The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Thursday Open Thread
What's on your mind?
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How many unpopular beliefs do you have roughly if any? And how unpopular are they? How much trouble, if any, would you be in if a mindreading machine was invented and these were revealed?
*by trouble it does not necessarily have to mean just official legal trouble, (since thoughts supposedly are not illegal) but in general, family, professional etc.
I’ve been all over the world, so I’ve heard hundreds of different accents. But, the 3 accents that I automatically associate with stupidity are all American: The southern drawl, the inner-city urban, and the South Dakota accent. (I made appearances in front of a judge from SD well over 1,000 times. He was the smartest and most capable judge I’ve practiced before. But I could NOT get over his accent . . . my prejudiced inner voice would always scream, “This guy’s a simpleton.” even while I was marveling at how well he was synthesizing complex legal theories.
Never got over it. Or past it. Or whatever preposition applies.
Did you attend an Ivy school?
The rules of courts should allow dismissals of claims not containing specified physical or financial damages.
The taxpayer should get standing un waste of taxes claims.
I would like to see some law students comment on this lawyer crap. The people here are old, white males, and really boring people.
Here’s my favorite smart guy who talks with a dumb-sounding accent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABx55cEop-o
I have a hard time taking dire climate predictions seriously when there is so much history pointing to similar events in published papers over the last hundred if not more years.
Just in my own life time the number of times someone or groups supposedly beyond reproach declared the arctic would be ice free… but if you look back to the early 1900s you see the same.
Hell, if we had another heat wave like 1911s did people would think the world was ending. Let alone if the US had another dust bowl era which I have relatives see first hand and hence why they lived where they did when I was born
Looking back at climate history, to the degree we can, is really helpful in trying to understand where we are now. everybody needs to remember that science as we know it is only a couple of hundred years old. And nearly all of our current understanding & tools are less than 50. But there is quite a bit of consensus that we are experiencing a large & rapid change in the climate. Your reference of the last hundred years is about two minutes on the scale of even human history. The stuff that pisses me off is all of the advocacy around “stopping climate change”, “the window is closing to fix climate change”. “Humans are causing climate change, & we can make them stop with legislation & political commitments”. Baloney. The deep ocean currents which are the slowest, longest climate drivers are way up historically. And it looks to me like we are in for pretty major changes over the next hundred to two hundred years. The global food supply will be severely affected. The overpopulation & continuing technological advances have made humans a dominant ecological factor on the planet. And not in a good way. Even for ourselves. We are going to need to adjust how we understand & deal with each other. There is a very long debate about competition vs. cooperation in typical human binary thinking. The most successful competitors & powerful groups running things is our deep animal understanding. That paradigm is failing. Population & power pressure are pulling apart the institutions we have built out of words & agreements. A spiritual change of a global scale is about all I can see getting us through. Odds are against us though. Us being monkeys most of the time.
A spiritual change. What would that be?
…and how many predictions of the climate doomsayers have come true. These guys are like Wimpy, throwing out a “prediction” which they will gladly prove tomorrow.
For those who get their science from movies: Soylent Green is set in this year and the population of NY city is 40 million people.
“The global food supply will be severely affected.”
On the assumption that farmers will stupidly keep planting the same crops, on the same dates, regardless of any changes in climate. Sure they will.
This has been the same story for 50 years al a Paul Erlich and “The Population Bomb”.
Well they are doing quite well so far, and studies have shown rising CO2 not only increases yields because of CO2 fertilization, but it increases drought resistance because.
Crop yields are higher than they have ever been, and yet people try to sell doom and gloom not based on actual production trends but on models.
And the models they push the hardest are based on the ridiculous 8.5RCP scenario that even NASA and the IPCC admit run way too hot.
“The deep ocean currents which are the slowest, longest climate drivers are way up historically.”
Ridiculous. They don’t have a historical record of deep ocean currents, and they are just now being able to come up with an idea of what the mid depth ocean currents are now.
The Argo Float system has only been in place since 2000, and while it seems impressive at over 3000 floats, they only measure down to 2000 meters. Average sea depth is 3500 meters, maximum sea depth is 11000 meters.
What you are probably talking about is someone came up with a model of what they think it used to be, and compared it to what they think it might be now.
I have so many outlier beliefs that, statistically speaking, I probably shouldn’t exist. 😉 And, no, I’m not going to list them.
I think, despite it all, everything will be alright.
my unpopular belief is that the Dobbs leaker was right to leak Alito’s draft opinion: https://priorprobability.com/2022/07/07/the-optimal-amount-of-scotus-leaks-is-not-zero-reply-to-mark-movsesian/
It’s hard to guess how popular any beliefs are.
I think a lot of the beliefs that get you cancelled are actually vast majority beliefs. It looks closer to 50/50 because people don’t want to be bullied or ostracized or otherwise retaliated against.
I don’t have any unpopular beliefs.
The Fulton County special grand jury investigating potential criminal interference in Georgia’s 2020 elections has subpoenaed Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Cleta Mitchell, Kenneth Chesebro, Jenna Ellis, Lindsay Graham and attorney and podcast host Jacki Pick Deason. https://www.ajc.com/politics/fulton-grand-jury-subpoenas-giuliani-graham-trump-confidantes/POUNSTTUXZDGDB3D5LKA7TIQQM/
It is encouraging to see that the prosecutor in Atlanta is acting with an urgency seemingly lacking in the Department of Justice investigation.
Senator Graham is reportedly resisting compliance with the Georgia subpoena. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-graham-to-fight-georgia-election-subpoena-lawyers-say/2022/07/06/bfd89d6e-fd42-11ec-b39d-71309168014b_story.html I don’t understand what basis he may have for such resistance.
The Supreme Court has opined as to the function of a grand jury:
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972).
Lawfare is fraud and misuse of public funds. That diverse needs to be arrested in 2025 when payback begins.
Senator Graham made the mistake of staying too long with the former President. He knew after January 6th, but that was too late. I have noted before that the Donald Trump’s secret power is to corrupt people. Linsey Graham like many others is finding that out too late. Is no reason that he could be excused from grand jury testimony. The question now is does he talk or plead the fifth. That is likely a talk he will have to have with his lawyers.
That’s what happens when you believe you only have worth when your nose is firmly implanted in an alpha’s ass…so sadz. 🙁
All pf youse are verklempt. Wait until 2025. You will see verklempt.
This suggests that Linsey Graham wasn’t corrupt prior to Trump and that it took an expert in corruption to lead the poor victim away from righteousness.
I think you give Senator Graham and Trump far, far too much credit here. You catch a weasel with smelly bait. Trump brought the bait and Linsey came to dinner.
All of these con men in the GOP long predate Trump. Bannon was the guy from Citizens United and Stone worked with Nixon!?! The Democrats Trump brought in like Mnuchin and Kushner were probably his best advisers.
I suspect a Senator could nearly always assert legislative immunity. He may not get it in a given case. But virtually any meeting or conversation with other government officials could arguably be being done in a legislative capacity. So it strikes me as virtually always a non-frivolous argument.
There is no general legislative immunity from being compelled to give testimony. Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution provides that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” This clause “does not purport to confer a general exemption upon Members of Congress from liability or process in criminal cases.” Grav
General liability, but this isn’t general liability. Graham made a call, presumably from his legislative office about a matter of public concern. He was chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee at the time, which certainly had at least some interest in the proper conduct of the election, including the issue of judges making rulings overriding election laws (the Supreme Court just granted cert on such a case).
The constitution specifically says he can’t be questioned “in any other place”. So I think the prosecutor is going to have more than just a de minimis showing about why he needs Grahams testimony. And I don’t think this one of those cases where the judge will just say ‘I will allow it for now’, because forcing his appearance is the constitutional injury, not whatever his testimony is.
Does a phone call, even a legislative one, count as Speech or Debate? I always thought it was confined to floor speeches, but I don’t have a strong rationale for that.
There is no general legislative immunity from being compelled to give testimony. Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution provides that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” This clause “does not purport to confer a general exemption upon Members of Congress from liability or process in criminal cases.” Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 626 (1972). In Gravel, SCOTUS required a senatorial aide to appear and testify before a grand jury, because the Senator himself would have been required to do so.
Right, it has to be speech in legislative chambers, or their offices, typically. They go off somewhere else and open their yaps, you can question them all day about it.
“I don’t understand what basis he may have for such resistance.”
Its right in the article:
“As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,”
You disagree its applicable but he’s clearly asserting the Speech and Debate clause.
That is a frivolous assertion. The Superior Court’s Certificate of Material Witness regarding Senator Graham references telephone conversations made by the Senator to the Georgia Secretary of State about reexamining certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia in order to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Trump. The Certificate recites the Court’s finding that the Witness, based on the substance and timing of the telephone call he personally made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, is a necessary and material witness in this investigation, in that the Witness possesses unique knowledge concerning the substance of the telephone calls, the circumstances surrounding his decision to make the telephone calls, the logistics of setting up the telephone calls, and any communications between himself, others involved in the planning and execution of the telephone calls, the Trump Campaign, and other known and unknown individuals involved in the multi-state, coordinated efforts to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere. Finally, the Witness’s anticipated testimony is essential in that it is likely to reveal additional sources of information regarding the subject of this investigation.
There is not a good faith basis to argue the applicability of the Speech and Debate Clause, in that the subject matter of the anticipated testimony is plainly unrelated to legislative proceedings.
Original source materials. There is no substitute for reading them before commenting. That is precisely why I link to them when I can.
Oh no, a DA’S unilateral statement. Very convincing.
He was making a call as a senator. Maybe from his office. A color-able assertion of the privilege, which is not actually limited to on floor statements.
You don’t know what a court is going to do with the claim.
Do you have any authority that a U. S. Senator, merely by virtue of his office, is exempt from appearing and testifying when summoned before a grand jury? “That Senators generally perform certain acts in their official capacity as Senators does not necessarily make all such acts legislative in nature.” Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972). The Speech or Debate clause “does not purport to confer a general exemption upon Members of Congress from liability or process in criminal cases. Quite the contrary is true.” Id., at 626.
What countervailing authority, if any, do you claim to have? The Senator may be able to seek a protective order as to the scope of the examination, but what authority would excuse a blanket failure to appear? (Assuming a South Carolina court honors the Georgia court’s process.)
Out of context quotes from Gravel don’t impress anyone.
Motion will be filed and decided, maybe appealed. You, fortunately for justice, will not be the judge.
So you don’t have countervailing authority. Thank you for the admission.
Which of his duties as a senator from South Carolina involved interfering in Georgia presidential elections?
The Supreme Court just granted cert in Moore v Harper, which deals with issues that were brought up in the Georgia elections.
Specifically whether state courts can not only overrule state laws passed by the legislature, but go further and craft their own remedy.
What does that have to do with whether the sitting president can ask the state governor and secretary of state to find enough votes to change the outcome of the election in his favor?
The difference between the DOJ case and the GA case is that the GA case is more straight forward. The GA prosecutor has the former President on tape asking officials to find votes. I am happy to give the DOJ time to put together a good case.
I suspect that there is also investigation of whether Georgia statutes were violated in regard to the Trump minions’ bogus elector scheme. https://georgiarecorder.com/2022/06/29/updated-trumps-fake-electors-heres-the-full-list/
“The GA prosecutor has the former President on tape asking officials to find votes.”
No, he doesn’t. You’re confusing what’s actually on the tape, and the way it is routinely reported. He never asks officials to find votes.
Now, prove me wrong, without resorting to “Oh, but he really meant something other than what he actually said!”.
“All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one
more that we have because we won the state.”
That is in the transcript. Call them up and read for yourself.
Don’t destroy Brett’s illusions.
Well, there you go, you proved me right, and didn’t even notice.
“The GA prosecutor has the former President on tape asking officials to find votes.”
” I just want to find 11,780 votes,”
Do you genuinely not understand the difference between asking for access to records so that you can find something you think is there, and demanding that somebody else find it whether or not it’s there? Do you even understand the difference between “I” and “you”?
Pick that nit, Brett. Pick it until he’s gone.
The Georgia officials said they felt pressured by this phone call to dig up the votes. Because they were. Trump didn’t calm to ask for the records. He called to pressure them to figure out a way to report more votes.
He called for them to find the number of legal votes.
Weird he didn’t say that, and instead gave the exact number of votes he needed to conjure up to win the state.
Except that he said nothing of conjuring them up.
He just gave the exact number he needed. That’s not what you say if you are just wanting an investigation.
‘Hey, please check if there is any money unaccounted for. I need $15,125.’
Not fooling anyone. Except maybe Brett.
Like I said: You interpret every last thing he says from a presumption of guilt. And then annoyingly demand that everybody else pretend that guilt is the only reasonable interpretation.
Your change of scope to attacking me is a tell.
I don’t often appeal to incredulity, but freaking look at what he said. It is not credible that he meant anything other than to manufacture votes such that Trump would win.
Your guy Trump tried like 5 different ways to wreck the Republic. But he’s not a Dem, so he’s your guy. Shameful.
“‘Hey, please check if there is any money unaccounted for. I need $15,125.'”
Actually S0, I do not find that example one of asking the accountant to cook the books. I donot know if you have ever been in the excutive position to be in need of additional funds. I have and such a request was routine before I would launch into any pleading for supplementary funds.
I’ve seen such asks, but rarely accompanied by an exact amount.
I think it’s not hard to see why.
I tend to agree that the inclusion of the amount doesn’t mean much. That is how many he needed. If they “find” fewer than that, or more than that, it doesn’t really matter.
The guilt-inducing part is the pressure campaign (several calls) and the instruction to a high-level official to “find votes.” That’s not how it works, and Trump knows it. (Cue Brett explaining that Trump is too stupid to be guilty. I don’t buy it.)
That would be like if a judge called a recess, telling the prosecutor to “find evidence of just 1.5 more kilos of cocaine” in order to justify a maximum sentence. And then doing it over and over when the prosecutor continues to insist that there’s no more evidence to be brought.
You going to say that that’s an innocent question on the part of the judge? Or that the judge is probably just too stupid to know that’s not how the process works? Even after the prosecutor says that he understood the judge to be asking for fake evidence to be planted and then “found?”
It works two ways. Most likely its following voting laws and not allowing votes that are not in compliance with the law.
In PA that was done in a partisan fashion to affect even state elections. For state senator one blue county allowed anything and the red county followed the law. Partisan Democratic State Supreme court ruled that was fair. Of course the Dem won only because votes that did not meet the law were counted in the blue county.
I read, but did not verify from primary sources, that the number of votes shifted by the Supreme Court’s decision was smaller than Biden’s victory margin.
Seems like the proper conclusion is that red counties are throwing out valid votes, really.
Of passing interest is that the judge who authorized the Grand Jury is the same judge who slow walked Trumps lawsuit in GA. until it became too late to matter.
This is where being a disaffected, autistic, delusional jerk causes problems for you and your efforts to engage with other people, Mr. Bellmore.
Finding votes.
The way I read that is the votes have to exist before you can find them, he certainly didn’t say manufacture, or create, or any other word that would imply fraud.
I’ll also point out in Al Franken’s Senate election victory came from enough votes being found to overturn Coleman’s initial 700 vote victory.
And Christine Gregoire’s Washington Gubernatorial victory came after several trays of ballots were found in a King County warehouse.
I wonder if anyone anywhere in Franken’s campaign uttered the illegal phrase “find votes”.
No evidence of that.
Also you’re now searching for some anyone to compare to the President of the US.
Bending over backwards to find plausible deniability for what was a fairly clear attempt to persuade a fellow partisan to turn a loss into a win? Not asking yourself if there were other, legal means to request a recount?
Probably want to rethink that.
“encouraging to see that the prosecutor in Atlanta is acting with an urgency”
Not sure why you are eager to se Ole Joe indicted in Texas in a couple of years but whatever.
Keep hope alive!
What underlying facts and what statute(s) do you surmise would give rise to a Texas indictment? Please be specific — or admit that you are talking through your ass.
The Atlanta DA is not the only ambitious DA in the US dude.
An admission you are talking out your ass.
The recorded phone call, everyone but the hopelessly partisan would have to admit, is highly unusual (unique?) in American presidential history and, at the very, very least, extremely unwise in that the most natural reading of the transcript is that Trump wanted Raffensperger to increase the vote count for Trump by enough Trump won. The likelihood that Biden or a future Democratic President would be similarly reckless is not particularly likely.
Therefore, the underlying premise of your prediction is that Republican AG’s will conduct investigations that are much less well founded than the Georgia investigation which, again, pretty clearly has an adequate predicate for an investigation.
What underlying facts and what statute(s) do you surmise would give rise to a Texas indictment? Answer the question.
How can you tell if the DoJ is acting with urgency? All we know is there are no unsealed indictments. The evidence is equally consistent with “Biden says don’t give Trump supporters any reason to play the victim” and “DoJ wants to tie up more loose ends before charging everybody at once”. Unlike (for example) a drug smuggling case the parties are unlikely to flee beyond the reach of prosecutors and are unlikely to commit similar crimes in the near future.
the parties are … unlikely to commit similar crimes in the near future.
Trump may well commit similar crimes if he is the nominee on 2024.
In 2024, sure, but I’m talking about the next year or so. Unsealing indictments in 2023 will have everybody subject to pretrial release conditions preventing them from conspiring to fake election results in 2024.
I’m interested in hearing from (at least in the past) firm Trump supporters. Actually, only interested in hearing from the ones who have watched a decent amount of the Jan 6 Committee hearings.
I, personally, am not particularly interested in hearing from people who hated Trump from the beginning…unless you want to add something from the hearings that you absolutely did not know about until watching. And I have zero interest in hearing from Trump supporters who have whored their integrity, so that they are convinced that Trump never does wrong and this whole thing has been a witch hunt.
I follow the news pretty closely. So, I was surprised at how surprised I have been…there’s been a lot of info that I did not know. And, even things that I knew; I did not have a firm timeline, so that learning that X was happening while Trump was saying Y or doing Z while back at the West Wing–I definitely think I have a much better grasp of what happened leading up to Jan 6, and what happened on that day.
But I’m quite interested in hearing about your own reactions. Did it make a difference that literally every witness (so far) has been an ardent Trump supporter? Or is that sort of irrelevant for you?
The vast majority of people either hated trump before and this is just a red meat for them or continue to accurately think this is a circus to distract voters from the current sorry state of things that really matter. I’m not sure you’ll find many real people who were converted by Schiff pulling faces on camera or fake stories of Trump kungfuing Secret Service agents. Maybe at most there will be a few TDSers who will lie and claim they were converted by the hearing
“or continue to accurately think this is a circus to distract voters from the current sorry state of things that really matter.”
I’ve actually seen a poll that showed even about half of the Democrats sampled thought the January 6th hearings were just a political show.
You aren’t learning any factual timeline,, but an engineered partisan narrative.
The fact that you accept their product uncritically speaks to your cognitive abilities.
Testimony that Donald Trump knew that members of the crowd at the ellipse were armed but nevertheless cajoled the Secret Service to take away the magnetometers is significant and was unknown prior to the House committee hearings.
The thing is, you’re being deliberately fed only one side of the story. They made quite sure there wasn’t anybody on the panel who’d want to tell any other side of it.
It’s like that crazy testimony by Hutchinson. Why didn’t they bother confirming it with the other people present? Maybe because it was “too good to check”?
To be clear, I think there’s enough about Trump’s conduct after the election to make it clear he has questionable judgement, and I’d prefer somebody else be the nominee. But the Democrats aren’t trying to make people doubt his judgement and fitness to be President. They’re trying to set up a pretext for using Section 3 of the 14th amendment to deny people the right to vote for him even if they think him the better candidate.
For all their talk about threats to democracy, that’s a pretty dire threat right there.
Of course, the Democrats are the real threats to our Democracy and our very freedom.
They are the evilest villainous subhumans on the planet. Top to bottom. Every single one literally.
I think that’s somewhat of an exaggeration.
It had better be! Such thinking gives rise to an obvious course of action…
If you’re a postal worker during an election and you think Donald Trump is an existential threat to this country, what do you do with mail-in ballots from Republican strongholds?
‘If everyone were as crazy as I am, boy would our country be in trouble!’
There is a big assumption in this thinking, chief.
So you believe no election worker, not postal worker, none of the human capital involved in running our elections did anything outside of their job description to save the world from President Trump?
But me commenting similar to what those people believe gets you all concerned about the potential in my tone?
Go fuck yourself, you gaslighting Federal.
I think that there are enough checks that a single person can’t do anything at scale without getting caught even if they wanted to.
I think your comment about evilest villainous subhumans is pretty fucked up, even as hyperbole.
And I don’t care whatever ‘those people’ you’re nutpicking. You’re here right now, and work to be less threatening than the worst people you can find on the Internet.
None of Federals can do anything “at scale”.
But I can?
It’s not hyperbole, and judging people is not a threat.
As usual you’re tone policing The Others, which you can never seem to find the energy to do to other Federals or their bootlickers.
I’m not worried about you screwing with votes, with that dehumanizing hateful language.
Some acts are tragic, regardless of scale.
Well thats pretty much their MO on everything. Lets use the force of government to get our political way.
“Why didn’t they bother confirming it with the other people present? ”
…and of course Hutchinson was not even present at what she testified about. Her “testimony” was all hearsay.
Ms. Hutchinson testified that she heard Trump make the comments about the armed attendees not being there to hurt Trump and directing that the Secret Service omit the magnetometer scans. In a prosecution of Trump, that would not be hearsay.
Hutchinson has had her 15 minutes of fame. Luckily for her no one gets prosecuted for lying under oath (unless you are a Republican).
What motive does Cassidy Hutchinson have for lying under oath?
That’s a good question but she apparently did.
What is your factual basis for claiming that she lied?
Confirmation bias doesn’t suffice.
The statements by the people she claimed to be quoting denying that they in fact made those statements and their offer to testify.
We shall see whether anyone testifies in contradiction of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony. Until then, her testimony stands uncontroverted. Mere speculation that she lied doesn’t feed the bulldog.
We shall see if the committee bothers calling as a witness anybody who has offered to dispute her testimony. Not holding my breath.
We shall see whether anyone testifies in contradiction of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony. Until then, her testimony stands uncontroverted.
The individuals in question have openly offered to testify to the committee that the claims made about them by Hutchinson are false. Are you seriously so stupid that you expect anyone else to conclude that the committee declining to take them up on that offer somehow means that her testimony is “uncontroverted”?
Mere speculation that she lied doesn’t feed the bulldog.
It’s note mere speculations, you lying sack of shit. They’ve publicly said that she’s full of crap (yeah, I’m paraphrasing a bit.)
1) There were no such statements.
2) They can testify. They haven’t. (Actually, they previously did, but not about this.) Claiming second or thirdhand that they would testify isn’t worth the electrons the claim is printed on.
3) Assuming for the sake of argument that they did testify, and they did contradict her, how would that prove she was lying, rather than that they are?
“We shall see whether anyone testifies in contradiction of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony. Until then, her testimony stands uncontroverted. Mere speculation that she lied doesn’t feed the bulldog.”
Huh? The committee controls who testifies, and so far they have declined to present the testimony of people better informed about these incidents than Ms. Hutchinson. It’s perfectly legit to infer that they haven’t done so because they don’t like what the people will say.
This is such a stupid turd to be fighting over. Nobody’s lying. Hutchinson offered hearsay testimony “to the effect of” whatever. There’s no reason not to believe that, for what it’s even worth. The original source says, “I never said that.” Also true. It’s easy to nit-pick a summarization. “He didn’t lunge, he lurched.”
Who gives a fuck whether he lunged or he lurched? The SS has confirmed the basics, as has the video of the car.
Money….Fame….promise of good job offers….
Unmitigated speculation.
“Unmitigated speculation.”
He’s infringing on your shtick?
Unmitigated speculation.
Yes, unsubstantiated hearsay is solid evidence, while direct public contradiction of that hearsay by the actual sources is just speculation.
WTF is wrong with you?
The speculation I commented on was Armchair Lawyer’s fanciful prediction of “Money….Fame….promise of good job offers.” There is no solid basis to think that will come to pass.
Well, the fame part certainly appears to have occurred…
You think the motive of this Trump acolyte to make up a whole big story was to briefly get some headlines, AL?
Sure seems like nothing would convince you.
She aspired to “civic significance” and this was her shot at 15 minutes of fame: https://news.yahoo.com/cassidy-hutchinson-star-witness-jan-174755840.html
Are you not aware that she is a Republican, and a big fan of Trump prior to Jan. 6?
Or are you going with “She was an antifa plant?”
In a prosecution of Trump, neither would that be incriminating.
That depends on what the charge is.
…or who is in charge.
Prosecute for what?
If he said they needed those guns for Congress, or to hang Mike Pence, I could possibly see, maybe possibly some criminal liability. But the fact that some small percentage of people at his rally could be armed can’t possibly be spun into Trump’s criminal liability, unless you can show there was an actual conspiracy between Trump and those armed people to commit a criminal act.
But he said he wasn’t worried that anyone would use a gun in a criminal attack against him, not that they needed guns for some criminal purpose.
3 people have been charged with carrying firearms at the capital on Jan. 6, none have been alleged to be part of any conspiracy, or had any communication with Trump.
I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer?
The encouragement of the crowd to march on the Capitol because Mike Pence was not acting in accordance with Trump’s wishes is probative of a corrupt intent to obstruct, influence or impede the Congressional certification of the electoral count. Trump’s knowledge that some in the crowd were armed is more highly probative of that intent.
You don’t know what hearsay means
In a federal criminal prosecution, an out of court declaration of the accused, offered by the government against the accused, is non-hearsay under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2). Trump’s request that the Secret Service omit magnetometer screening is not hearsay at all, in that it is not a declarative statement.
The vast majority of her testimony was not hearsay. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
(Actually, none of it was hearsay since this isn’t a court, but I’ll charitably assume you mean, “Would’ve been hearsay if it had been offered at a trial.”)
The details about what happened in the car were (the equivalent of) hearsay, but those details are also not very important. Unless Trump’s being prosecuted for assaulting a secret service officer, whether he screamed at them or reached for them physically changes absolutely nothing about Trump’s culpability for the events leading up to and on 1/6.
The details about what happened in the car were (the equivalent of) hearsay,
A question, David.
How does the issue of hearsay work when someone testifies, as Hutchinson did, that someone told her something? I mean, she didn’t witness the actual incident, but she was a participant in the conversation she testified about. How can it be hearsay when she was there (for the conversation?)
That’s hearsay. Literally “I heard someone say”. And what it’s hearsay about are Trump’s actions. In this particular case, it’s second hand hearsay. “I heard someone say that they heard from a 3rd person who witnessed what happened”. Which is even worse. Because it allows for effective mis-truths under oath.
Let’s give an example. “I heard someone say that Bernard11 was at the January 6th protest breaking into the Capitol.” That statement is absolutely true. I did hear someone say it. And I can testify under oath truthfully that I did hear someone say it. Now, you could deny that. You can say it didn’t happen. Just like Trump’s secret service agents say it didn’t happen. But you’ve created a story….a thought process…by allowing the hearsay.
Armchair,
Read David’s reply for a good discussion of what hearsay is and isn’t. Your emotional amplitude when discussing a pretty basic issue of legal procedure suggests you’re more interested in being outraged than having an objective discussion.
I was simply offering the context in this particular situation (establishing Trump’s actions), and why hearsay is an major issue. How hearsay can be used to present mistruths to the court and color the issue.
David failed really communicate the issue.
“I was simply offering the context in this particular situation (establishing Trump’s actions), and why hearsay is an major issue. How hearsay can be used to present mistruths to the court and color the issue.”
1. You responded to a question about how the hearsay rules work. You’re free to ignore the question, I guess, but generally not the act of a person interested in genuine discussion.
2. Second, your definition is wrong. Or at least, wildly incomplete. As actual lawyers know, so maybe talk to an actual lawyer rather than giving your lay guess as to how hearsay rules work.
3. You didn’t “offer context”, you made up a hypothetical that really added nothing to the conversation.
4. There is no court, it’s a Congressional committee.
5. You are relying on reports of what the Secret Services agents have privately told other people who have then either told reporters or told others, that they would deny some aspects of Hutchinson’s testimony. In other words, you rely on hearsay. Which is a supremely hypocritical use of hearsay (probably second or third level hearsay) given the thrust of your argument is that hearsay has no place in this discussion.
“David failed really communicate the issue”
David provided an excellent summary of how hearsay works. Which was the question asked. You just don’t like he didn’t answer a different question.
Spicy….
As has been mentioned, “hearsay” in this context isn’t in a court. A court wouldn’t have allowed Hutchinson’s testimony in regards to the actions in Trump’s limo. But…the committee just gives the appearance of being court-like, without any of the restrictions and limitations that prevent abuse.
Understanding how and why hearsay can be abuse and present a “narrative”…is important. Understanding that the committee used these flawed methods with Hutchinson’s testimony, ultimately leads to understanding the entire work product is flawed, and should be disregarded.
“But…the committee just gives the appearance of being court-like, without any of the restrictions and limitations that prevent abuse.”
A.L., no it doesn’t give the appearance of being anything other than a Congressional hearing investigating an issue and being open with the public. That you appear to be confused as to whether it is “court-like” is your own failing. Don’t project.
“Understanding how and why hearsay can be abuse and present a “narrative”…is important.” (weird ellipses yours)
“Understanding that the committee used these flawed methods with Hutchinson’s testimony, ultimately leads to understanding the entire work product is flawed, and should be disregarded.”
And this is your whole game. You are looking for one perceived flaw so you can discount the entire project and continue living in your “Trump is being persecuted” fantasy world. Note what hasn’t been denied, even via hearsay: That Trump wanted to go to the Capitol during the insurrection.
Even if it would have been better not to elicit Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony about what someone else told her happened in the Presidential vehicle, that doesn’t undermine the mountain of facts that
(1) Trump was told by numerous people that the conspiracy theories of difference-making election fraud were bogus and, yet,
(2) Trump continued claiming the election was stolen and
(3) Trump encouraged his supporters to march on the Capitol on the day of the official counting of the electoral college votes to “Stop the Steal” and
(4) when the violence broke out his first contribution to “calming the crowd” chanting to hang Mike Pence was to criticize Pence for upholding his oath to the Constitution.
(And that’s just a small list of well-established facts.)
So you find a pretext to disregard the whole process. You’re so close to just admitting that you don’t care what the facts are, just go ahead and do that, rather than using your incomplete and warped views of hearsay and the committee’s scope and process as a fig leaf to cover the naked grotesqueness of what Trump and his sycophants were doing leading up to, during, and after January 6th, 2021.
Well, that’s why hearsay is more complicated than twitter lawyers think: it depends why the testimony is being offered.
If Hutchinson is testifying about Ornato’s story for, e.g., the purpose of establishing Ornato’s state of mind, then it’s not hearsay. She’s (as you say) recounting something she witnessed firsthand, and she’s not offering the statements for their truth. (It may be excludable evidence for other reasons, of course.)
But if Hutchinson is relying upon Ornato’s story to establish that what he told her about the car’s events is true, then it’s hearsay. She has no firsthand knowledge of what happened in the car. Hearsay is when you offer an out-of-court statement (which Ornato’s statements to her obviously were) to establish the truth of those statements. (Although a bit oversimplified, think of it this way: could you cross-examine her about what happened in the car? No. She doesn’t have any idea what happened there.)
(There are many exceptions, and the out-of-court statements of a party are defined not to ever be hearsay. So everyone’s testimony about what Trump said would not be hearsay, assuming Trump was the one ultimately being sued or prosecuted.)
Thank you, David.
“The thing is, you’re being deliberately fed only one side of the story. They made quite sure there wasn’t anybody on the panel who’d want to tell any other side of it.”
You know there’s absolutely NOTHING preventing anyone from presenting the other side of the story.
They can even volunteer to go before the house panel.
Because the House Panel will let the other side of the story out…
You know there’s absolutely NOTHING preventing anyone from presenting the other side of the story.
Just not in the House panel, or with any expectation that most of the media will cover it.
Because the House Panel will let the other side of the story out…
You’re full of shit.
Navarro could testify. Giuliani could testify. Meadows, Eastman, etc. Navarro and Meadows, at least were actually subpoenaed and refused to appear. Eastman gave a deposition where he took the 5th about 100 times.
Now who the fuck isn’t telling what side of the story?
The Democrat-appointed Star Chamber is not telling the truth side of the story. As you were already told. They’re very selective about what they ask and what they release. They’re not trying to build a complete or comprehensive view of that day, they are on a political witch hunt.
Then why did they subpoena all those Trumpists? And why didn’t they appear?
Their modus operandi is to collect information, prevent their targets from getting copies of the full exchange, and then selectively release bits out of context or flatly misrepresent what was said. Honest people do not want to participate in that kind of sham.
Kind of like 60 Minutes, actually, except with subpoena power.
Weird all this testimony is happening in public, then.
Weird that it’s happening in private first then selectively in public.
Almost as if they are screening stuff.
Gee. If someone testifies in public it’s sort of hard to “edit” that.
And I haven’t seen any complaints from, say, Barr or others, that the committee distorted what they said.
You’re grasping at imaginary straws.
You know, the one time I gave a deposition, I was provided, very soon, with a transcript.
Is that not the usual practice? Were the witnesses not provided transcripts? Because if they were, it would be trivial to show that they were being quoted selectively or out of context.
Even if they don’t have a transcript, it’s easy enough to tell the press the committee is misrepresenting your testimony, and challenge them to release their double-secret transcript.
So you are just plain lying, absolutely making up shit to reduce to try to defend your idol.
In federal court (and I assume in most states’ courts, but I don’t practice in most states, so I can’t be sure of that), the deponent has the right (if he properly asserts it) to review the transcript and correct any errors if he chooses. That’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e).
But this is a congressional hearing, not governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and no, I don’t think witnesses have the right to review their transcripts.
But, yes, they could come out and call the committee liars if they actually thought the transcripts (and videos — these depositions are all being recorded) would support them.
They don’t even need to testify. Just call a press conference and say whatever they need to say. It’ll get coverage.
Won’t have the problem with being under oath either.
To be honest, I don’t care about this theater in the House.
I just want Garland to indict the Orange Clown.
Bernard,
Here’s a fact you may not know.
The January 6th Committee isn’t releasing the full witness transcripts. To anyone. Including Biden’s own Department of Justice.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/16/tensions-escalate-as-doj-renews-request-for-jan-6-panel-transcripts-00040267
Ask yourself why…. And ask if you’re actually getting the whole story.
I don’t know why. Neither do you.
Here’s what I do know. We’re not getting the whole story. We’re getting the selective pieces of the story that the Democrats in Congress want to let out.
Once you understand that…you understand people’s skepticism
Boy, McCarthy’s decision to try to undermine the committee by taking Republicans off it is looking worse and worse, isn’t it?
Again, the committee is inherently flawed.
If your only purpose is to pump up the true faithful…sure, it succeeded.
But if you actually want to convince people who weren’t already convinced… It can’t. And that’s Pelosi’s ultimate failure
The public is getting one side because the Republican leadership chose not to participate. That decision is now being called into question by the former President and other Republicans. Democrats never stood in the way of a Senate/House committee, Republican leadership did. Nancy Pelosi never denied McCarthy picks, but she refused to accept members who would only be disruptive. Republicans have 212 members they did not need the two the Speaker excluded.
Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony is holding up well. No one on the Committee is backing down from the testimony. More people are supporting the testimony, suggesting the Committee had ckecked it out.
“she refused to accept members who would only be disruptive”
Poor AOC and Swalwell, destined to not have committee seats next year.
“Nancy Pelosi never denied McCarthy picks, but she refused to accept members who would only be disruptive.”
You mean, like an adversarial process?
Many of us are wondering if Republican who weren’t hand-picked by Pelosi would have been able to successfully disrupt the narrative.
As it is, the process looks like a show trial.
“Why didn’t they bother confirming it with the other people present? Maybe because it was ‘too good to check’?”
Ms. Hutchinson testified that she personally heard Trump make the comments about the magnetometers. I am sure that Trump has a standing invitation to testify before the House January 6 committee if he has the stones to contradict her and submit to questioning under oath.
I suspect that Hell will freeze over before Trump does that, though.
Yeah, she says he said that, and I’m willing to believe that he said that. It’s not particularly incriminating. “You don’t need to run the crowd around me through magnetometers, they’re not here to hurt me.” is a fairly innocent thing to say, and the fact that people elsewhere were doing something bad, (But were also not armed.) doesn’t change that.
I’ve remarked before on the presumption of guilt Trump’s enemies use in interpreting everything he says. This is a good example of it.
Yep.
He was going to lead the mob to the Capitol, and wanted them to have guns, but hey, all innocent according to Brett.
..and how many guns (excluding FBI and LEO plants) were found that day?
Lonnie Coffman
Guy Reffitt
Christopher Michael Alberts
Plus video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj0R9QedwG4
I mean, Trump wanted to get rid of the metal detectors because they wouldn’t hurt him? What do you think that was about, if not guns?!
“Cheney noted that among the supporters who chose to pass through metal detectors so they could get closer to Trump, security screened weapons and equipment including pepper spray, knives, batons and gas masks.”
OMG, they wielded gas masks!
Trump wanted to get rid of the metal detectors, Bob. Why do you think that is?
IDK nor care.
The riot at the Capitol started while he was still speaking. None of the “armed” protestors listening to him were involved.
He was fine with them being armed, because they weren’t going to hurt *him.*
He heard they were breaching, and he tweeted about Pence.
He wanted to go the the Capitol to join them. Do you think that bespeaks an intent to calm things down?
He knew what he was doing.
And this was *only one of a number of ways he tried to overturn the election* and he continues to do so, pretty openly!
But, will to power, eh? Politicians would be bad at their job if they didn’t try and end the republic to stay in power, after all!
You list three. That is out of tens of thousands of participants.
Quite an insurrectionist army you have there.
No way you’re this dumb.
Quit defending political violence.
“Quit defending political violence.”
Said the defender of the Portland riots.
No way you’re this dumb.
I used to say the same about you, but you’ve since proved me wrong on countless occasions.
I think anyone rioting in Portland should be charged with the requisite crime and go to jail.
I’ve said so many times.
I don’t think protestors in Portland should go to jail, though. This seems a nuance many of you can’t seem to understand.
Or, rather, which many of you choose not to understand.
“You list three.”
One only had weapons in a truck, not on his person. Some murderous revolutionary!
Neither of the other two fired a shot nor showed/brandished the weapon.
“I think anyone rioting in Portland should be charged with the requisite crime and go to jail.”
People at the Capitol who walked into open doors, assaulted no one and were only guilty of technical trespass were just protestors. Yet they got charged.
Robbing things of their context convinces no one.
There’s a reason no one is calling what happened on Jan 06 a riot.
If they were only guilty of trespass, that’s all they would be convicted of. Yet, the charges, guilty pleas, and verdicts tend not to be for simple trespass.
One explanation is, as Sarcastro points out, you are excising very significant context to how they happened to end up walking “into open doors” and their purpose in doing so.
The other explanation requires a vast conspiracy involving prosecutors, judges, and juries, at minimum, to railroad defendants into pleading guilty to things no one involved in the criminal proceedings actually believes they did.
Of course, you go all in for the bonkers conspiracy theory.
“Lonnie Coffman
Guy Reffitt
Christopher Michael Alberts”
So guns were present in the same order of magnitude as antifa types?
All the guns people saw were held by unnamed Antifa members?
Lol. Pretending not to understand English won’t help you.
What do the magnetometers at Trump’s rally at the Ellipse have to do with the attack at the capitol building, which is a 32 minute walk away?
I agree that if Trump conspired to get guns in the capitol to disrupt or hijack the proceedings then he should be charged. But there is no possible culpability to say that not worrying about the possible presence of a handful of guns at his rally, has any bearing on the reported presence of 3 guns later in the day at the capitol building across town.
Similar cohorts are similar.
Plus Trump wanted to go to the Capitol, alongside those people.
Unless McCarthy is in on it, they didn’t make sure of anything regarding the panel except that those who were into a bit of insurrection weren’t on it.
You seem less like you think there is another side, and more like you just don’t believe anything that’s too damming.
“Unless McCarthy is in on it, they didn’t make sure of anything regarding the panel except that those who were [allegedly] into a bit of insurrection weren’t on it.”
So, stacking the panel is OK? I’d be interested to hear what the excluded Senators would have had to say. Not you?
It’s a House hearing, so not sure why you think Senators were excluded other than for being Senators. Only two House members suggested by McCarthy were rejected, Jim Jordan and Jim Banks. After those two, and only those two, were rejected, the Republicans declined to participate with the except of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
Try again, but this time address the facts. The Republicans chose not to participate if they couldn’t include people who know one things have any interest in getting to the truth (i.e., Jordan and Banks). Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong, and Troy Nehls could all have been on the committee together with Cheney and Kinzinger. They chose not to be.
The thing is, you’re being deliberately fed only one side of the story.
Gee. It’s as if Trumpists were never given the opportunity to testify. Where’s Meadows? Jeffrey Clark? And where are those Secret Service agents?
And the people testifying, including Hutchinson, were loyal Trump partisans. You think Barr is a secret Antifa agent?
Here’s the thing, Brett. Despite your lunatic ravings what’s being presented are facts.
They made quite sure there wasn’t anybody on the panel who’d want to tell any other side of it.
Oh fuck that. The people who didn’t want a bipartisan commission were McConnell and McCarthy.
Trump and his cultists, very much including you, are spreading an unending stream of lies, and trying to destroy democracy in the US.
Please visit Pier 1 along with queen almathea and purchase a mirror.
“It’s as if Trumpists were never given the opportunity to testify.”
Why would they testify if the people who might defend them are excluded from the panel?
“if the people who might defend them are excluded from the panel”
You mean chose not to join the panel. Except for Jordan and Banks, the only two members excluded from the panel. For good reason.
The thing is, you’re being deliberately fed only one side of the story.
This is a plain lie. Just a lie.
The witnesses are being cross examined? All videos released? Al transcripts of depos released?
“Cross examined” doesn’t make sense as a concept here. This is a hearing, not an adversarial proceeding. They’re being questioned, not examined.
Now, Trumpkins could be included in that questioning if they’d show up — Pelosi named three of them to the committee, and the GOP could’ve had two more if they wanted — but they’re refusing to do so. You can’t choose not to show up and then complain that the proceeding is illegitimate because you’re not there.
That’s like a defendant asking for a bench trial and then filing an appeal on the grounds that he was denied a jury.
“You can’t choose not to show up and then complain that the proceeding is illegitimate because you’re not there.”
Not everybody chose not to show up. Pelosi excluded some Senators from the committee.
It’s a House committee. Stop embarrassing yourself. No Senators were excluded other than for being Senators, which includes literally all 100 Senators.
“It’s a House committee. Stop embarrassing yourself. No Senators were excluded other than for being Senators, which includes literally all 100 Senators.”
You got me, I mistyped something.
Pelosi didn’t exclude any Senators from the Committee. They were excluded by the Rules of the House.
Wow.Talk about desperately stupid arguments.
Nope. Hell, not even Biden’s DoJ is getting the full transcripts of the witnesses.
Do the witnesses themselves not have transcripts?
Can they not challenge the committee and demand that it release transcripts to support their claims.
The BS from Trumpists is really getting deep.
“Do the witnesses themselves not have transcripts”
They may not.
Sannie. You need to move, Son. Go to Russia or China where you can get all the garbage kangaroo courts to satisfy your hatred.
I’m not a Trump supporter. However…
We’ve seen this show before. Extreme claims are made or presented in a unique light. Then they don’t really pan out, need to be walked back, further investigation demonstrates that they are wrong.
To quote Peter Strzok. “There’s no big there there”
What has been walked back?
Recall when Schiff was claiming during Congressional hearings that the intelligence services were testifying that Trump was in bed with the Russians? Then when the hearing testimony finally got released, it turned out one of them after another was admitting they had nothing on him? I’d call that walking back.
Your evidence is a WSJ opinion piece? Shockingly, it’s a hack job of half truths.
Do you think this quote is incorrect:
The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help
Because this piece you linked insists this is the same as ‘the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.’
The first is made clear by the Mueller report. The second is explicitly declaimed by the Mueller report. As we discussed exhaustively.
This is the issue – you take an opinion piece with a thesis you like, and then run with it as proof all those attacking Trump are wrong.
With such an unbalanced standard of proof, you will never need to condemn Trump no matter what comes out.
Yes. It’s wrong. Adam Schiff said he had “more than circumstantial evidence” of Russian collusion. That was a lie.
Don’t take my word for it, them DNI director James Clapper: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”
The Mueller report provides some evidence of coordination, but not quite collusion, as it explains.
See Brett’s response for an example. There are others.
Give them. Because Brett’s example sucks.
To use a Sarcastro-ism.
Use Google. I’m not here to do your research.
Although, I should say, use Duck Duck Go.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=anti-trump+claims+wrong&t=hs&va=l&ia=web
IOW, you have nothing. Like Brett.
Except a link to various references….
I said use Google *for a transcript*
You’re saying use Google to prove your conspiracy theory.
You keep cargo-culting my arguments, which is very sad.
Or the various OTHER times you said you were too lazy to do research, and someone should Google it.
What Brett said about Schiff and his committee was absolutely true. Schiff badly mislead the public about what was said in closed door sessions, but when it was time for those witnesses to say it publicly in a forum when being under oath had teeth none of them would say what Schiff represented them to have said.
Schiff is a dishonest huckster. Or a fucking liar. Your choice. I wouldn’t trust the guy if he told me the sky was blue.
“Schiff”
Forgot him, he’s not having any committee assignments next yea either.
What had he done, specifically, to lose your trust as somehow worse than the average politician?
What I said in the message you replied to. Regularly ran to the press with fabulous tales of horrible things that were being testified to in front of his committee. The press ate it up.
Then when those witnesses were asked the same questions under oath they refused to say what Schiff claimed they had said. Because it was bullshit and he made it all up to inflate his own importance and to bring down someone he hated.
Credibility. Once it’s gone it’s very difficult to reestablish. Same problem the NYT and WaPo have now. Or Guliani. You could say the same about Trump but I’m not sure he ever had any.
Same problem the NYT and WaPo have now.
They actually have plenty of credibility. Do they make mistakes? Sure.
But unlike the RW media they at least make an effort to get things right. Are you aware that a lot of people on the left are critical of both papers for giving too much credence to RW stories, and doing “bothsiderism” to a fault?
“They actually have plenty of credibility.”
Don’t look at the twitter feeds of their “journalists” if you think so.
“Do they make mistakes? Sure.”
Do they make them willfully or out of negligence? Sure, especially WaPo
Do they make them willfully or out of negligence? Sure, especially WaPo
Partisan telepathy.
Here’s one of my favorites, from NPR:
“President Trump on Monday declined to condemn the actions of the 17-year-old suspect in the shooting of three protesters against police brutality in Kenosha, Wis., claiming, without evidence, that it appeared the gunman was acting in self-defense.”
Of course, Trump was referring to the video evidence that eventually exonerated Rittenhouse, but the article is written to dance around that fact.
“Partisan telepathy.”
No, simple reading comprehension.
You’re quick to throw around the partisan comment to defend the indefensible.
Armchair — Do you concede you just argued that existing evidence makes a case for putting Trump on trial, and giving him a presumption of innocence?
No, there needs to be a sufficient likelihood of conviction. So far, the evidence in favor of conviction has largely been fabricated or misrepresented. When the unvarnished facts are revealed, the evidence argues against convicting Trump.
How about we put twelve men and women good and true in a jury box and sort out those “unvarnished facts”?
You need a crime first.
At least you need probable cause of a crime, not the bare possibility.
Read it again, Brett. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf A finding that Trump and Eastman more likely than not committed multiple felonies is a higher threshold than probable cause. (And more incriminating evidence has come to light since Judge Carter’s March 28 opinion.)
Yawn. His “findings” mean nothing outside the issue before him.
Uh, the issue before Judge Carter was whether John Eastman’s emails were nonprivileged under the crime/fraud exception to attorney-client privilege. That necessitates factual analysis of whether a preponderance of evidence shows that the use of the emails furthered a crime.
Preponderance of evidence is a higher standard than probable cause. If the preponderance shows criminal activity, then the lesser standard of probable cause necessarily exists.
“hat necessitates factual analysis of whether a preponderance of evidence shows that the use of the emails furthered a crime.”
Duh, as I said, his “findings” are relevant to the case before him. They have no value otherwise.
The issues before the California district court included whether Donald Trump and John Eastman engaged in criminal conduct. Have you read Judge Carter’s March 28 opinion? It is quite detailed as to the relevant facts and well-reasoned as to the applicable law. What, if anything, do you claim that he got wrong?
It’s not a crime to get bad advice from an attorney, although I will concede an attorney giving advice in bad faith could be criminal, but I don’t see how that criminal liability can attach to Tump, not unless he knew there was no possible basis for the legal advice.
All over the country as we speak clients a say to lawyers: “can you find a way to make that work”, and lawyers are replying “it’s a longshot, but if you want me to I’ll give it a try.”
He did. He was told that by multiple people.
Your idea of ‘unvarnished facts’ really should read as “facts I hope exist someday, but right now do not.”
Normal people form conclusions based on facts currently understood. Idiots such as yourself make conclusions and hope the facts someday come out to support them.
On trial for “what” exactly?
That’s one of the biggest issues with this whole debacle. There’s a whole lot of “we don’t like Trump”…but in terms of actual crimes…there isn’t enough there.
Do you just not read not guilty’s posts? I’m not sure I agree with all of them, but he does not lack for explicitly citations to explicit crimes.
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
AL asked a question. not guilty has lots of answers. Just stamping your foot and saying no doesn’t really count as a rebuttle.
not guilty is a raving loon who appears to be obsessed like Don Quixote.
He may be normal otherwise but Trump makes him bonkers.
Maybe, but he did give examples of charges. You have an issue, attack the charges, not the poster.
We have criticized those comments. Repeatedly. To the point where we stopped bothering because the unhinged ranting continued unmodified.
So when you say ‘what are the crimes’ what you mean is ‘what are the crimes, and not guilty’s comments don’t count. No, we won’t engage with them because we don’t wanna. Why don’t people listen more to our good faith arguments?’
If you have given good arguments, then link to those comments. As it is, you’re making an argument that’s been answered but you pretend the answer doesn’t exist. This is because you’re not making an argument, but rather just justifying your blind support.
No, we mean “what are the crimes, from a reasonable person’s point of view; we’ve already said why the unhinged ranting does not count.” As I said the first time.
I find him so credible that I’ve put him on ignore.
Weeks ago.
There is no convincing Trump cultists. The sum and substance of their worldview is IOKIYAR.
“Do you just not read not guilty’s posts?”
I do, quite humorous.
Isn’t it peculiar that you routinely fail to cite countervailing authority?
No, joke posts don’t require substantive responses.
You don’t think I respond because you are making good points, do you? That would be sad
What possible crime is it for Trump to tell the Secret Service, “I’m in no danger, we don’t need magnetometers at my rally today”?
Don’t play stupid. You know that the issue isn’t that saying those words itself is a crime; the issue is that these are evidence of intent.
“There are people with weapons? Okay. Let them in; they’re not here to hurt me. Then we can all go to the capitol.”
How does letting them into his rally, on the other side of town either hinder or further anything that happened at the capitol building across town later in the day? How does it show any intent?
Let’s say there was a WA Wizards BB game that day, and one of the security guards, knowing that Congress is meeting to count the votes in a few hours, decides to let everyone wearing a MAGA hat to bypass security to watch the basketball game. He doesn’t know them, he doesn’t talk to them. Is he guilty of plotting innsurection?
If the handful of people who were armed see they are checking for guns they aren’t going to go in the Ellipse or the Basketball arena, and they will wait outside for the rest of the crowd to go the capitol building.
Once again only 3 people were alleged to be armed at the capitol on Jan 6, one was a DEA agent carrying his service weapon.
It’s widely speculative thin gruel.
The only explanation for fixating on this is hoping people are confused enough they think Trump was trying to remove magnetometers from the capitol.
You do not read the NYT. You do not watch CNN. You do not watch MSNBC. You did not watch the hearings. Right, Kazinski?
“they’re not here to hurt me” implies Trump knew they were here to hurt someone, and didn’t care.
Add that he tweeted to put the spotlight back on Pence right after hearing they’d breached the Capitol….
NG throws lots of stuff up on the wall.
An actual, specific crime? With evidence that people have been prosecuted for it before, under similar circumstance?
Not so much.
The “similar circumstances” to the conduct of Trump and his cohorts are fortunately absent. Trump’s criminal conduct is sui generis. That doesn’t mean that the statutes I have cited are inapplicable. In any event, jury questions are presented.
If the supposed criminal conduct is so unique that it only ever applies to one person, that the laws in question only ever apply to one person for this purpose…
Then you’re just looking for a crime to fit the person. Not a good way thing.
I’m not a Trump supporter. However…
Not a Trump supporter??
When did you quit the cult?
I never have been a Trump supporter.
But when I see an injustice against an innocent man being done….just because I don’t support him, doesn’t mean I won’t fight injustice.
Another person who feels sorry for Trump. Lol. I wouldn’t believe it if I hadn’t heard actual people say it. Such a victim!
NOVA, do you ever worry you are getting trolled by an automaton? I myself worry that some apparently sentient Trump supporters have become automatons. But then I reflect that could just mean they pass the Turing test.
Automatons are smarter than A.L.
Absolutely, I do worry I am getting trolled by automaton. But, as Sarcastro points out, automatons would likely make smarter comments that A.L. But yours is also a good one, Trump supporters do seem to have, in many cases, become automatons (just not very bright ones).
*bernard11, not Sarcatro. My apologies to both posters. You aren’t interchangeable.
What’s particularly insane about it is that they haven’t done anything to Trump yet; all they’re doing is investigating. It would be one thing if he were arrested and prosecuted and thrown in jail and someone said, “an injustice done to Trump.” But they think that merely questioning whether he committed a crime is an injustice.
NOVA,
Let’s review for a second. Trump and his campaign/people had the FBI literally fabricate evidence so they could have illegal search warrants granted against them.
You don’t feel sorry about that? Don’t feel that this type of action is wrong? Or do you feel it is justified, and they deserved it?
No, that didn’t happen. If you’re talking about Clinesmith, that involved
(a) one individual agent, not “the FBI”;
(b) one target, who was neither (1) Trump nor (2) his campaign;
(c) something done on the third FISA renewal for this target, so this target was searched lawfully, with a warrant, three times before that; and
(d) there was no showing that the warrant wouldn’t have been granted anyway if Clinesmith hadn’t altered the email. (Which does not justify Clinesmith’s action, any more than a cop planting evidence to frame a truly guilty person would be justified.)
But I reiterate that none of the above was Donald Trump. Carter Page might have grounds to complain, and might be entitled to some sympathy. Not Trump.
Oh, and just for the record: if law enforcement did ever violate Trump’s rights, then I would want the person responsible to be punished because that should never be condoned, but that still wouldn’t make me feel sorry for Trump.
At this point Trump is one of those people, like Vladimir Putin or the guy who shot up the 4th of July parade, or Jeffrey Maier, who is so terrible that it’s hard to think of anything that could happen to him that would cause me to feel sorry for him.
What David said. Your proposed facts are wildly inaccurate. So you feel outraged about a pretend injustice. At least that explains you. You live in a fantasy world of Trump’s making.
As David also said, I would want anyone punished who violated Trump’s rights, but feeling sorry for him is gonna be a stretch. He has intentionally and with total disregard of others, and often with actual malice, hurt so many (from J. Michael Diehl to our democratic system of government), that it would be hard to imagine any scenario in which sympathy for him could be evoked.
I was never pro-Trump in any general way. But neither did I begin watching the hearings with expectations they would much increase the store of facts already published.
The hearings converted me to the extent that previously I would have urged Trump be prosecuted for particular vote tampering offenses, but not likely more. After testimony so far, it looks like Trump is guilty of insurrection at least. Mindful that detailed testimony linking Trump to warlike plots by Proud Boys or others may still be on the way, it seems too soon to rule out a charge of treason as constitutionally defined.
A big revelation has been the quantity of proof tending to show the systematic nature of events which had previously seemed disjointed, even chaotic. I had been willing to suppose there might be more order than could readily be discerned. I judged that was a presumption which would likely fall short of proof, and thus make prosecution of Trump difficult, and perhaps unlikely.
With witnesses as credible as Rusty Bowers and Cassidy Hutchinson supplying specifics, the plotting now looks more orderly and less inchoate. My pre-hearing impression of disorderly events ruled out almost entirely any fear that Trump had made a coup attempt which might have succeeded. Hearing evidence thus far now shows that was far wrong.
I had thought, and mentioned in comments here, that it would have been better had the Capitol’s defenders acted quickly, with the same kind of deadly force the secret service would certainly have applied if the attack had been on the White House. That view I now reject as mistaken, and potentially catastrophically so.
I see that given the serious organization in place, prompt deadly violence would have been seized upon by Trump as occasion to declare martial law, and shut down the constitutional transition of power indefinitely—to, “protect,” the process. That makes me conclude now that staunch resistance with minimal deadly force, which is what happened, was not a mistake, but instead a wise and fortunate choice.
SL,
What you and I think about prosecution does not really matter. BUT I sure wish Garland would get off his ass and indict the Orange Clown. I’d settle for most any charges
Isn’t that pretty close to the empty set ? I can’t imagine why they would waste their time. They can get partizan progressive narrative talking points elsewhere with the expenditure of less time.
I can’t imagine why they would waste their time.
Well, that pretty much says it all.
Don’t bother Artifex with facts. He knows you’re lying beforehand, because Trump would never do anything wrong.
I found it interesting that the firm Trump supporters who responded cannot defend what is alleged. They can only call into question that it did happen. In short, all who responded are sticking with “it’s a witch hunt.”
Well, I don’t know where I fit in your taxonomy, but I don’t care, either.
I knew a lot before the hearings, but — like you — I have been surprised at how much surprising detail there has been. And while I was on Team “Launch Trump into the Sun” before the hearings, I was also against prosecuting him, as bad for the country. The hearings have flipped me on that, to the point where I think that not prosecuting him is bad for the country.
Before, I believed that there was kind of a half-assed challenge to the election that mostly constituted grifting. Now I’m convinced it was a much more serious and organized attempt to steal the election. Not the Kraken shit; that was grift. I mean the Eastman strategy and the 1/6 attack.
That’s pretty much where I’m at too.
Same.
I’m still not quite there, because I think he wouldn’t be convicted, and a prosecution ending in acquittal would be very dangerous. Reasonable Doubt is a high bar.
I might come around if there’s evidence of direct or indirect-but-intentional (most likely via Bannon) communication between Trump and the Oath Keepers / Proud Boys / whatever.
Failing that, I would be pretty happy with a slew of civil cases against Trump and Eastman. They’re easily guilty under Preponderance, as a federal judge has already found. That would go a long way in convincing the public that Trump was in fact guilty, sort of like with OJ Simpson.
Civil liability might even be better than a successful criminal prosecution, which could itself be politically destabilizing. Many people would view Trump as a political prisoner, which sets up a terrible precedent.
I suppose Biden (or whoever) could commute the sentence. Maybe that’s the best outcome, but I’m not confident that’s what would happen.
The Trump crisis presents a situation where every alternative is dangerous. I suggest the best response is to set that aside, and do what would be right to do if no one was scared. The retrospective view of history tends to show in most scary situations that works out best.
I don’t know whether that’s true about history, but it’s a good rule of thumb for life: if you have two options, and you know both carry serious risks, but there’s no good way to predict which will work out better, follow your conscience.
If you could bend the entire resources and manpower of the planet to work on one monumental scientific/technological/engineering project. Which one if any would you choose?
Super-efficient and super-high capacity batteries. (May I shoe-horn in super-efficient solar power in there as well.)
improving the technology for batteries would solve the main issue with solar power although I guess it could always be better. But technically we’re already more advanced in this field than nature except for storage.
Another issue with solar is that, while the Sun does shine every day, the amount of power you’ll get out of it depends pretty heavily on the weather. It’s a non-dispachable, semi-random power source. Not as bad as wind in that regard, but still fairly bad.
The only way you can get reliable power out of solar is to over-build by a factor of 2-3 and have a lot of storage. And then you have to expect that you’ll be throwing power away a lot of the time. And, ironically, solar panels being very dark lowers the Earth’s albedo, causing… global warming!
Of course, if you put the solar panels in orbit, they’d get more sunlight, it would be perfectly reliable, and it would be available for all but a few predictable minutes each day. I’ve seen estimates that Solar Power Satellites, (SPS) would be economically feasible if SpaceX gets their Starship launcher working the way they expect.
Mind, nuclear already works, is boringly reliable in all kinds of weather, and the only thing keeping it from being affordable is deliberately insane levels of regulation.
Curious as to how satellite power gets transmitted down to Earth?
Tesla’s wireless transmission? Microwaves?
Microwaves.
Microwaves would be the current technology of choice, but they’re pretty easy to weaponize — even 100 MW of power will flash-boil a lot of water each second, and the US consumes lots more than that.
If we ever figure out how to build space elevators, running electricity down that cable would probably become the preferred solution. The orbiting power array could serve as the space anchor for the elevator.
In tension space elevators are not terribly feasible on Earth; Even with the strongest known material, carbon nanotubes, you need a huge degree of taper. And carbon nano-tubes turn out not to be stable at high degrees of strain. Pull hard enough on them to use half their strength, and they have a literal half life, they quantum tunnel to being broken. Bummer.
A space fountain, OTOH, is a feasible approach; It doesn’t require exotic materials, just good engineering.
I will grant that you could weaponize a SPS, if you deliberately built the transmitter array much larger than it needs to be. The larger the array, the smaller the spot it can focus to, and the more concentrated the energy; 100MW of power will flash boil a lot of water each second if focused onto a small area, but if only focused to the energy density of sunlight, it won’t boil any water at all. Control the size of the transmitter array, and physics limits the power density at the target.
It would be fairly obvious if a SPS were being weaponized in this way.
There is currently no viable technology for storing the energy we need.
Someone ran the numbers on what Germany would need for energy storage to run a Net Zero grid, it’s 45,000 GWH of storage. They have 8 GWH.
The European parliament this week approved labeling investments in Nuclear and Natural gas as Green energy. They didn’t really have a choice, move the goalposts, or admit they are at least 100 years out from building a 100% renewable grid.
So you’re hoping for “super efficiency” in inherently inefficient systems?
Perfectly efficient solar power is limited to the Solar Constant 1.362 Kw/m^2
A super efficient and high capacity battery still must be charged.
…and of course “perfectly efficient” solar generation is limited to only a fraction of each day.
What’s your average per consumption over a day? How many square meters of solar power do you require? Total US electricity consumption in 2021 was 3930 TWh, which averages to about 1360 W per person (including industrial and commercial applications).
An orbiting solar array 20.5 km across (if a circle; 19 km per side if a square) would be an enormous engineering feat, but would catch enough solar radiation to power the entire United States.
That napkin calculation ignores conversation and transmission losses and the use of other power sources, among other important limits, but I think the overall lesson is that the solar constant is not the big limit for adopting solar power.
Well it is if based on current technology.
Are you arguing that the limit is the solar constant, or current technology?
I think the solar constant is not close to the limiting factor. Occlusion — from the Earth’s rotation, or cloud cover, or whatever else — is the biggest limiting factor. Next are the efficiency limits of current cells, and the relatively high levels of uncommon minerals in the cells and supporting electronics.
I am not necessarily “arguing” either is the limit for solar power, only that there is a limit to what is possible and that limit precludes solar as a reasonable substitute to provide a replacement for existing power sources.
Then you’re wrong, as Michael pointed out. The limit to what is possible does not preclude solar as a reasonable substitute to provide a replacement for existing power sources.
santamonica811 — Agree. With the further point that the battery concept be applied by analogy to whatever technologies enable massive storage and use of renewable energy—efficient generation and distribution of hydrogen, for instance, or pumped storage of water to generate hydropower.
SM11
They would also have to be far safer that Li-ion and at least 10x cheaper per stored Joule. Otherwise, you have an extreme energy density device with dangerous fault modes.
Don,
Absolutely. I think we’re 50+ years away from my fantasy world…where batteries are small enough, reliable/safe enough, and powerful enough to power full-size airlines, power an electric car for 1000+ miles, and so on…and where solar panels are SO efficient and so low-cost that pretty much all buildings will have them on roofs as a matter of course, and so that using gasoline for almost any use will make no economic sense at all. (I think 50 years is rather optimistic. But, if the govt funded full-throated research, and legally secured the guarantee of huge profits to the people/companies who would develop these technologies….who knows?)
I think that full-sized aircraft are far out of the question but CO2 neutral bio-fuels are not.
Far better batteries will be excellent for trucks and cars. Japan is looking seriously at hydrogen fuel cells.
Solar panels will top out at 25% – 30%. Plus you have to factor in dirtying down abrasion from dust etc. In the northern states solar PV may not be attractive but concentrated solar with superconducting transmissions lines may be a possibility.
There is no one idea technology but we can do much better and there is no need to wait 100 years.
The CO2 neutral bio-fuels concept seems readily gamed. Even working as designed, how can it be implemented without imposing ecological disruptions? Seems like ecological disruptions are a big part of what policy seeks to avoid.
More reliable alternatives would seem to require multi-modal changes acting synergistically: over-supply of direct solar and wind generation; innovative centralized energy storage by many means, including pumped storage, hydrogen generation, large batteries innovation; optimized electrical grids; improved distributed energy storage, at least in vehicle batteries, maybe in home batteries substituting for heating oil and gas storage; much more aggressive energy conservation, certainly including interior heating and cooling, likely including changes in transportation choices, likely including electronic substitutes for much business transportation; maybe continuation but sharply reduced peaking capacity from natural gas; maybe innovative nuclear, but only if existing waste storage issues get solved first.
One notion to contemplate is the unlikely prospect for success of methods which purport to enable continued expansion of energy used, but with purported reduced impacts. That is an idea which will find enthusiastic advocates, who may not be critically concerned about outcomes and externalities. If reduction of carbon emissions remains the priority, and in the process of doing that means are found to use actually increased energy available from other sources, accept that as serendipity. Do not make the mistake of prioritizing hocus-pocus schemes purporting increased energy supply ahead of carbon reduction. “Carbon neutral,” is looking more and more like quicksand—which of course, like peat bogs, has always been a natural part of atmospheric carbon reduction, or, as it increasingly appears now, mere postponement.
“The CO2 neutral bio-fuels concept seems readily gamed.”
SL,
I don’t know why you say that when you probably grant other technologies room to develop.
How much do you know about chemistry? how much do you know about fuel cell technology? how much do you know about material science. I expect thatthe answers are very little.
As for your comment that all everything that you know little about is based on hocus-pocus, there is no point in responding to such an empty statement
How much do you know about chemistry? how much do you know about fuel cell technology? how much do you know about material science. I expect thatthe answers are very little.
I expect on the basis of experience that prospective developments in those technologies will be heavily touted as reasons not to be overly concerned about renewables, energy conservation, or even climate change. Readiness to accept optimistic projections on faith is powerfully bolstered by motivation to circumvent harder realities.
By the way, are you aware of any announced miracle technology which ever panned out according to predictions, without major rework, delay, and budget busting expense? Followed by shortfalls and reduced expectations.
Folks decide new technical ideas are cool when they know just enough to grasp potential positives. Later, as they try to develop it, they find out by experience all the stuff they did not know because the technology was new.
Defeat gravity.
You want to live in space where if not careful your diarrhea will float in tiny droplets all over the capsule?
That is not happening. Next idea, please
Don Nico, to me it is genetic engineering (master the human genome), and space travel (yeah, like colonization). Those are the areas I would like see developed.
CRISPR-cas 9 talents. That is the only human ability that will not be replaced by AI.
This is like asking a Genie for a 1000 more wishes as one of your 3 three wishes.
Self-replicating factories. Once we’ve got those, our wealth as a society will start growing exponentially, and we’ll be able to afford all sorts of projects that today are too expensive.
Not serious. Also potentially catastrophic. With efficient artificial intelligence, and sufficiently inexpensive energy, the entire planet becomes an ore.
Yeah, that’s why you put one on another planet. Once manufacturing costs don’t matter, you can cost effectively do it somewhere else.
Yes, actually serious. I’m a professional tooling engineer, and it’s my professional opinion that this is a very difficult, but totally feasible, thing to do.
Damn hard, but the payoff would be the universe.
…and which planet would that be?
Are you working on teleportation?
Probably the Moon, at first. Conveniently close by, and most of the hardware manufactured would be used in space anyway, for things like power generation, or mining nickle.
So how do you overcome the transportation costs involved with traffic back and forth to the moon?
You can launch things from the Moon using EM catapults, and a lot of things suddenly become economical when manufacturing costs decline asymptotically towards zero.
OK, that’s from the moon. How about to the moon? Do we wind up with mountains of moon shipping containers like what currently exists with ocean shipping containers from China clogging US ports?
With asymptotically zero manufacturing costs, you could build an orbital ring. That allows easy two way travel between the Earth’s surface and space.
Spoken like a true engineer. Maybe one day but neither you or I will see it.
That would be one hell of a catapult. We are only just beginning to develop rail guns and launch planes from aircraft carriers with EM. What’s the source of the necessary power? Nukes on the moon (power plants that is)?
Dream on, Mr Bellmore
That was kind of the point. Dream big. One monumental project. Which one would you choose?
I think we will have the precursor step quite quickly. I would actually claim that the step prior to what you are thinking is the vital one. The break through technology is inexpensive, smart manufacturing. Once that is in hand, self-replicating factories become doable.
All of the pieces are actually already here. It is really just a matter of time now. A huge government effort would probably do more harm than good. Just get out of the way and it will get built.
I agree all the parts exist in some sense, but there are a freaking huge number of parts that need to be assembled, and a lot of learning along the way.
One obstacle is that a self-reproducing factory needs to be complete, it needs to assemble in one unit the entire industrial process from mining to end product, without any missing pieces. And a lot of the information on how to do the individual steps is proprietary, not public domain.
Remote automated/teleoperated mining, refining, and factory operations. Especially in space.
“Which one if any would you choose?”
Ability to eat without gaining weight.
Take an ExLax with every meal.
Controlled fusion of hydrogen to helium. This would essentially give people almost unlimited access to electrical power.
Actually you’d prefer aneutronic fusion
Death. The biggest problem for humanity since long before we were animals that might remotely be claimed to be humans.
All else is piss poor bang for the buck, relatively.
Indeed, any business-unfriendly government policies, to say nothing of corruption and dictatorship, are vastly mass murderous by ignoring this issue.
Most of the answers to AmosArch’s question seem to be answering a different question: “If Tinkerbell was right, and wishing really really hard could make things happen, what would you wish for?”
Energy and dollar efficient carbon sequestration.
Admittedly mostly beyond the letter of the question, but perhaps not beyond its spirit (and of course hugely more important): Significantly reducing the harms due to human irrationality.
Let’s not do that. Resources are better off where they are.
Room temperature superconductors would be good though. Or space-based solar arrays that beam energy to the ground. Or commercially viable nuclear fusion — though space-based solar power is probably easier. A space elevator would be good.
Our biggest problems are outside the reach of science and engineering though.
he advocacy group Liberty Counsel’s executive director of DC Ministry, Peggy Nienaber, was caught on a hot mic making a claim that she prays with sitting SCOTUS justices inside the high court. She reportedly said “We’re the only people who do that.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scotus-justices-prayed-with-her-then-cited-her-bosses-to-end-roe/ar-AAZgUTS?cvid=72dd0482b1c6477e954ec7063c5b944b
Liberty Counsel frequently litigates religious issues before the Supreme Court. For members of the Court to entertain that kind of ex parte communication from persons with business before the Court is unethical and inappropriate.
Why was Heller necessary when Americans had the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went??? Such a head scratcher. 😉
The lawyer dumbass cannot read the high scholl level English of the constitution. All of high school gets erased by 1L. It is worse than a TBI resulting in coma for a month.
Only to the not-very-bright. Why was Brown v. Board of Education necessary when blacks had the right to equal protection?
Are the problems America and Americans are suffering because of how much power and control the Federals have, in spite of how much power and control the Federals have, or do the Federals have nothing to do with any of our problems?
The answer to all your questions is No.
That’s because you consider the “Feds” to be some sort of outside, alien group which works upon America and Americans independent of any control (process, legal, or physical).
Newsflash Sparky; they are us and we are them.
Apey. Heck no. They are the Mafia that seized control of an empire class government and are milking it dry.
The Federal Class is indeed a thing, no matter how much you deny it.
Re-read the Newsflash and get back to us how stupid you are.
No, you’re completely wrong. The Federal Class is not “us”, they hate us. We are not “them”; they have subjugated us into serving them.
BCD, since you’re name suggests you’re (prior? current?) military and I’m a military retiree, I’m going to help you.
Here’s something that might be able to cure what’s ailing you: https://www.etsy.com/listing/1189792485/tin-foil-hat-conspiracy-theory-kit
I’m a Fed. I have Republican coworkers and Democratic coworkers and apolitical coworkers. They come from cities and they come from rural areas. They have advanced degrees and they started right out of undergrad.
As apedad said, they’re as much America as you are.
No one knows who you are, much less hates you.
That sounds pretty, but we can see the reality with our own eyes.
You haven’t seen shit with your own eyes. You’ve decided you hate a thing, and you’ve decided to shape the thing into something worthy of your hatred.
Confirmation bias is your only factual predicate. That, and what seems like an endless resentment against the world.
You’re posting on the freaking Internet, dude! Who do you think got that going?
I know man! That’s exactly the way it worked. I started out hating the Federals, then sought out confirmation! It absolutely wasn’t the other way around were I saw a bunch of evil and then judged them and drew conclusions!!!! You totally nailed it, my Dude!
I was born hating the Federals! Too bad I wan’t a black male in the womb because then I mostly wouldn’t be alive today!
You are believing what you are told, albeit maybe taking it a bit farther than those feeding you this rot intend.
Charlie also can’t stop thinking about eating shit and raping babies, lest we forget. And he seems to think those are normal thoughts that make him normal. So… you get what you pay for, I guess.
The question is too broad to be meaningful.
Of course in some areas Americans are suffering due to federal power. Immigration problems can fully be laid at the feet of the federal government. The massive parasitic load of both military and federal bureaucracy can likewise be blamed on the Fed. Many of the more general economic problems we currently face are also federal problems.
That being said, things like retail theft and homeless issues can be laid largely on their local governments. The problems in places like San Francisco and Chicago are largely of their own making. Federal or local blame is not a either/or thing.
It’s because there are too many of them.
There are 133 federal programs for broadband internet, for example: https://reason.com/2022/06/03/do-we-really-need-100-different-federal-programs-to-fund-broadband/
Individually they are not villains. Together they are.
Uganda discovers gold deposits worth 12 trillion USD
https://www.miningreview.com/news/uganda-discovers-gold-deposits-worth-12-trillion-usd/#:~:text=Uganda%20announced%20that%20it%20had%20discovered%2031%20million,gold%20miners%20and%20investors%20in%20the%20crypto%20sector.
I don’t think this find will affect global markets that much but individual investors are going to get crushed.
At around $1,766/ounce, it’s near record highs but I’m sure that’ll change significantly.
https://goldprice.org/gold-price-chart.html
I’m sure comments will soon appear on VC offering a chance to get in on the ground floor of this discovery.
How would one play that? Shorts? Gold mining?
DaivdBehar…You hold gold for long periods, to improve long-term portfolio returns. By this, I mean 100-150 years. It is the lengthiness of the investment horizon that makes gold a worthwhile investment. Not many people think about long-term, multi-generational investing (simply because they do not have the resources).
Otherwise, buying gold to juice short-term returns is a fools errand.
Commenter_XY, I suppose the longer you hold the gold, the higher the probability becomes that some unanticipated development will knock the value out of it.
Folks outside mining communities tend to be less aware that the size of world reserves of un-mined commodities fluctuates with the costs of production. As improved technology lowers production costs, the size of available reserves increases.
It is not that hard to imagine that process combining with actual discoveries of immense deposits of very-low-grade ores to knock much of the value out of gold. It is even possible—given the secretiveness of the mining industry—to imagine that might already have happened, but so far gone unnoticed by the markets.
Someone could be buying expensive gold today from a mining company in possession of reserves so large that it has to suppress the information to keep the price up. Multiple companies could be doing that, and not even be sure of each others’ resources and marketing tactics. Or they could be doing it in cahoots. How would anyone know?
Much like the diamond market.
except that diamonds can be man-made
The main thing preventing that from happening is that the existing stock of already mined gold is rather large compared to the capacity to mine more. Which is why the price varies based on almost everything except the cost of production.
XY,
If you had bought an ounce of gold for $20.67 one hundred years ago you would have made about a 4.5% nominal return.
If you had bought it 150 years ago, at $27.86, the annual return would be 2.8%.
My comment was holding gold in a portfolio (with other assets). The mining cost aspect is irrelevant to me. The holding periods for gold to help portfolio returns is a lengthy one.
See this monograph.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2639284
I have a small amount of precious metals for just this reason. My father bought it ~50 years ago. It will go to my children. We’ll see in about 50 years or so whether the academic research was correct or not. 🙂
“$100 invested at 7% interest for 100 years will become $100,000, at which time it will be worth absolutely nothing.” Robert Heinlein.
His arithmetic is wrong, and so is his conclusion. Not the first time.
It’ll be worth $86,771.64.
The CPI was 16.8 in 1922. It’s 292.6 now.
So what you could buy for $100 in 1922 costs you about $1700 today, speaking roughly.
You want to re-evaluate Heinlein’s analysis?
An ounce of gold has been the price of a bespoke suit for roughly 250 years.
A myth. Among other things, the price of a bespoke suit varies greatly depending on the material used.
I’ve even heard it claimed that the relationship goes back to ancient Rome.
The question is not what the gold is worth; It is what is the cost to mine it. Because South American mines are insecure it can cost over $1400 per oz. What will it cost in Uganda? Prices wont drop as much as you think because the mine will not operate at a loss.
Also, “I don’t think this find will affect global markets that much but individual investors are going to get crushed” is a contradiction. There is no reason why individual investors would be hurt more or less than institutional ones.
The link does little to bolster belief in the claimed size of the find.
No. The gold market isn’t supply/demand driven in that way.
In any event, where will you spend your gold without first converting it to devalued inflated dollars?
It’s not supply-demand driven? How then is it driven?
First of all, some announcement about gold in the ground isn’t “supply”. Maybe someday it might be some amount of supply. Maybe not. Maybe not much. Talk is cheap.
Gold is hoarded. It’s not used as an input to production in a significant way. Demand is generally not for production. It’s not like demand of other goods.
So the price of gold tends to change as the exchange rate of currencies changes. Not because demand or supply are any different.
OK. You don’t understand supply and demand.
Gold in the ground is definitely “supply.” It’s a quantity of gold that will be available at some, possibly very high, price.
And demand is demand, whether it’s for use in production, for decoration, or just as some sort of hedge. There is a relationship between price and the amount people want to buy. That’s demand.
And why do the exchange rates of currencies affect the price?
(Of course the announcement could be BS, but it will still shift the curves to the extent some take it seriously.)
A story about gold is not a supply of gold.
Demand for hoarding doesn’t follow normal supply/demand patterns. Demand for other purposes besides hoarding is negligible for gold.
Hence the words “in that way” in my original post.
Go ahead and assume gold will be super cheap in the future if you want. Choose your investments based on hype.
I don’t assume gold will be super-cheap in the future.
I do think that saying, “Demand for hoarding doesn’t follow normal supply/demand patterns” betrays a complete, really complete, lack of understanding of what demand is. It doesn’t matter why people want to buy gold, only that they do (at various prices.)
I think saying, “A story about gold is not a supply of gold” betrays a not quite complete lack of understanding of what supply is.
“Supply” and “demand,” in economic terms refer not to quantities, but to relationships between quantities and prices.
Incidentally, Ben, a story about gold, if some holders believe it, definitely affects supply, and, if some potential buyers believe it, demand as well.
You should absolutely go ahead and invest based on announcements and notions about what demand and supply theoretically are.
I will watch how the markets actually behave and use that info to make decisions.
It actually parallels everything else:
You guys like stories about the future and about emotionally satisfying outcomes. And you’re in love with your own notions about how things should work — if you’re only strident enough, you think reality will change for you because of how special you are.
I watch what happens, learn from history, ignore hype, and try to make decisions that will work out good if I’m right and adequately if I’m wrong. The way things turn out in markets aren’t about me. Benefit comes from understanding reality and taking prudent actions, not pretending that reality is subservient to my wishes.
Ben, you are a complete fool.
You plainly know nothing about this topic yet persist in pontificating about it
Nor can you read. I offered no investment advice or strategy. I gave you a simple explanation of supply and demand, something you will find in Chapter One or Two of any introductory economics text. You don’t want to hear it? Fine. Continue being ignorant.
And then you go off and rave about what you imagine, falsely, I think and how I invest, and explain how you are in touch with reality. All of which is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Here you go.
Georgia Guidestones destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
Stacy Abrams blames Trump.
she would have
We visited them just two weeks ago, at our son’s urging. (We were passing nearby.) Glad we saw them while they were still intact.
The local authorities went out of their way to finish the job with suspicious speed. From what I could tell, there was some chance of them being repaired, and they were behind a gate that could be locked, so it wasn’t a genuine public danger.
The site was under 24 hour video surveillance from multiple angles, and setting up explosives to bust up a massive piece of granite like that could not have been fast, and yet they did it and got away. Makes me wonder, combined with the speedy completion of the destruction by local authorities, if it wasn’t something of an inside job.
Just because an area has 24 hour video surveillance does not mean an actual person is watching the video 24/7.
Hopefully review of the video will help identify the suspects though.
Obviously they need to call in the FBI because of their vast experience in “solving” crime like finding out who planted the bombs at Republican and Democrat offices in DC on Jan. 5th.
Oh, wait they still don’t know who did it. Never mind.
They literally took a year to even ask the public’s help in identifying the guy they had video of. Gives you the impression that they either knew already, or didn’t care to know.
Those bombs were a joke, by the way. I think they were just props to use as a distraction.
You believe a crazy conspiracy theory that makes no sense but would happen to align with your priors if true? Never could have seen that coming.
Quintessential Brett comment. Utterly loony, to the point where you wonder how he gets out of bed in the morning, and yet said with all seriousness.
Interesting. I knew nothing about them, and assumed they were some tainted object by some long-dead southern racist, but apparently it’s the opposite.
Put up about 1980, they contain bromide inscriptions of the left. In May, Republican calls for their removal, a month later, boom, then immediately torn down.
The ideas were stupid and gave impetus to big, intrusive government, even as it warned to be wary of officials and petty laws as one of its points! Some credit at least for realizing the corruption nature of government. No realization at all of the utility of the intrusive nature of the other ideas as fodder for roadblocking laws to get in the way, until politicians’ spouses’ mysteriously successful portfolios explode as the intrusions reduce a bit.
We were discussing it just last night: The inscriptions were actually kind of silly, not particularly threatening to anyone.
It would be a bad sign if violent iconclasm were catching on with the right, too. It’s bad enough having it be popular with the left.
Kandiss Taylor, who lost the Republican primary for governor of Georgia in May with 3.4% of the vote, promised to demolish the Guidestones calling them “Satanic”. She also campaigns for more guns, paper ballots, and a total ban on abortion.
Sounds like a fairly minor figure, but I suppose that if there’s a real investigation, they’ll be checking her out.
Having seen them in person, I can confirm that they
‘rewere not particularly satanic. Silly, maybe, but not satanic.Putin moves to block Russian Jews from immigrating to Israel
Uh oh . . . the Scheiße is going to hit the fan now.
https://www.rawstory.com/russia-jewish-immigration/
Meta-question: Blocked from immigrating or emigrating?
Putin has also gone to war on the NHL. Ivan Fedotov had announced that he was leaving the KHL and coming over to try his luck in the NHL.
First he came up with one of Putin’s Mystery Diseases and was hospitalized, then he was drafted into the army and posted at a remote arctic outpost to serve his duty.
Carry permit in the queue.
Who else is applying?
Which state?
Whichever state you are in. I am in MD. I can already carry in 2/3 of the country it will be nice to add my home state lol.
It seems like NY, NJ and MD have made it even harder.
not MD
I stand corrected. Apparently Hogan did the right thing.
Getting an LTC is more trouble than it is worth for me. If they came in cereal boxes along with free guns and ammo and training, maybe.
Paul Clement, who successfully argued his Second Amendment Case before the Supreme Court, has been fired because he wouldn’t abandon his clients.
His former firm, Kirkland & Ellis, says they will no longer be representing cases in regards to the Second Amendment.
This is a disturbing trend. It used to be that lawyers would defend any case, regardless of politics…it was a job, a professional responsibility.
But lately, it’s become apparent that liberals are using politics and professional pressure to “persuade” lawyers to drop cases that they don’t like politically. Essentially using their disproportionate representation in the legal profession to “cancel” views they don’t like…and legal fights for those views.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/23/lawyers-gun-rights-supreme-court-00041909
Should other professions follow suit? They may have no choice if these are the tactics taken.
It used to be that lawyers would defend any case, regardless of politics…it was a job, a professional responsibility.
You think lawyers and law firms don’t choose their clients?
How do we feel about, say, the Guantanamo haveas cases again?
Noble, but I don’t want to dragoon every firm into doing so.
Do you see any sign of professional pressure in this case, or are you assuming it’s ze libs at work?
Law firms are supposed to defend the most reviled people. The Boston Bomber had lawyers. Good ones. Epstein had lawyers. Charles Manson had lawyers.
I would not consider a law firm that declined to defend clients for political reasons.
Yes, but a lawyer is also allowed to pick their clients.
Republican causes are not hurting for lawyers – insisting this or that firm must choose to defend Republicans is pretty tyrannical, if you think about it.
LOL Poor John Adams, even Sarcasto ignores his sacrifice when convenient.
John Adams made a noble choice.
But we do not require every lawyer be John Adams.
Too bad they aren’t.
“we do not require every lawyer be John Adams”
Of course, of course. Just for causes Sarcasto likes.
“But we do not require every lawyer be John Adams.”
Nope. But we can shun as being unprincipled those who (very publicly) choose not to be in order to gain political favor. And like I said, if I needed a lawyer I wouldn’t consider them. What if for whatever reason during my situation I became politically unpopular? Would they continue to vigorously defend me? Or would they ditch me like a red-headed bastard stepchild? I ain’t taking that risk.
I couldn’t be a defense attorney. I respect those who are, but think it’s pretty near-sighted to insist that those who aren’t are unprincipled.
I’m not worried 2A issues will lack for good attorneys.
Trump’s outlandish claims may have some trouble finding good attorneys, but that’s not about the outcome, it’s about the methods he insists on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_has_no_rights
On difference is that Clement is not defending anyone, he is acting for a plaintiff seeking to advance an agenda. That’s not the same thing as John Adams defending British soldiers who would hang if convicted.
He’s defending people against infringement of their civil liberties. The firm dumped him because it doesn’t LIKE those particular civil liberties.
Confused about who is a plaintiff and who is a defendant?
Confused about the fact that if you sue somebody over violating your rights you’re the plaintiff?
Not a fair point. You can be a plaintiff advancing civil liberties. Mr. Brown of Brown v. Bd of Education fame was a plaintiff.
But that is still not the same as being a criminal defendant facing jail or death.
Kirkland & Ellis is now “liberals”?
Their client base is. That’s their real worry. If they though this would get them more net revenue, they would look to do more 2nd Amendment law.
These are lawyers, after all. Their only principle is, how much money can I make off this.
It’s also possible that they disagree with Heller and its progeny for substantive reasons and want their advocacy as a firm to advance a consistent position. Ever think of that?
You must know especially lousy (as people) lawyers.
I would have predicted that.
Do you know who Kirkland & Ellis is?
In the QAnon world, Kirkland & Ellis could be the law firm of Arthur Kirkland and Jenna Ellis.
Well, at least until Jenna Ellis is disbarred.
In the reality-based world, Kirkland & Ellis is a conspicuously conservative-friendly law firm that routinely makes business judgments about which categories of engagements to accept and which categories of engagements to avoid.
It’s one of the most liberal firms out there. They were one of the first to do the “tax gross up” for couples in sodomy based relationships.
I would like to conduct a thought experiment, that I hope some lawyers could address. Currently, participation is a state medical marijuana program is a disqualifying factor for obtaining a firearms license. The medical diagnosis is immaterial – if you participate in MMP, you lose your 2-A right to keep and bear arms.
Is that actually constitutional?
As I recall, Justice Barrett wrote a treatise (while Judge Barrett) on 2-A rights of felons. She made a distinction between felons who were violent and felons who were not violent; the non-violent felons should not lose their 2-A rights simply because they were convicted of a crime classified as a felony.
Can an analogous argument be made on the MMP side, and 2-A rights? A participant with a medical diagnosis for a chronic health condition like Crohn’s disease should not be treated the same as a participant who is in the MMP for psychiatric diagnosis (like extreme anxiety).
How would you go about making that argument, that MMP participants should not automatically lose their 2-A right to keep and bear arms.
Bonus question: Is it legal in NJ to inherit a shotgun and handgun from a parent if you do not have a permit?
Even if it was constitutional to take away 2nd amendment rights on the basis of a non-violent crime, the problem would be that the federal laws on drugs aren’t themselves constitutional. Raich was a constitutional abomination.
Isn’t Raich the same fact pattern as Wickard (just substitute pot for wheat)? So they couldn’t rule the other way in Raich w/o overruling Wickard, and that ain’t never gonna happen.
BTW, the Endangered Species Act is probably the most egregiously unconstitutional law in history (makes Wickard and Roe look like Federalist Society opinions), but nobody cares because they like bald eagles.
Defund the DEA.
I also think Raich was a constitutional abomination.
While I agree with the premise of your question that ppl cannot be firearms-disqualified for nonviolent offenses (at least, not for life), the question requires the right case to litigate and 5 Supreme Court Justices to agree. There are several prohibited person cases at the cert stage, but its hard to predict whether the court will take them.
Bruen makes its an easier question: no.
If a person commits a felony then that shows a certain (significant) level of disregard for the public/community/society.
It doesn’t matter if it’s violent or non-violent; if a person steals $1M by fraud, that still shows they are a menace to society and are willing to ignore – and indeed willingly break – established law.
Agree with BB federal drug laws.
That is the theory, and I agree it should apply to all cases of malum in se. Stealing $ 1M through fraud certainly qualifies.
The reasoning breaks down when you get to malum prohibitum. If you mail dentures taken from an impression not made by a licensed dentists, you are violated a federal criminal law. 18 USC 1821. Punishable by up to one year in prison.
Should such a person lose his 2A rights? Maybe, but that’s a bigger stretch than your case.
“doesn’t matter if it’s violent or non-violent”
It should. Guns should be denied to violent criminals because they are a violent menace to society and guns help them be more effectively violent, not that they broke some law.
We don’t permanently deny a fraudster his 1A free speech rights.
You likely don’t think all ex-cons should be denied the right to vote.
All felons should have the same restrictions.
Ex-cons are different though and I have clearly stated on the VC that there should be a process for ex-cons to be fully restored to society once they’ve met their punishments (fines, probations, etc.).
Stop projecting your pitiful life on me.
What is the difference between a “felon” and an “ex-con” in this context?
Felon means someone who has been convicted of crime, his current punishment status doesn’t matter.
Felons in prison aren’t buying guns. A “felon” in the gun buying/possession area is also called an “ex-con” because he’s not currently in prison.
I agree that if there was a constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm, it makes no sense for a felon to lose the right, even (or especially?) a violent felon. Just like with 1A.
But there is no such right. The question is whether a felon would be invited to join a well-regulated militia, such that keeping an appropriate firearm is constitutionally protected. It certainly seems legit to bar felons from militias. That’s the mechanism for them to lose their second-amendment rights but not their first-amendment ones.
In Massachusetts driving offenses with a mental state of ordinary negligence can disqualify you from having a gun. Possibly less than ordinary negligence, but definitely including ordinary negligence (MGL 90-24(2): “or operates such a vehicle negligently…”).
Unfortunately, the current situation is consistent with the (constitutionally problematic) doctrine laid out by Raich v. Gonzales. A marijuana prescription would absolve the user of criminal liability, but doctors may not prescribe marijuana because it is a Schedule 1 drug (“no medical value and a high potential for abuse”).
One could make an abstract — and I think reasonably convincing — argument that the classification of marijuana on Schedule 1 is simply wrong as a matter of fact. However, winning that argument will not change the legal situation.
I think the constitutional argument is the most valid one against the current system, I do not think it will convince enough judges or justices to win. Getting the executive or legislative branch to change what schedule marijuana is on should be much simpler under the current jurisprudence, but those branches seem uninterested in doing that, and it could be reversed by the same branches in the future.
Here’s the deal.
1. Barrett’s comments were actually about ex-felons. IE, those who were convicted and served their time time. Not about current felons…ie those serving time now.
2. Marijuana is illegal under federal law. It is not FDA approved for any indication. Marijuana has two separate medical components (THC and Cannabidiol) which are approved for very specific indications, and can be prescribed as such, legally.
Using marijuana is a crude plant extract…at best…as compared to using actual pharmaceutical grade chemical compound. It’s why it isn’t approved by the FDA for indications. That there are “medical marijuana” programs is due to public opinion. Not science. People like smoking pot, and they think it helps them. The science and controlled multi-phase clinical studies…well, that’s not really clear there.
3. By being in a “MMP” program, the person is actively breaking federal law (or at least strongly indicative of that). Not a while ago in the past (ie, as Barrett commented on, in regards to ex-felons), but currently…right now. There’s a strong argument to be made that someone who is currently breaking federal law, and chooses not to stop doing it, is a poor choice for a firearms license.
How do you apply the logic of #3 to states where recreational marijuana is legal? Do all residents lose their rights, or does it render prohibiting MMP participants entirely moot since they don’t actually need the MMP cards anymore?
Marijuana is an illegal controlled substance everywhere in the United States, regardless of whether a particularly state criminalizes its use or not. And it is a federal crime for someone is an unlawful user of a controlled substance to possess a firearm. That’s kind of all there is to it.
Libertarians – Ukraine is drafting its citizens into military service.
Given that libertarians are generally opposed to military drafts on principle (often calling it “slavery”), I would be interested in hearing their thoughts on the Ukraine’s use of the tactic. Libertarians frequently argue that in the case of a “real” threat, citizens will volunteer — obviating the need for a draft. Why hasn’t that worked in the Ukraine? Are Ukrainian ‘draft dodgers’ (violating Ukraine law) scoundrels or the “real” patriots? There is great sympathy for Ukraine (for good reason, IMHO), but is their draft abhorrent to Libertarians?
The equation changes when you’re under immediate threat as opposed to a general draft.
Or the ones who don’t volunteer made the personal decision that if they are ruled by a Ukranian government vs a Russian government isn’t worth their life.
I think a draft can be justified when your country is invaded by a superior army under circumstances like Ukraine finds itself in. I’ll leave aside for now the question of whether a draft is justified to stop the dominoes falling in Asia, to avenge the sinking of the Maine in a foreign land, or to settle other kinds of territorial disputes.
The advertising network that Reason is using is terrible. I have repeatedly gotten some ad from the NIH that takes over the entire web page and is not closeable (there is an X that looks like it should close the ad, but tapping it does nothing).
Why aren’t you using an ad blocker? Do you enjoy getting ads?
Mobile browsers suck (as a rule), and the one I use doesn’t support ad blockers.
A few years back, Juul, a vaping company, and half owned by tobacco IIRC, ran a loud campaign of removing itself from 97,000 normal stores, and put up large placards in places like 7-11 about how they were proudly leading the way (of corporate suicide), ran radio ads about the joys of regulations of it etc.
I hypothesized this was a giant loss leader by tobacco to kill off the vaping industry by pulling crushing regulation onto vaping using a marionette corporation pretending to be responsible. A senator from a tobacco state immediately obliged by introducing same.
Almost as if some asinine setup public play. Seemed way too coordinated to be just some scared company trying to pre-fend off such regulation, but rather to fan the flames it is dangerous and the company knows it.
Well, Juul got its wish last month by having its ecigs banned by the FDA. Central tobacco planning just gotta hope the big mo has a wave to pull down banning of the industry as a whole, I suppose.
It’s been temporarily reversed. I suppose that trial balloon banning is still a bit too much, too fast.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
This combined with the decision to drastically reduce the nicotine content of tobacco will result in a robust and violent black market. Just like Prohibition did and just like the drug war has.
Another classic example of the Biden Clown Show doing something that is Good For Us and completely ignoring obvious unintended consequences.
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-uss-bonhomme-richard-fire-who-was-in-charge/
Democrat Navy and their Diverses.
Why worry about Russia and China whe in so many cases the real enemy is within?
What do you want to do with this ‘real enemy?’
How about: don’t vote for them?
I live in the Twin Cities. When I see the criminal chaos we’ve had over the last two years, I know exactly who to blame: the Democrats running our state & local government (and the people who voted them in).
It’s the same on the national level. You vote in people like Obama or Biden, you get the sort of military leaders, like Gen. Milley or Sec. Austin, who seriously talk about “white supremacy” and seem to care more about political correctness than military effectiveness. Just as state / local Democratic leaders undermine law enforcement, national Democratic leaders undermine national defense. Please don’t vote for them!
The Navy ran a bunch of ships into crap when Trump was President, did you blame his leadership then?
The right turning on the military is a helluva thing to watch.
The Navy leadership are career Democrats or Diverses and as we saw with President Trump, the Executive Branch lifers don’t really give a shit about whose president.
Ha ha switcheroo
The Woke Democrat military deserves nothing but our revulsion.
You should probably leave America, if you hate like 99% of it.
That’s what replacement is for.
You think the Federals and their Democrat citizen bootlickers are 99% of the country?
lmao get real.
All Democrats. Also the military, the schools, Hollywood, Big Business, the media, silicon valley, and IIRC every institution we have.
America is only as good as it’s institutions. You hate just about all of them except maybe your church.
Not sure why you stick around.
Not her people, mind you; it’s only as good as her elites.
Says the Federal.
You think American people are somehow magically better human beings than other people? Did you suddenly convert to the leftist notion of human perfectibility?
You think this would have been different in 2019?
Military SNAFUs are not some partisan thing you can blame one party over, dude.
How many classes on diversity were the sailors mandated to attend instead of working on fire suppression drills? Read the article. It’s damning regarding readiness.
The Navy’s workload and training issues well predate the Biden Admin. Or did you miss the last go-round when this sort of stuff came up a few years ago?
And your assumption about diversity classes being the opportunity cost-based cause is unsupported.
But the D.E.I. training sure seems strong these days. And we have the first female admiral who is actually a guy. Hooray!
So priorities are right on target. Oh, yea and be on the watch for those white supremacists.
Your proof diversity training is in any way related is just you being grumpy it exists.
Ha ha so what part of it improves combat readiness? For example our tranny admiral, when the Chinese navy strikes what advantage does that provide us?
I’m betting their prime criteria for that position does not include tranny.
“tranny admiral”
He’s head of the Public Health Service, which for unknown reasons uses navy ranks. He’s not an actual admiral.
How many classes on diversity were the sailors mandated to attend instead of working on fire suppression drills?
I don’t know. Do you? I’d guess zero.
What the hell does Democrat Navy even mean? This is stupid. The officers on a ship respond how they respond with no regard for who the CinC is.
Under Democrat policies, the armed forces emphasize wokeness rather than readiness. They may not have a clue how to fight a fire, but they know the right protocols for pronoun discovery!
Oh fuck off. That’s idiotic.
I’m going to make a couple of suggestions about the Conspiracy:
1. Conspirators should be limited to one post per comspirstor per day. This rule would prevent any one conspirator from dominating, and also serve as something of a check to help conspirators think through their posts before posting.
2. Conspirators are of course free to maintain their own blogs and link to those blogs for more information. And Conspirators would remain free to include multiple subjects in their single post. But it might be hoped that the Volokh Conspiracy post might be a summary of, and hence reflect a certain amount of reflection on, visceral real-time posts on the individual blogs.
3. I’d suggest that regular posting about routine cases with no legal significance – for example, Professor Volokh’s posting of what seems to be every libel case as it comes out – go elsewhere.
3. Exceptions could be made, for example for a major Supreme Court case like Dobbs or an event like the Jan 6 attack. But these exceptions should be only occassional, at most a couple of times a year.
Start your own site and make your own rules.
Your suggestions have been summarily dismissed with a stern fuck off if you don’t like the site.
Ahh, I see you’ve been appointing yourself to things again.
Yesterday, in a rare moment of practically bowed to reality and declared nuclear and natural gas energy as “green”. Because, you know, you have to have some reliable energy sources to run your grid.
Greenpeace and Greta are apoplectic. They’d sacrifice all of us on their altar of purity.
Wonder if Biden and the chuckleheads running his energy policy will pull their heads out of the hole long enough to notice b
I think there’s a missing “EU Commission” in there somewhere?
Anyway, it’s nice to see that some people can still wake up to reality when faced with an existential threat.
“Greenpeace and Greta are apoplectic. They’d sacrifice all of us on their altar of purity.”
Sacrificing us is actually part of the agenda, not a cost. One of the goals of the radical environmental movement is drastically reducing human populations to what they regard as ‘sustainable’, and by drastically, I mean most of us, in their view, need to die. The most radical of them are openly advocating the extinction of the human race.
Yeah, I skipped over the “EU Parliament” part. Oops.
“The most radical of them are openly advocating the extinction of the human race.
”
Well, except for them.
No, Biden people won’t make any substantial changes.
EU government officials don’t hate Europeans the way US government officials hate Americans.
Queen, it is stupid to pretend right wingers will honor any principles their opportunistic legal policies may randomly imply. I predict it will remain stupid to do that.
Stephen you can change “right” to “left” in your statement and it will be every bit as accurate.
As US institutions are increasingly controlled by people with alien values, Americans’ trust in institutions hits new low:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-down-average-new-low.aspx
The people controlling the institutions will undoubtedly continue their ways. What could possibly go wrong?
Alien values?! Fuck off with that ‘Real America’ shit.
Your fellow Americans are also Americans, even if you don’t like them.
I trust out institutions, but also there are plenty of reasons to distrust them outside of this ‘Alien Values’ nationalistic exclusion nonsense. When in the history of this country has that attitude ever ended well?
Prime example of alien values from the Federal Class right there. Can’t remember the Civil War, WWII, or the Cold War. Or maybe thinks the wrong side won those wars.
Our attacks on alien values in WW2 and the Cold War weakened us. Or do you think the Japanese internment and blacklisting were a source of strength?
Leftists love blacklisting
They love internment too. It they’re only doing blacklisting (“cancelling”) of thought-criminals now, it’s because they don’t (yet) have the institutional power for mass-scale internment.
Don’t change the fucking subject – in this thread YOU are the on advocating for othering your fellow Americans. And you cited the Cold War as a success story on that front.
You don’t get to suddenly point left and claim they love the shit YOU are advocating for.
You run away from your own shit once it’s pointed out to you it stinks. Lame.
Nope. Not me.
Alien values?! Fuck off with that ‘Real America’ shit.
Amen.
The right loves to talk about how “coastal elites” don’t respect other Americans, but it’s people like Ben who think anyone who doesn’t share their political opinions and attitudes is unAmerican who are disrespectful of others.
You wonder why the country is so divided? Shit like that is part of it.
You people write national articles about how seeing an American flag causes you severe anxiety and fear.
You people. Sure.
You. People.
Weird that story doesn’t seem to be about either me or bernard.
It’s a rhetorical “you”. Have you ever read a book?
I’m impressed you were somehow able to include two links in a comment.
bernard11,
On the rare instances that I drive, I like to KALW (san francisco) to hear what is on the far left agenda. The commentators and guest very frequently (almost always) refer to flyover states.
Do you really think that is respectful of their fellow Americans?
… like to listen to …
Don,
I think it is mildly disrespectful, mildly scornful, though, for some, geographically accurate.
I don’t think it is nearly as bad as talking about how people in the cities are “alien,” or not “real Americans.” The level of contempt directed at “coastal elites” really is absurd.
If you read our “coastal elite” newspapers you will, from time to time, find an article where they sent a reporter out to some inland place to find out what the locals think, or put together a panel of inlanders to talk about things.
They usually go to a diner, and don’t really learn much, though a few of the comments they get are frightening. I wonder how often one of your papers does the opposite and sends a reporter to the hell of NYC or Boston, to try to explain our thinking to its readers.
In short, I think my side of the cultural divide, while very far from perfect, does a better job of trying to understand yours than vice versa.
I suspect part of this is due to the somewhat absolutist effect of strong religious belief. I lived in Nashville for two decades, and still have friends there. I liked it, but one thing that I hated was the almost suffocating degree of religiosity.
The survey is the survey. Keep pretending the “birthing people” stuff and all the rest isn’t alien.
Surveys of voters regularly show climate change (to pick another example) is very important to less than 5% of people. “Alien values” is concise.
When has that sort of disconnect with the public ever ended well?
The “other reasons” to distrust institutions don’t make it better, BTW.
Fuck you too. People can disagree with you and not be alien.
You’re bad at being in a republic if you delegitimize everyone who doesn’t think exactly like you.
Fuck off to North Korea if that’s how you want to roll.
He said, making it clear that there would be no discussion of the differences between elite values and common values. Or of why leadership of institutions are distrusted by large (many times overwhelming), growing majorities.
Are you Ok, Sarcastr0?
XY,
Do you have any idea how infuriating people like Ben are?
He has his opinions, and I suppose his friends share them, so he concludes they are virtually universal, and only a few “elites” feel differently, and anyone who does is somehow “alien” or un-American.”
It’s at the core of all his comments, and it’s disgusting.
I was not surveyed by Gallup for this survey result.
The survey doesn’t say anything about alien values, jackass.
Values totally sympatico yet distrusted by large majorities…
I am having a bit of a day at work.
But bottom line, I don’t like being told my values are alien.
I think most American think it’s horrific to be busing untested illegals around during a deadly pandemic, giving them cash cards, iPhones, and hotel rooms. While Vets are left to rot under bridges.
The Federals’ values on display are pretty alien to us Normal Patriots.
Just another patriot who hates everything about America except for some handwaving about the people. People who seem to have no effect on the country itself.
haha yeah millions of illegals are having no effect on the country at all!
haha yeah, not at all! haha yeah not liking open borders and not liking prioritizing illegals over bets means I hate everything about America! haha yeah.
See? Sarcastr0? You think your alien values are “everything about America”, Normals outside the Federal Class do not agree with you.
iPhones.
Unsurprisingly, you are full of shit.
“Fuck off to North Korea if that’s how you want to roll.”
Is that really necessary or useful (when you are still supposed to be working for the taxpayer)?
You don’t know what hours I keep. I’m not on billables; I have time take some time off and post and cover my responsibilities.
That guys sucks, and I enjoy explaining to him why.
You clock out when you’re gaslighting all day on this forum?
lol yeah sure you do man.
This has nothing to do with whatever the hell alien (Martian?) values are.
Decades of incompetent out of touch public officials doing whatever the hell they want despite the constitution is the root of the unpopularity. Years of dishonest political hyperbole and media spouting narratives rather than facts. Like I posted up above, our “elites” are suffering from a massive credibility crisis.
Alien values are values that are (to use the words from the Google search) “unfamiliar and disturbing or distasteful” to the people surveyed.
Institutions are distrusted because the people in control of them are increasingly alienated from the people the institutions exist to serve. So yeah, “out of touch” is synonymous here (but I personally prefer to try to avoid idioms).
There is nothing in that survey to support your claims.
Among the institutions listed is the Supreme Court. You think they are losing respect because they are corrupted by liberal coastal elites?
You said “coastal elites”. I said “alien values”.
From the article: “the Supreme Court and big business are rated about as poorly as Congress is among Democrats”
Dems are mad at the Supreme Court these days. Supreme Court seems to value what laws and the constitution say. Apparently that’s alien to people who think laws and the constitution should be understood to say whatever Dems claim to prefer, regardless of the actual words written.
So the Supreme Court is unpopular, but it’s doing what “the people” want, but the unpopularity is due to the Democrats, who don’t count, as far as you are concerned.
What a jackass you are.
That’s a lot of stuff I didn’t say.
Related: Trust in the Presidency fell sharply during the Obama years, increased moderately under Trump, and now has fallen sharply again since Biden was installed:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/07/07/gallup-public-trust-in-the-presidency-sees-most-significant-drop-under-biden-since-obama/
I think the explanation is clear: Trump has his cult who will always support him no matter what; Biden doesn’t.
So Biden doesn’t have much trust because (naturally) the people on the other side don’t like him, but also many of the people on his side of the aisle are upset with him, also.
Whereas Trump also didn’t have cross-aisle support, obviously, but his own side couldn’t bring themselves to criticize him.
Anybody hiked the Kungsleden?
(I’m doing three-weeks staring mid-August)
No but it looks awesome!! If you’re into that sort of thing, highly recommend the GR 20 in Corsica
That one looks both beautiful & brutal. Did you do it?
I did, it’s very steep and scrambly in sections for sure. Don’t need to carry much food with all the refuges though. And corsica is really beautiful
And as a bonus, If you like wild mushrooms, and go in September, get ready. Porcini madness!
The Kungsleden has regular huts called fjällstations (not a piece of furniture by IKEA) with resupply. I’m going to start with six days worth of food & see how it works out. Been experimenting w/ cous-cous and dehydrated veggie mixes, mushrooms being one ingredient (since I’ve always been too timid to pick’em wild). That and Spam in little packages. I developed an undying love of Spam while hiking the AT
Despite all the jokes, Spam is pretty good stuff.
Oh yes, the single spam slices in foil. Good stuff there. Enjoy! Let us know how it goes
I paid in cash at the supermarket this morning and had to wait a couple minutes while the worker at the register was taught (in Spanish) how to handle cash. The cash drawer was empty except for a pile of ones.
State law says stores have to take cash. Even if I am declared a terrorist enemy of the state, cut off from electronic funds, I can still buy food.
Next time pay in $2 bills and dollar coins and watch the confusion.
For good measure throw in some Eisenhower dollars and Kennedy half dollars.
I used to do that, but I ran out of $2 bills.
I know a real nice vegan strip club that only gives change in $2s
You can still get them. I few months ago I was in a Federal Reserve Branch and they had a Plexiglas cart with, I was told, 2,200 lbs. of $2 bills in bundles. The trick is finding someone who actually has them.
My grandson has recently told his mom that he wants $2 bills for rewards.
Which is more VC:
The guy writing a post about how he paid cash for groceries, had to wait a few minutes to checkout but left with his groceries, and then made some vague yet bold assertion of his right to buy groceries in cash.
The guys advising said fellow to make the lives of retail cashiers just a little harder and a little worse than they are already.
You decide…!
The post complaining about the prior two posts?
Disaffected, antisocial, right-wing misfits come to this blog to huddle for warmth because they dislike and can’t handle modern America. Plenty of them seem autistic, too. Lots of night shift IT help deskers. Just the kind of assholes who would mistreat a cashier for giggles, especially if that cashier is not white or isn’t a drawling hayseed.
Your point is?
Given a choice of two languages to use for the explanation, doesn’t it make sense to use the one she understands better?
Hey, the person was working for a living. Why complain about his/her/hir/them/us
I’m not complaining, John is.
Twitter has unsuspended Covid vaccine contrarian Alex Berenson and admitted it should not have “permanently suspended” his account: https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-reinstates-alex-berenson-account-covid-tweets
Do you agree or otherwise with this part of the Constitution of Florida:
“Registration and elections shall, and political party functions may, be regulated by law; however, the requirements for a candidate with no party affiliation or for a candidate of a minor party for placement of the candidate’s name on the ballot shall be no greater than the requirements for a candidate of the party having the largest number of registered voters.” (Art. VI(1))
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution#A6
I suppose I wasn’t relly expecting answers, because they don’t make for a good Punch-and-Judy show.
So how about this: Who is more responsible for keeping third parties off the ballot, Democrats or Republicans?
Neither, it’s one of those things they generally agree on.
This particular cycle the Democrats going after the Greens are most egregious. See in particular what the Dems on the election board are doing in North Carolina.
However, in the past the Republicans have done equally bad things to Libertarians. In the long run I’d have to call it a wash.
Perhaps the reason the Dems are worse right now is that they seem to think they “own” particular blocks of voters and the Greens are “stealing” them. Combine that self-serving rationalization to the natural desire to win elections at any cost and you get some pretty bad actions.
I thought the British had already removed their Johnson.
Wrong post, but on the other hand it would be silly either way.
Boris Johnson has agreed to resign. The people who don’t like him anyway accused him of being a bad manager (better speaking in opposition than acting in leadership), but the proximate cause seems to have been the false denials of knowledge of scandals.
Some in the EU are taking a break from celebration to wonder if slaying the tyrant will lead to an even worse regime (from the EU’s point of view).
Long tradition of resigning over trivia.
Too bad.
Maybe reclaim his US citizenship and run for president?
Trump voters consider groping mere trivia. News at 11.
He didn’t grope anyone.
He hired a groper and “forgot” about it.
Also relevant:
“Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
See Tara Reid.
“forgot”
Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t.
It was a minor official, a deputy whip, who harangues MPs to vote. Its quite possible he forgot, also possible he lied, he’s a politician after all.
I bet he would have survived just that one incident, if the lockdown party and coverup had not already made him look bad.
Sure, he was already weakened. Westminster is a shark zone.
The Brits like it that way.
Sexual assault against an adult does count as mere trivia by the standards of a UK Tory.
Jimmy!
We got another guilty plea late last week. Quotes From this gentleman’s statement of offense:
“We are inside the Capitol building. It has been overrun… the capitol building has literally been broken into. This is what a motherfucking revolution looks like.”
And
“People have just stormed the front of the capitol building through tear gas… people aren’t supposed to be up there but they’re up there.”
Can you believe yet another brave patriot who was just taking pictures like a tourist upon being allowed in failed to mention that before pleading?? These guys should have you on speed dial as standby counsel!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.236782/gov.uscourts.dcd.236782.52.0.pdf
Yea lets deny bail and lets hold someone for over a year with no end in sight. The prosecution is still not ready darn it! So a forever continuance and no bail for you by the way first time offender. You’re dangerous.
Yea, sure that is totally on the up and up.
Who has been denied bail and has been held for more than a year with no trial setting? Please be specific.
If there is such a defendant, he may have a valid claim for dismissal based on deprivation of a speedy trial — a dismissal which he would likely prefer to standing trial.
There is a ton. Julie Kelly at American Greatness has been the best coverage. I’m sure the MSM has ignored it.
Speedy trial Ha!
So you can’t name a solitary defendant? Why am I unsurprised?
Show your work.
Because your original objection got blowed up as factually wrong.
Do you have another contender?
You know, there was a time, way back before the internet when dinosaurs roamed the earth, that commenters on this allegedly “legal” blog could reasonably be expected to have looked at the underlying documents before flapping their huckleberry lips in a situation like this. Those days are long gone and buried, obviously. I wonder sometimes if the proprietors reflect on the choices they have made and how that may have contributed to that degradation.
What led you to believe this individual has been detained for over a year? You might be enlightened by the document I linked to, or the the plea agreement.
This guy was released on his own recognizance at this initial appearance and agreed to every continuance prior to pleading guilty. Other Than that, great point!
So Justices were having prayer sessions with a group filing amicus briefs in Dobbs.
At an evangelical victory party in front of the Supreme Court to celebrate the downfall of Roe v. Wade last week, a prominent Capitol Hill religious leader was caught on a hot mic making a bombshell claim: that she prays with sitting justices inside the high court. “We’re the only people who do that,” Peggy Nienaber said.
This disclosure was a serious matter on its own terms, but it also suggested a major conflict of interest. Nienaber’s ministry’s umbrella organization, Liberty Counsel, frequently brings lawsuits before the Supreme Court. In fact, the conservative majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which ended nearly 50 years of federal abortion rights, cited an amicus brief authored by Liberty Counsel in its ruling.
In other words: Sitting Supreme Court justices have prayed together with evangelical leaders whose bosses were bringing cases and arguments before the high court.
Nienaber is Liberty Counsel’s executive director of DC Ministry, as well as the vice president of Faith & Liberty, whose ministry offices sit directly behind the Supreme Court. She spoke to a livestreamer who goes by Connie IRL, seemingly unaware she was being recorded. “You actually pray with the Supreme Court justices?” the livestreamer asked. “I do,” Nienaber said. “They will pray with us, those that like us to pray with them.” She did not specify which justices prayed with her, but added with a chortle, “Some of them don’t!” The livestreamer then asked if Nienaber ministered to the justices in their homes or at her office. Neither, she said. “We actually go in there.”
…
Liberty Counsel’s founder, Mat Staver, strenuously denied that the in-person ministering to justices that Nienaber bragged about exists. “It’s entirely untrue,” Staver tells Rolling Stone. “There is just no way that has happened.” He adds: “She has prayer meetings for them, not with them.” Asked if he had an explanation for Nienaber’s direct comments to the contrary, Staver says, “I don’t.”
But the founder of the ministry, who surrendered its operations to Liberty Counsel in 2018, tells Rolling Stone that he hosted prayer sessions with conservative justices in their chambers from the late-1990s through when he left the group in the mid-2010s. Rob Schenck, who launched the ministry under the name Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital, described how the organization forged ministry relationships with Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the late Antonin Scalia, saying he would pray with them inside the high court. Nienaber was Schenk’s close associate in that era, and continued with the ministry after it came under the umbrella of Liberty Counsel.
Sorry. All that was from the linked article.
I sped read the article and didn’t see where it specified which justices were involved in this, but there’s an implication that it was Alito and Thomas. And might have been Scalia but he ain’t with is.
If it was just those two, did it make any difference? They were foaming at the mouth to overturn Roe from the day they were sworn in.
Does it strike you as plausible that the “only people who do that” would be representatives of a religion that none of the justices belong to?
American Catholics are basically just evangelical Protestants at this point. Hell, Kony-Barrett was a member of an evangelical cult, despite claiming Catholicism.
Her last name is Barrett.
Dear Lord! SCOTUS justices have freedom of religion too. And can hold personal views that conflict with law. For example adultery is frowned upon by most religions but its not against the law.
Panties twisted big time because regarding Roe apparently. There is and never was any right to abortion in the constitution.
Roe was a farce. Overturning does not necessarily make abortion illegal. State decision or not. Could be just left up to the people. 10A
I’ve long given up hope that you will someday have a salient point to make.
Also, does consorting with a filer of an amicus brief constitute a conflict of interest? Clearly doing so with a party would, but amicus brief filers are not parties to the case and theoretically don’t gain or lose directly as a result of the decision.
That’s a good faith question. I don’t know.
You left out the best part:
“Staver acknowledged to Rolling Stone that if such prayers are taking place, it would be “inappropriate,” given Liberty Counsel’s extensive litigation efforts to end abortion and advance other far-right causes. “
Nancy better get those impeachment wagons rolling then, only 6 months left as speaker.
You know belief and faith are tenets of “religion”.
The pro-abortion folks believe there is a right to abortion even though it cannot be found in the actual constitution.
Seems like a religion of its own.
“Liberty Counsel, frequently brings lawsuits before the Supreme Court”
Did those Catholic justices discuss a pending case as they prayed with that non-Catholic?
Not sure I believe it yet; we’ll see how the Court reacts.
The livestreamer then asked if Nienaber ministered to the justices in their homes or at her office. Neither, she said. “We actually go in there.”
Ex parte communications with only one side’s counsel (or amicus counsel) will hopefully give rise to an investigation. Obviously nothing of substance will come of it, but this should be case to further delegitimize a fundamentally illegitimate court.
I doubt that the five justices in the pro-coat hanger bloc don’t care about legitimacy. An investigation would be idle ceremony, in that no remedy is available.
1) An amicus is not a party.
2) There is no ethical rule against a judge talking to a party/counsel about things unrelated to a case. I bump into judges in the courthouse all the time (well, pre-covid) and will schmooze with them even though I have cases pending before them. We don’t talk about the cases.,
Quit being sensible. The court is illegitimate! Illegitimate I tell you!!!!
“Dodgson! We’ve got Dodgson here!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6FXdloCUOM
Really, associate justices praying is what gets your blood up? What’s next!? ZOMG our democracy is under attack. Did you know that newspapers are delivered to the Court?! Heck, they’re even delivered in person by officials of the federal government!
Pants afire! Democracy dies in darkness!
“suggested a major conflict of interest”
non justiciable
What possible defense does the Highland Park 4th of July shooter have? What would you do if you were defending him? I have not heard a single reporter mention the presumption of innocence.
Insanity
The presumption of innocence applies in court, but isn’t binding on anybody else, so we’re not obligated to pretend there’s actually any doubt here.
Defense attorneys are supposed to ensure their client’s rights are protected and to address any concerns, e.g. illegal search, impartial jury, etc., not really to “defend” him.
Defense attorneys aren’t supposed to defend their clients. You heard it here first folks!
He wore a dress.
No charges can be brought against the gender transitioning.
Drug-induced insanity.
That gun control laws work. They must work because the smart people keep suggesting them.
Therefore he was unable to get a gun under Illinois strict laws. Therefore this whole incident didn’t happen.
And if it did, he’s not responsible because he was assured by authorities that it couldn’t happen and he relied on that assurance at every step, always expecting the promised gun control remedy to bring events to a halt. He was as shocked as anyone by the outcome. He suspects he was setup.
This State Lost HALF Its Pandemic ‘Stimulus’ Benefits to Fraud and Scammers
The level of fraud the state experienced was ‘unprecedented’ and amounted to more than $1.8 billion lost.
The federal government’s multi-trillion-dollar “stimulus” efforts during the pandemic may go down as the biggest legislative failure in modern American history. Congress spent an astounding $42,000 per federal taxpayer (do you know anyone who received anywhere near that much in benefits?) and only successfully “stimulated” inflation. What’s more, evidence continues to mount that the biggest beneficiaries of this binge were criminals and fraudsters.
A new analysis from the American Enterprise Institute’s Matt Weingarten reports that the state of Illinois lost half of the money it sent out in expanded pandemic unemployment benefits to scammers.
Illinois’s inspector general reports that the level of fraud it experienced was “unprecedented” and amounted to more than $1.8 billion lost.
https://fee.org/articles/this-state-lost-half-its-pandemic-stimulus-benefits-to-fraud-and-scammers/
Secretary of State Blinken has stated that Brittney Griner is “wrongfully detained” in Russia, but with no explanation of what is wrongful about it. She admits to having packed hash oil in her luggage, and protesting that she didn’t intend to break the law might help reduce the sentence but won’t deliver a not guilty verdict.
A common enough answer in situations like this is that the defendant is repatriated to serve their sentence in their home country. I’d assume that’s what the State department would be angling for, and I’d assume Griner would be happy to skip the Russian prison experience, but the “wrongfully detained” public rhetoric won’t help those negotiations.
There is some chance she was coerced into confessing, but my money would go on a legally supported excuse to take an American hostage. Like when the feds hounded the man they thought had information on the art stolen from the Gardner Museum. I don’t think they made anything up, but they would have been unlikely to pay attention to him if they thought he knew nothing.
I imagine there are oodles of “confessions” in Russia. Some of the confessors may actually be guilty.
That doesn’t actually distinguish Russia from, say, Japan. But the consequences of conviction in Russia are a lot worse; At least in Japan once you sign that confession they put in front of you, the treatment isn’t that bad.
Let’s not forget the obvious:
Russia may well have planted those drugs.
Federal elected officials have about a 90% incumbency rate.
There are 34 or so “independent” Federal agencies, many with lawmaking powers, filled with civil servants who weren’t voted in and can barely even be fired.
Federal politicians routinely write broad and ambiguous grants of lawmaking power to independent and not independent agencies for unelected and unfireable civil servants to make the rules that govern us.
Given these three facts, if the Federal class isn’t accountable to the voters or to the public in general, do the Federal institutions serve us, or do we serve them?
I’ll add how people vote in our republic to the list of things you hate.
I’m glad you still believe voting matters. Let me know when you have some proof it does.
Guess what the data say?
https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think
Like the Federals in Congress, it doesn’t care what you believe.
Some dude was throwing Molotov Cocktails at the Capitol Police and they rushed to defend him.
He must’ve been an Antifa, or the FBI (BIRM) or some other Democrat agitator or protected class.
Maybe it was Michelle obama
Robert Crimo Sr. is demonstrating that he is a disgusting, delusional, dangerous person who should be scorned, shunned, prosecuted, and bankrupted by all decent, better Americans. And he is a deplorable conservative gun nut.
What is his screen name at this white, male, gun nut blog?
So not one Conspirator has anything to say about the new Florida law requiring students and employees of Florida colleges and universities to declare their political beliefs?
I will: it’s false. No such law exists. There was some misreporting about it, but most outlets have corrected it now.
The Florida Constitution’a privacy amendmnet was passed in 1980, at a time when the “right of privacy” in the legal lexicon clearly included abortion. Roe itself had characterized abortion as a core part of this “privacy right.”
So it seems to me that any fair attempt at an originalist interpretation, one that honestly attempts to understand what the framers meant rather than using the judicial branch to impose ones own privacy preferences, cannot fail to interpret the amendment as protecting a state constitutional right to abortion, as the Florida Supreme Court had previously held.
Sure, the US Supreme Court stopped using “privacy” to describe its substantive due process jurisprudence and the term came on to take a different meaning from what it meant at the time the constitutional amendment was framed and approved by the voters
But I think there can be little doubt that this is what both the legislators and voters had in mind when they approved the amendment. It’s what it clearly meant at the time.
If the judicial branch is to be anything like fair, if it’s not to be simply a matter of substituting a power grab in favor of policies one likes over a power grab in favor of policies one doesn’t like, then I think there is no possible fair or honest way this state constitutional provision could be read any other way. I think any fair judge is sworn to say so and give it effect, liberal or conservative, like it or not.
Indeed, if judges flat-out refuse to recognize and accept the plain meaning of a duly enacted textual constitutional amendment because they don’t like the policy behind it and want to pretend it means something else, we may as well stop pretending we have a Republican form of government. And we should certainly stop pretending conservatives favor letting the people decide.
You didn’t have to be the Amazing Kreskin to see this one coming. Indeed, you pretty much had to be Helen Keller not to see it coming:
Musk shouldn’t be permitted to have anything to do with purchasing Twitter until the SEC and others have properly taken every last penny he made (and then a few hundred million more) from his stock purchases of Twitter and subsequent violation of the reporting requirements.
An antisocial, reckless, autistic, selfish, immature, awkward, right-wing IT jerk turns out to be be unreliable and a person of low character?
Wow.
Read a fucking book, dude.
The Federal Class is made up of career bureaucrats and similar jobsworths who get personal power and prestige from the federal government having untrammeled authority.
But you knew that.
Will those who were quick to yap and yammer about Lois Lerner now speak out about Trump’s IRS?
Audits are random, but they’re weighted towards people who have large changes in their finances, like Comey’s seven-figure book deal that year.
And it’s frivolous to blame Trump for McCabe’s audit, which was started under Biden’s administration.
Oops. The McCabe audit occurred in 2021
Wow! Your posts are exceptionally stupid this morning.
Forget to take your meds?
I also heard that the mortality rate in hospitals and nursing homes is much higher than among the general population. That sounds like a catastrophic health crisis, and we should shut them down immediately.
Yes, movies mostly describe things that don’t really happen.
It’s amazing how far the left goes to make everything political. It’s called totalitarianism, and it’s neither pretty nor virtuous.
Queenie, they weren’t just demanding that he drop the clients before the next case. They were demanding that he drop them in the middle of litigation. A clear cut ethical violation.
And they did this after he’d started winning. So it’s not like he was making the firm look bad in the sense of being incompetent. They just didn’t want the clients to have representation.
I was thinking the opposite. Too much of the good stuff
Cool comment, Bruh.
I love how the article proves it by percentage of CEOs are Republican. They didn’t use amount of donations or to what causes. Simply “63%” of CEOs are Republican. I’m betting, and if you are intellectually honest (which you clearly are not), the CEOs of smaller and medium-sized corps give far less than Soros, Gates, Bezos, Levi’s, Starbucks, Banks, Google, Amazon, Apple, Twitter. Hell, the in-kind donations of social media are worth their weight in platinum.
“Woke Capital?”
Yes, they let their employees run amok on social media and political grandstanding to curry favor with that side
Their political registration [and likely donations] is to curry favor with the GOP side.
Then you didn’t read all of it, or understand it—or both.
It wasn’t a turf fight it was a game of hot potato. “You take it. No, you take it.”
Sailors didn’t know to use the fire suppression equipment. Didn’t know how to use respirators. Didn’t know if they were wearing the right uniform??? WTF??
…an inconvenient truth.
You think the director of the IRS tells employees to “randomly” audit particular people? And that this wouldn’t get leaked?
Talk about intellectual dishonesty!
Professionalism is not what happened in Pennsylvania.
Check out who the IRS commissioner is, and who appointed him.
Were you really trying to argue coincidence?!!
. . . especially to uninformed wingnuts. The IRS director is still a Trump nominee (for a few more months, unless something unusually occurs).
Like dinosaurs hunting people! Like vampires! Movie tropes based in fact!
No wonder it often seems that you live in a world of fiction.
Check yourself; do you think a big firm would openly break ethics rules like that?
Seems to me that ongoing representations does not mean current litigation.
Wrong again. It’s not unethical to withdraw from litigation if the presiding judge grants permission.
The Fed class is made up of career bureaucrats, and political appointees from all walks of life, and details from academia, and details from the private sector, and direct hires of practitioners and experts in the relevant subject matter, including the military.
Many even take a pay cut to work policy in their area of interest!
I have a good friend in my office who is a libertarian, and attends CPAC. (We mostly talk movies and foreign policy)
The federal government is not what you’ve been told it is. You’re listening to people with an interest in making you hate without knowing. Maye don’t listen to them.
“Many even take a pay cut to work policy in their area of interest!”
Suspect behavior. They want something.
So, the IRS director orders audits? If so you think ther would be plenty of other targers starting with the Bidens; all of them.
Sneaky to wait until Trump left office to commit a felony on behalf of Trump!
I mean incredibly predictable.
Keep going with more broad brushes please. So inclusive!
You’re really an empty suit. Very Rev like.
Can’t debate a lick though
Uh, right dude, no civil servant in the Executive Branch participated in any sort of resistance against Trump. They didn’t anonymously publish any articles in the New York times either!
It was the Mandela Effect!
lol get bent you gaslighting bootlicker.
Democrats and Diverses are who run the Pentagon, numbnuts.
Sure, Bob. Like you’re commenting here because you want something.
Some people find they like doing stuff they’re interested in enough to accept less pay in return for being able to do that. Humans are not value-maximizing animals.
You need me to define what a socioeconomic class is?
You people can chop up and classify people by race, gender, lifestyle , income/wealth, but can’t even fathom any other way a group of people might be similar?
Dummies.
You think this is just a coincidence, then?
So this is just a coincidence, is what you’re arguing.
Good lord what a tool.
A hobby [posting] is different than taking a pay cut.
Nothing about government is interesting either.
So where is it in the constitution, search “no results found”?
Yes. First, it would leak. Second, if he was inclined to commit this felony, he would have done it when Trump was in a position to protect him.
Vast majorities distrust institutions but you think the values of the leadership of those institutions are perfectly in sync with the people who distrust them?
You’re succeeding.
Oh yeah dude, that’s all it was! Just advising him!
Hashtag TheResistance!
It was all just advice!
This is why us Normals despise you people.
Haha yeah dude, Hashtag TheResistance was just advising Trump and didn’t do anything else at all! !! Haha yeah! That’s exactly what happened!!
I feel the same way about the Federals as the Jews claim they did against the National Socialists in Germany.
https://search.brave.com/search?q=socioeconomic+class&source=desktop
lmao you ignorant dunce
VA administrators killed vets by denying them healthcare for greedy capitalist money bonuses.
I saw those same VA administrators still get their bonuses and keep their jobs.
That doesn’t happen to “regular ol’ Americans.”
Why do you people always make this argument?
As if the entire Executive gets torn down and rebuilt every time there is a change in President.
It’s just so dumb.
Yes. Trump couldn’t replace Obama’s pernicious legacies overnight. The Deep State and Federal Class fought him tooth and nail.
Audits are random, but they’re weighted towards people who have large changes in their finances, like Comey’s seven-figure book deal that year.
Selections for ordinary audits are weighted in various ways, but these special audits are, I think, supposed to be purely random. They only do a few thousand a year and they are devastatingly thorough, much more so than an ordinary audit.
They go through every line item on every page, asking for documentation. My understanding is that the purpose is not so much to audit the individual taxpayer as to set standards for selecting suspicious returns.
If these were routine audits this might easily be a coincidence, but that’s pretty unlikely here.
There are so alternate explanations that no one has suggested a single one.
Only the Republicans have 90% incumbency rates!!!
Another smart take. Kudos!
Sorry your worldview is so pinched you can’t understand people with different interests than you who seek things other than money from life.
I quit being a lawyer to do what I do. Absolutely took a pay cut, and have no regrets.
Sounds like your real beef is with capitalism.
As a class, do they get away with it and still get to keep their ill gotten gains?
Veteran’s Administration/Deep State is Socialism.
That’s why the Federals were able to get away with murdering those vets. The ruling elites in Socialism always mass murder and rarely get held accountable.
As we saw with Trump, the Federal Class lifers in the Deep State are unmoored from any accountability to the President.
Presidents don’t really matter. We saw with Trump and now with Biden, they definitely aren’t the most powerful person the world like we were always led to believe.
Why do you keep insisting all military officers reside at the Pentagon? Is it because you’re stupid?
I see, you don’t know anything about the VA scandal.
Got it.
Haha yeah, I’m anti-military ONLY because Gen. Milley committed treason and got away with it and NOTHING else!
Haha yeah, that’s exactly it! You so nailed it, my Dude!
The Obama IRS was proven to have used political targeting for auditing applications for non-profit status. Lerner got in trouble both because she (not as the IRS commissioner, but as a lower level flunky!) participated in that targeting and then tried to hide the pubic acknowledgment of malfeasance.
In this case, there’s only conjecture of improper behavior… and that conjecture is apparently based on projection.
It’s almost like your argument was dumb from start to finish, and now you’re trying to hide behind weasel words.
They have greedy capitalist money bonuses in socialism now?
“They have greedy capitalist money bonuses in socialism now?”
Always have.
Hypocrisy is their go-to move. That, or they have memories like gnats.
I almost admire it. Trump especially is the master of like, pre-emptive hypocrisy. He’ll say something that sound weird, then days or weeks later, a story breaks that reveals the hypocrisy. It’s breathtaking.
Why argue? Let’s take this opportunity to pour less money into the military. Just like we took the opportunity to humiliate Disney. Just like we should take the opportunity to kneecap big tech.
Many of the policy aims of the left happen to overlap with the hallucinations of the cult(ure) warriors on the right. It’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, really.
Pretty clearly not a coincidence, but I don’t assume the director was necessarily responsible.
It could easily have been some lower level individual who took it upon himself to get Comey and McCabe.
In fact, that might be more likely.
The deep state is a conspiracy theory.
‘I don’t know how the administrative state works, so I assume everything that doesn’t go like I’d want it to is sabotage.’
Talk about the International Bankers next, it’s the same nonsense.
I am sorry that you do not know how to use a dictionary.
But not at all surprised.
You have provided not provided evidence that (a) your claim about lawyers is true, (b) your claim about tropes is true, or (c) that there is any useful way to tell whether the two claims have anything to do with each other. You have only disclaimed the reliability of your assertion about tropes.
Member of conspiracy complains that people recognize the conspiracy. Need at 11.
Argh. I hate this commenting system.
The IRS targeting controversy was a very real thing: https://web.archive.org/web/20180225112702/https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2017reports/201710054fr.pdf
From Wikipedia: “the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny” and “a November 2010 version of the IRS’s BOLO list indicates that liberal and conservative groups were in fact treated differently because liberal groups could be approved for tax-exempt status by line agents, while tea party groups could not.”