0-a97f-eeed27170000 His discussion of the investigating committee's claim that the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies is especially threadbare and conclusory.

[Bored Lawyer]

When I litigated the crime-fraud exception, I was shocked to learn that most courts only require a showing of "probable cause" that it applies. Given that the privilege is considered sacrosanct by so many attorneys, it is surprising that it is so easy to pierce.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who thinks the big ruckus over Ukraine is the fact that’s where so many US politicians and Federal Class lifers go to get rich off of US taxpayer dollars?

I hope Putin takes Ukraine and the Federal Class and their kids lose their gravy train.

[David Nieporent]

Who thinks the big ruckus over Ukraine is the fact that’s where so many US politicians and Federal Class lifers go to get rich off of US taxpayer dollars?

No sane person.

[santamonica811]

Yup. The answer to BCD's question is: "Almost universally, only batshit-crazy people."

So, presumably, a tiny subset of the American people . . . that includes BCD.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

BCD is precisely the type of person this white, male, right-wing blog targets as its audience.

This is why clingers have been, are, and are destined to be culture war casualties as America improves against nearly every one of their bigoted, backward, delusional preferences.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Drag Queen Who Says Biden Is a ‘Senile’ ‘White Supremacist’ Scheduled To Perform at Dem Retreat"

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/drag-queen-who-says-biden-is-a-senile-white-supremacist-scheduled-to-perform-at-dem-retreat/

Now I am certain that the Dems are going to get shellacked this Election Day. When you've lost the drag queen vote, then it's Titanic time.

[santamonica811]

Heh.

(One genuine positive about Biden being elected--be you liberal or conservative--is that we again have a president who is not a gutless, whiny, fragile, sack-of-shit, momma's boy, who is not afraid to show up at the Correspondents dinner and be roasted and lampooned. A cowardly pussy president was not a good look for the America during the Trump years, and it's good to have a real man back in the Oval Office. (This opinion is coming from a guy who think Biden has done, so far, about a C-minus job as president.)

[bevis the lumberjack]

A tiny microscopic bit of marginal competency at some point in his presidency would be a real blessing. I keep waiting but so far no such luck.

Somehow we may have ended up with the worst two presidents in our history in the last two elections. Is that an outgrowth of the hyper partisanship?

[santamonica811]

I'd disagree with your "worst in our history" assessment. But, 'bottom third?' Yup. And, IMO, definitely due to hyper-partisanship. I'm a Republican, and we're just not gonna get a moderate or common-sense presidential candidate until Trump loses his stranglehood over the party's manhood. Probably still 3+ years away. (And add 4 more years to that, if Trump runs and wins in 2024.)

[Bored Lawyer]

I don't think the last one was so bad. Other than the fact that he is a human-waste exit-portal. If he would just leave the White House alone and play golf, he would be a great president.

[David Nieporent]

A tiny microscopic bit of marginal competency at some point in his presidency would be a real blessing. I keep waiting but so far no such luck.

Perhaps you've missed the masterful way he has handled the Ukraine situation so far.

[Bored Lawyer]

Is that serious or sarcasm? Because the term "dumpster fire" seems to fit his handling of the Ukraine crisis.

[David Nieporent]

It's serious, and while blackmailing Ukraine into making stuff up about a political opponent by withholding diplomatic support and crucial security aid would seem to fit the description "dumpster fire," successfully organizing a worldwide opposition to that crisis, getting reluctant allies on board with far sterner measures than they were ever willing to do before, while doing everything we can short of provoking nuclear war to aid them militarily, seems like the opposite.

[bernard11]

Would some conservative explain WTF is wrong with Madison Cawthorn?

Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) recently called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “thug” and said the Ukrainian government is “incredibly evil,” in remarks that are at odds with the broad bipartisan support for Ukraine among American lawmakers and the public amid Russia’s invasion.

“Remember that Zelensky is a thug. Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt, and it is incredibly evil, and it has been pushing woke ideologies,” Cawthorn told supporters at a recent event in North Carolina, according to video published Thursday by Raleigh-based TV station WRAL.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Maybe it has something to do with his neo-nazi division or the coup that put him into power....not sure....

[David Nieporent]

If I wanted to hear Russian propaganda, I'd listen to Putin directly.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I take it you support Hitler and Nazis then....

[David Nieporent]

Yes, like Zelensky I am a Jewish Nazi. Also, please explain what coup you think occurred in 2019 when Zelensky was elected president?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Hitler was Jewish and a Nazi.

[Bored Lawyer]

One can believe all that and still support Ukraine. IMO, the respective governments of Ukraine and Russia are bad and worse. Cawthorn is not that far off.

It is just that Ukraine is much weaker than Russia and has few designs outside its borders, whereas Russia dreams of reviving the Soviet world empire. And is trying to cause a lot of mischief in a lot of places.

[Josh R]

"The Ukrainian government is [...] incredibly evil, and has been pushing woke ideologies" is the way far off rantings of an America First supporter.

[Bored Lawyer]

Maybe he is a nutcase, but even nutcases get something right sometimes. Ukraine is not a government to admire or emulate. Quite the contrary. Nor is Russia, which is probably worse.

But as I said, Russia is more dangerous.

[Michael P]

Who was Zelensky's primary backer and benefactor in his election campaign? (Ihor Kolomoisky.) What is that benefactor most noted for? (Being rich; official corruption, which earned him an entry ban from the US; and possibly ordering contract killings.) What does that sound like? (Thuggish behavior.) Is it at least arguably fair to judge politicians by their close associates? (According to the left, yes.) Is Ukraine's government incredibly corrupt? (Almost as bad as Russia, yes.)

Ukraine and Zelensky are much preferable to Putin's Russia. But that does not mean rainbows and rose water emanate from Zelensky's nether regions.

What was the context of Cawthorn's comment? Or is context too hard for the WaPoo?

[bernard11]

And if you don't believe Michael P, just check Hunter Biden's laptop.

[Cal Cetín]

"Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.)"

Fact check! He's not a Representative, he's a private citizen pretending to be a representative; he is disqualified from public office under Sec. 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, just like Jefferson Davis (during Davis' lifetime).

The Washington Post's conservative bias shows through once again. It's insurrection all the way down.*

*Oh, and /sarc

[Cal Cetín]

/sarc off

"at odds with the broad bipartisan"

"bipartisan" sets off alarm bells. Can you think of a *good* bipartisan initiative (which doesn't involve renaming a post office or some such minor point)?

[Kazinski]

Yeah, while I think Cawthorn has the right to run for re-election I hope he gets primaried and loses. To go with the biographical lies he told in his first campaign, his wild support for conspiracy theories, I'd definitely vote against him in the primaries, were I a voteer in his district. But I wouldn't be able to go so far as to risk the Democrats retaining their majority, it's too important to throw Pelosi out of the speakers chair and shut down any additional spending.

[Leo Marvin]

Serious I-don't-know-the-answer-but-I-assume-there-must-be-one question: If the impediment to giving Poland's MIGs to Ukraine is escalatory US involvement, why not have Ukrainian pilots fly the planes directly from Poland to Ukraine? No American middle-man. No needless flights to and from Germany. Problem solved, right?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Need to put CIA tech on those planes. That is the sole reason for passing through America.

[Leo Marvin]

If this is a serious comment, I don't understand it. What is "CIA tech," and why do we care that it be on the MIGs now, when Poland has had them all this time without it? And if putting CIA tech on the MIGs can't be done without risking NATO conflagration with Russia, why wouldn't getting Ukraine the MIGs without the CIA tech be the next best option?

[Michael P]

That very famous French actor has been sentenced to jail, and will be forced to share a jail cell with the mastermind behind the attack on him. What a sad situation.

[Bored Lawyer]

I wonder if Subway delivers to that prison.

[Cal Cetín]

Yeah, but the prison, in light of the current crisis, won't be serving meals a la russe.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh cool, there’s a bill in Missouri to criminalize treating ectopic pregnancies. And by cool I mean depraved and shockingly evil.

https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills221/hlrbillspdf/5798H.01I.pdf

[Jimmy the Dane]

The left has already criminalized free speech and self defense and there is little to no outrage there.....

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well that’s false because assuming your characterization is correct, you’re outraged all the time.

But more importantly, do you know what an ectopic pregnancy is? Do you understand that the embryo is not viable? Do you understand that if it is not treated the woman will die? Do you grasp the fact that making it illegal to do a life-saving procedure is much more depraved than whatever you’re imagining liberals are doing to “free speech.”

[Michael P]

No, he's pointing out that your are trying to find up outrage about a bill that has approximately zero chance of passing, followed by zero chance of being upheld, yet you are perfectly fine with lots of rights that are being infringed by laws that are in force and actively enforced.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Yet you are perfectly fine with lots of rights that are being infringed by laws that are in force and actively enforced.”

You’re accusing me of hating pancakes for saying I like waffles. Pointing out one thing is wrong and evil doesn’t mean I support every other evil in the world because I didn’t list those too.

Also, why are you so confident this has no chance of passing? Or attracting significant support?

[Jimmy the Dane]

I was pointing out that your assertion here that we ought to care because of the personal implications and civil rights is not genuine and also don't be surprised if no one else really cares because you come across as someone who isn't serious.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“I was pointing out that your assertion here that we ought to care because of the personal implications and civil rights is not genuine.”

Well that’s false. I actually do care about such things. So you should apologize.

“also don't be surprised if no one else really cares because you come across as someone who isn't serious.”

Whether or not I am considered serious has nothing to do with whether you should care about this. It’s independent. You should care based on the content, not because I’m posting it. Again: do you or do you not understand the grave implications of this bill? If you don’t, I don’t think I’m the one not being serious.

And even if I’m not “serious” it doesn’t require a high level of seriousness to understand very basic human anatomy and medical science and thus the incredibly dire consequences of this bill if enacted.

Also FWIW, someone with as many paranoid fantasies as you accusing me of being unserious is pretty funny. You literally believe there is a Clinton body count and see conspiracies/patterns where there aren’t any. But sure, I’m the unserious one.

[Jimmy the Dane]

There are no "grave" concerns about this bill. They are all in your head.

If you don't believe the Clinton Crime Syndicate killed probably a few hundred people then you are equally delusional.

Yelling at clouds about how not crazy you are really isn't a productive way of proving that point.

[Leo Marvin]

If we average the number of people Jimmy thinks the Clintons murdered (a few dozen?) with the number you think they did (I'll guess zero), it's an appalling body count for you to be so untroubled by. What kind of monster are you?

[Leo Marvin]

Holy crap LOL. I ascribe a laughably high Clinton body count to Jimmy -- to be clear, anything higher than zero is laughable, but you know what I mean -- expecting him to complain that I was trying to make him look silly, which I was. Anyway, he cross posts with his actual number, and it dwarfs my satirical one.

Poe's Law'd again!

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm going out on a limb here, and going to suggest that you're outraged over a " scrivener's error", and that the bill will shortly be amended to replace "was" with "was not" in that particular clause.

Let's just see if that happens.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Brett read the bill. It’s not scriveners error. It’s literally it’s own subsection making it a class A felony.

[Kazinski]

Perhaps, but we all know it doesn't have a chance of passing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Why not?

[John F. Carr]

Facebook has officially changed its moderation policy to: extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. More specifically, death threats and the like against Russians are allowed, while pro-Russian channels are being culled.

I'd like to think this will make Americans worry about allowing tech companies representing a very narrow world view to own online discourse, but it's probably seen as a good thing among the people who would otherwise want to regulate big tech.

[Stephen Lathrop]

John F. Carr, I am guessing you are not one of the people who wants to regulate big tech, but maybe have not yet noticed regulating big tech is an unavoidable consequence of keeping Section 230 around. If you understand that, you ought to support repeal of Section 230. Do you?

By the way, by repeal of Section 230, I mean unconditional repeal of the entire section, not selective tinkering. Selective tinkering is what culminates in attempted regulation of big tech.

[John F. Carr]

I want more regulation of big tech. Repealing Section 230 is not the solution to the problem I see. Facebook and friends could still allow people to post "Remember the Maine!" while suppressing that conspiracy theory that the Maine just blew up on her own.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Thanks for the heads up.
You should've streamed Rollerball (1975)
instead 🙂