Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Jimmy the Dane]

So how about Trump this week?!?!?!?

[Kazinski]

The walls are closing in.

But too late to save Liz Cheney.

Also interesting is the House Special Election in Alaska where Sarah Palin is in a fairly close race with Begich for second place.

It's reasonably likely that whoever takes 2nd will take the seat since both Nick Begich and Palin are Republicans.

But hard to tell how many people indicated a 2nd or 3rd choice, and how many Never Palin voters cast votes for Begich and tabbed the Democrat for 2nd choice.

If the race stays the same then Palin needs 6% + more of Begich's 29% than Petola to win.

[Mr. Bumble]

How does "ranked choice voting" square with the idea of "one man, one vote"?

[JasonT20]

Every voter is using the same system, so every voter still gets just one vote. What you seem to be objecting to is that voters that hate all of the other candidates but their first choice wouldn't take advantage of the system, while voters that actually find more than one of the candidates acceptable won't have to pick a "lesser of two evils" candidate in order to not waste their vote.

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally, what I object to is the whole notion of "ballot access". In early America, prior to the Civil war, the right to vote was the right to vote for whoever you pleased, because the government wasn't printing ballots, people were providing slips of paper with their candidates' names on them. And they could write any name they wanted.

Around the time of the Civil war governments started providing pre-printed ballots as a convenience, and it wasn't long after that they saw the potential to manipulate who people could easily vote for. But recently, it's starting to become common for governments to flatly prohibit voting for anybody they don't give permission to vote for, outlawing write in votes.

Parties are private organizations, they should just nominate whomever they want, and people should be allowed to vote for whoever they want. Manipulating the outcome by controlling who people can vote for? It's an obnoxious abuse.

[DaivdBehar]

Libs of Tik ToK banned from Facebook. No reason given. Ban is permanent, with no appeal allowed.

Libs of TikTok reposted woke videos with neutral comments, such as the source.

Libs of Tik Tok is also being attacked by the staff of Boston Children's Hospital for the death threats being received. Libs of TikTok only reposted videos of their doctors discussing hysterectomies in children without any uterine disease, but for transition purposes. They were posted without real commentary.

[Nige]

So libs of tiktok was responsible for a barrage of death threats aimed at a children's hospital?

[Michael P]

No more than the hospital itself was.

[Nige]

The hospital aimed death threats at itself?

[Michael P]

I have no idea, but Libs of TikTok didn't aim any death threats.

[Nige]

libs of tik-tok pointed its followers at a children's hospital and let fly.

[DaivdBehar]

Libs posted a video by its doctor about hysterectomies, without comment. Cheery, friendly GYN gives a very clear explanation of the procedure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRxlH9bPlm0

[DaivdBehar]

I found the video shocking. I may have to report her or face jail time myself.

Say, the NYT has 10000 lawyers who are subscribers. An article describes misconduct by a lawyer, perhaps not in the same state of the lawyer. If any of the 10000 lawyer subscribers fails to report the misconduct, are they engaging in misconduct under 8.3 (a) and (b) for judge requiring the reporting of misconduct.

Can I buy the mailing list of lawyers subscribing to the NY Times and blast 10000 emails to the Disciplinary Counsels of the 10000 lawyers to demand pulling their licenses for that violation, after inserting the names from the mailing list?

[Nige]

LOT knew exactly what it was doing.

[Michael P]

Libs of TikTok helped someone get their message out. Nothing more. As usual.

[Nige]

Those messages were loads of death threats aimed at a children's hospital. As usual.

[DaivdBehar]

Harvard Law prof of the LGBTQIAA persuasion is now demanding that Twitter remove Libs of Tik Tok.

Since I started on Twitter, I can see, this blog is a very civil, proper, place of intellectual discussion. Twitter is pretty rough. I do not even know how to use it, for example, how to reach all the comments. I am reporting leftist comments on posts I do not know. They are more tolerant than Facebook, which I quit. There, I was bagging 20 leftist comments a day. I got bored with my 30 days suspensions every other day, and left. Came here. Nobody gets bagged here.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't be a myopic apologist for violent yahoos.

Funneling violent assholes towards a children's hospital is not an innocent act. It may be legal, but don't pretend it's cool and good.

[Michael P]

Nobody is posting apologia for the threats. Why do you people post such obvious lies?

[Ed Grinberg]

Why do you people post such obvious lies?

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."
They lie and call you names because they've got nothing.

[Bob from Ohio]

A children's hospital doing mastectomies on teenage girls is not an innocent act. It may be legal, but don't pretend it's cool and good.

[Nige]

Thus are death threats justified. Even though you have absolutely no reason to actually trust the source of your information, because who could be stupid enough to trust those soures?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Funneling violent assholes towards a children's hospital is not an innocent act."

Lol. Since when is criticism, or in this case merely linking to a video that the hospital produced, "Funneling violent assholes..."

LOTT gets death threats as well. Are you "funneling violent assholes" towards them with your comments here?

[TwelveInchPianist]

It was just a few weeks ago that folks here were cheering the doxxing of LOTT. And now these same people are shitting themselves over BCH’s own video being published, without any personal information about the staffers who are mutilating innocent children.

And let’s not forget BCH’s history. A few years ago they kidnapped a teenage girl because her parents chose to follow the advice of a non-BCH doctor.

[Nige]

'Since when is criticism, or in this case merely linking to a video that the hospital produced, "Funneling violent assholes...'

Since that's exactly what happened.

[Michael P]

Nige, repeating an incoherent accusation doesn't make it either true or coherent.

Do you think Democrats in Congress funneled the attempted assassin to a Supreme Court justice's house by criticizing the Dobbs decision? Did the White House funnel death threats by saying that decision was an unconstitutional action?

[Sarcastr0]

It's happening with LoTT over. and over. and over. Like 100%.

It's pretty ridiculous to pretend that isn't intended at this point.

You counter of 'but this one guy this one time' is so weak it just shows by contrast what intent looks like.

[Michael P]

I'm sure you will decry Biden's DOJ for enabling and funnelling death threats against journalists. https://nypost.com/2022/08/18/nyc-man-accused-of-threatening-fox-news-anchors-avoids-prosecution-twice/

Or you'll find some other double standard that involves ignoring half of what somebody else says. Tough call!

[Sarcastr0]

You keep using single anecdotes with dodgy causality compared to the clear pattern at play here.

I can't tell if you're in bad faith or just that dumb, but you are not comparing like with like.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's happening with LoTT over. and over. and over. Like 100%."

Huh? What happens over and over is that lefties (Often, but not always journalists, get criticized, claim that the criticism resulted in harassment and threats, and then claim that criticism is tantamount to harassment and threats.

Nobody's dumb enough to fall for this shtick, Sarcastro.

[Sarcastr0]

So your take, TiP, is that everyone reporting death threats when LoTT points to them, is lying because to them criticism is threats?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So your take, TiP, is that everyone reporting death threats when LoTT points to them, is lying because to them criticism is threats?"

WTF? How the hell should I know if they're lying?

My take, as I have made painfully clear, is that you don't get to insulate yourself from criticism by claiming that someone threatened you as a result of the criticism.

This is a take that you seem to agree with when it comes to people that you support.

But you've tried to make distinctions based on humiliating arguments (it's criticizing when we do it, but funneling outrage when LoTT does it, BCH is immune from criticism as a "rando", etc.) I don't know why you keep at it.

[Nige]

'Do you think Democrats in Congress funneled the attempted assassin to a Supreme Court justice's house by criticizing the Dobbs decision? Did the White House funnel death threats by saying that decision was an unconstitutional action?'

No. Do you think there was just one single source for information on the Dobbs decision that triggered the threats? Libs Of Tiktok does this all the time, and it's pretty much all they do: funnel threats and hate.

[Nige]

'My take, as I have made painfully clear, is that you don't get to insulate yourself from criticism by claiming that someone threatened you as a result of the criticism.'

You don't get to conflate criticism with death threats. LOTT didn't result in criticism, it resulted in death threats.

[Nige]

'claim that the criticism resulted in harassment and threats, and then claim that criticism is tantamount to harassment and threats. '

It's proably because of all the 'criticism' that comes in the form of harassment and threats.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You don't get to conflate criticism with death threats. LOTT didn't result in criticism, it resulted in death threats."

Sigh. You're the one conflating criticism and death threats.

LoTT didn't threaten anybody, remember?

[Nige]

No, it's death-threat-loving followers did, as they always do.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So libs of tiktok was responsible for a barrage of death threats aimed at a children's hospital?"

Were the people who criticized Dobbs responsible for the threats against the Justices?

This "You cant criticize me because it puts me in danger" line that is popular on the left is just idiotic.

[Darth Buckeye]

Almost everyone who attracts attention on the web gets death threats. It is a sad symptom of our times.

What I want to know is what is the proper acronym to use for LGBTQ+? It keeps changing. I don't want to use the wrong one. For that matter, the rainbow flag keeps changing. Use an early version and you will be accused of being a white supremacist. Pretty soon, gay men will be the new white supremacists. That will be amusing to watch.

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty soon, gay men will be the new white supremacists. That will be amusing to watch.

Sure, chief.

In reality, of course, you try in good faith to call folks what they want and you're going to be fine. But you seem more picking a fight than actually wanting to use the right term.

[Kazinski]

Libs of Tik Tok shared a video made and released by a surgeon at the hospital with a quote and no commentary.

They are justifiably outraged at the hospital, although not justified in making threats. LOT has no obligation to keep the hospitals human rights and child abuse a secret:

"On Aug. 11, Libs of TikTok shared a video showing Dr. Frances Grimstad, a gynecologist and obstetrician at Boston Children’s Hospital, speaking about “gender-affirming hysterectomies.”

In the promotional half-minute video, Grimstad describes the procedure, which is “the removal of the uterus, cervix, and fallopian tubes” as well as, in some cases, the removal of ovaries.

Boston Children’s Hospital touts itself as the nation’s first pediatric hospital that established an adolescent transgender health program. The medical community has come under fire from conservatives over gender-affirming care provided to young people."

[Sarcastr0]

Fucking death threats.

When you're just the messenger and you know you're aiming death threats or bomb threats or worse at who you mention, you are absolutely being immoral.

Culture war aside, this is not a means good people use.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who are you criticizing, Sarcastro? Nobody is defending the death threats.

But you seem hell-bent on perpetuating the ridiculous lie that people who criticize BCH are responsible for the death threats, even though you defended the doxximg of LOTT a few weeks ago, which resulted in death threats against her.

[Sarcastr0]

"I'm just pointing over there, and then people over get death threats.

I have nothing to do with it!"

A child's attempt at a defense.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"A child's attempt at a defense."

So no argument, eh? Sounds about right.

But I guess that's the best you can do when your claiming that you shouldn't criticize institutions because others might threaten them.

I mean, talk about a heckler's veto!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I'm just pointing over there, and then people over get death threats."

You criticized Dobbs, and then somebody showed up at Justice Kavanaugh's house trying to kill him.

I suppose you claim that you had nothing to do with it!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sarcastro you’re ignoring his point and just repeating the same criticism. Meanwhile you yourself have engaged in the same behavior you accuse him of, perhaps worse.

Remember when setting buildings on fire wasn’t actually violence? Or when showing up at a justice’s house with guns and instructions an how to kill wasn’t actually attempted murder because the guards scared someone away?

You’re not really in a position to criticize someone over this.

[Kazinski]

Fucking Child Abuse.

You are as much complicit in covering up child abuse by saying it can't be discussed as LOTT is complicit in death threats is by exposing the child abuse happening at a children's hospital.

[Sarcastr0]

TiP - funneling outrage at randos is what LoTT exists to do. That is not the same as criticizing a Supreme Court Justice. Shame on you for trying to make that utterly weak comparison.

bevis - I continue to hold that attempting to set an building known to be empty on fire is not violence in the same way attempting to murder congresspeople is. And noting the law of attempt may not cover acts stopped at the point that guy did is not saying he's cool and good. You know me better than to accuse me of condoning murder. What the fuck, man?

Kaz - check into what was actually happening at that hospital before you go all child abuse. You are one of the useful idiots that LoTT trains on these people and institutions that do not deserve it.

This culture war stuff is bringing out the worst in a lot of you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"TiP - funneling outrage at randos is what LoTT exists to do. That is not the same as criticizing a Supreme Court Justice."

Boston Children's Hospital is a "rando"? Do you even listen to yourself?

How humiliating it must be for you to be forced to be this ridiculous.

[Kazinski]

Hard to be a useful idiot when I don't follow anyone or interact with anyone on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, truth social, Parlor, Getter or even Linkedin.

I got better things to do.

[Nige]

Equating health care for trans kids with child abuse is going to get someone hurt, or killed, it already leads to hateful bullshit like this. It's definitely going to lead to less health care for trans kids, and probably trans adults as well.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Nobody is opposed to health care for trans kids. We just want to stop castrating them, giving them unnecessary hysterectomies and double mastectomies, and keep them off drugs.

[Sarcastr0]

You are wrong about stuff, Kaz - I don't know where you got the idea, but it's pretty clear you didn't check into what was actually going on before you popped off about child abuse.

Maybe check a bit before you invoke child abuse incorrectly.

[Michael P]

S_0, you are wrong about stuff. You should check into places like Tavistock before you pop off about child abuse.

[Sarcastr0]

We're talking about a particular hospital, chief.

This is beginning to smell like QAnon.

[Nige]

'Nobody is opposed to health care for trans kids'

Of course you are, hence the death threats.

[Kazinski]

"check into what was actually happening at that hospital before you go all child abuse."

But what LOTT did was re-post a video of a surgeon at the hospital, in his own words, in edited posted himself to tell people what is going on at the hospital.

But we are supposed to listen to the PR flacks and apologists trying to explain away what the surgeon said as to what is really going on there?

No one is condoning death threats, but we aren't going to shut down talking about the issue because of a few idiots, who aren't serious anyway. No more than abortion rights activists are going to stop demonstrating and advocating over a real attempt to kill 3 SC justices and their families.

[Nige]

Yes, you are in fact supposed to listen to the qualified and relevant people telling you what's actually going on rather than the frothing lying transphobic death-threat slingers.

[Nige]

Oh, and good news, this won't stop frothing transphobes firing off death threats, so, rest assured, the great debate continues: shooting or hanging?

[not guilty]

"But recently, it's starting to become common for governments to flatly prohibit voting for anybody they don't give permission to vote for, outlawing write in votes."

Brett, can you cite a statute that "flatly prohibit[s]" write-in votes? (Please identify jurisdictions and statute numbers, so we can look up whether you are once again making shit up.)

[David Nieporent]

It's a half-made-up thing. About 10 states do not allow write-in votes, but there is no 'recently,' or 'starting to become common.'

[Brett Bellmore]

What is a write-in candidate? (2020)

"Nine states (Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota), do not allow write-in votes." (This is for Presidential elections, btw.)

Here in South Carolina that rule was enacted in 1982. "SECTION 7-13-360. Place on ballot for write-in names.

The ballots shall also contain a place for voters to write in the name of any other person for whom they wish to vote except on ballots for the election of the President and Vice President."

Apparently David doesn't consider 1982 to be "recently".

[Noscitur a sociis]

Correct: no one in this context would consider "recently" a fair description of "40 years ago".

[David Nieporent]

To be fair, I refuse to accept that 1982 was 40 years ago, because that would make me mumblemumble years old, which is just not true.

[Brett Bellmore]

The country is over 200 years old, 40 years ago IS "recently" in that context.

[David Nieporent]

The universe is 14 billion years old; therefore the Punic Wars were "recently."

[OtisAH]

“Ladies and gentlemen please welcome the endlessly ridiculous Brett Bellmore!”

JFC, what a schmuck.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court upheld Hawaii's ban on write-in votes because it was so easy to get on the ballot.

[Brett Bellmore]

But that treats it as a right of the candidate to run for office, when what's really at issue is the right of the voter to vote for whoever they want.

[bernard11]

But that treats it as a right of the candidate to run for office, when what's really at issue is the right of the voter to vote for whoever they want.

I don't see the problem. If Jones doesn't want to run, why should he be drafted, which is what a write-in vote is an attempt to do, after all.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and if Murkowski wants to run and loses in the primary she was free to run as a write in candidate and wound up (unfortunately) winning last time out.

[carvedriftwood]

They can invalidate your signatures to prevent a candidate from appearing on the ballot. I suppose you could fight the invalidation of signatures, but the election would probably be over before you could effectively fight it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not withstanding the pros and cons of ranked choice voting is the problem of counting the votes. Alaska is a relatively small state but I've seen reports that the final tally may be weeks away.

[Life of Brian]

"Weeks away" has nothing to do with ranked choice voting:

Advocates said the results in a close race would be just as unclear under the traditional system, because election officials have to wait for absentee ballots. Overseas absentee ballots are due Aug. 31, and many Alaskans vote by mail. The ranked choice voting process won’t start until Aug. 31, according to the state’s election division.

Once all of the ballots are in hand and processed electronically, the ranked choice voting process can happen immediately. Results are expected to be certified by Sept. 2.

“It can happen in a matter of seconds,” said Deb Otis, research director at the election reform group FairVote, who explained the tabulation process happens via a computer algorithm, not by hand.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/dont-blame-ranked-choice-voting-alaskas-slow-results-advocates-say-rcna43583

[David Nieporent]

Right. And, indeed, the alternative to RCV is generally a record round of elections — i.e., a runoff — which would be many more weeks away than September 2.

[Michael P]

There are plenty of alternatives to instant runoff voting that don't have its flaws. Condorcet-compliant methods are also "ranked choice", but do not have some of IRV's weaknesses -- an example is non-monotonocity, where more people voting for A can cause A to go from winner to loser (under IRV, but not under methods like Schulze's). Approval or utility voting are non-Condorcet methods that can satisfy the independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion (see also Arrow's impossibility theorem).

[Life of Brian]

Condorcet-compliant methods are also "ranked choice", but do not have some of IRV's weaknesses

The Condorcet methods I've seen are very math- and/or process-intensive, which is just going to create more room for confusion and questioning of the process/results. I don't think that's a good tradeoff in exchange for cleaning up a few theoretical corner cases that may or may not ever happen in real life.

But more importantly, the perception of complexity and opaqueness will keep theoretically better methods from being adopted, so we'll never get away from the current two-party protectionist system.
Ranked choice is easy to understand, easy to administer, and addresses the most significant flaws of our current system. Perfection truly is the enemy of perfectly adequate here.

[jb]

Totally agreed with this. There seems to be some amount of momentum for the adoption of RCV, which is the only path I see to upsetting the current two-party system that is serving is extremely badly at the moment.

[Michael P]

They're mostly that way when written in a formal, academic manner. Tideman's alternative methods are simpler Condorcet methods, although his Ranked Pairs is even simpler in the case where there are no ties, and Smith/minimax satisfies some other appealing properties while being almost as simple.

[Life of Brian]

From Wikipedia:

The RP (Ranked Pair) procedure is as follows:

1. Tally the vote count comparing each pair of candidates, and determine the winner of each pair (provided there is not a tie)
2. Sort (rank) each pair, by the largest strength of victory first to smallest last.[vs 1]
3. "Lock in" each pair, starting with the one with the largest number of winning votes, and add one in turn to a graph as long as they do not create a cycle (which would create an ambiguity). The completed graph shows the winner.

[Followed by a page-and-a-half long "simple example" full of stuff like "The vote tally can be expressed as a table in which the (w,x ) entry is the number of ballots in which w comes higher than x minus the number in which x comes higher than w." and "The fourth majority tells us that x is preferred to y, and since we know that w is preferred to x we infer that w is preferred to y . . ."]

If that's the simplest Condorcet method to be had, that just reinforces why it'll never get serious traction.

[David Nieporent]

"Record round" was supposed to be "second round." Autocorrect.

[Kazinski]

One man same number of votes?

I've also heard it described as instant primary voting.

I don't think it's a constitutional issue because nobody gets their vote diluted. Plus it keeps the major parties from playing games by having fake third parties siphon off the vote from their opponent.

[Nige]

It's not a magic bullet cure-all for a country's various democratic shortcomings, but it's a huge improvement.

[Mr. Bumble]

What "democratic shortcomings"?

[Nige]

Gerrymandering. The electoral college. That sort of thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Think it is far from a "huge improvement" and has nothing to do with your examples.

[Nige]

Think you're wrong about the first, and your second was exactly my point.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree that rank choice voting is a natural push back to gerrymandering. Gerrymandering reduces people's choice and RCV gives some of that power back to the people.

[Mr. Bumble]

Rank choice voting will do nothing to resolve the problems of gerrymandering,
period.

[Moderation4ever]

I am not suggesting it will solve gerrymandering but rather it will balance out the power. Parties create safe districts, but people can now vote for multiple candidates in order of their preference. Gerrymandering reduces competitive elections in a district and RCV returns some of the competitiveness back.

[Mr. Bumble]

To Moderation4ever:
Rank choice voting will not resolve the issue of gerrymandering, which has been an issue since the founding of the republic and will continue to be one unless and until either the SC makes a definitive ruling on it or we pass a Constitutional amendment defining the parameters of how districts may be formed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What "democratic shortcomings"?"

Not electing enough Democrats. The purpose of rank voting and jungle primaries is to elect Democrats.

60%+ of the people voted for the two GOPers but the Democrat might win anyway if enough people didn't write a second choice.

[David Nieporent]

Not electing enough Democrats. The purpose of rank voting and jungle primaries is to elect Democrats.

God, can you people ever be anything other than stupid partisan hacks? The Alaska electorate — heavily Republican — did not adopt RCV because they wanted "to elect Democrats."

[Bob from Ohio]

Its the groups pushing it that want to elect Dems.

[Sarcastr0]

Which is why they've targeted the purple state of Alaska.

[Bob from Ohio]

"purple state of Alaska"

Its a weak GOP state, 60% registered independents.

After DOJ framed Stevens, a Dem was elected as senator. The governor before this one was an "independent" [disgruntled GOP] who ran with a Dem lt. gov.

Most importantly, there are two GOP factions, an establishment one [Murkowski] and a populist one [Palin] who sometimes are in opposition to each other.

Its ripe for a "non-partisan" scam like RCV.

[David Nieporent]

Its a weak GOP state, 60% registered independents.

It's a "weak GOP state" that has voted Republican for president every single election it was in existence except 1964. It's a "weak GOP state" that has had a Republican congressman for all but 2 years since 1967. It's a "weak GOP state" that has had two GOP senators in all but one term since 1981, with that one Democratic victory being a narrow one over a guy who had just been (wrongfully) convicted of a felony.

Just stop. You're pathetic.

[Bob from Ohio]

Go take a walk or something David. You're going to have a stroke.

Look at the last decade, not 1964. Trump only got 52% both times. Sullivan won his senate seat by 6,014 votes in 2014, a great GOP year.

West Virginia was the most Democratic state in the US a couple of decades ago, now its heavily GOP.

Things change.

[Nige]

Well, yes, Democrat voters are seriously under-represented.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Not electing enough Democrats. The purpose of rank voting and jungle primaries is to elect Democrats."

This is your brain on team-sport partisanship. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a point in Bob's life when he was capable of rationally evaluating a policy proposal and forming a cogent argument about its adoption. But somewhere along the way he's outsourced his thinking to the Republican Party, and now can only think in terms of whether something is good for Team Red. Very sad.

[DaveM]

Actually everyone will potentially get their vote diluted if there isn't a majority win, that's literally how a ranked-choice system works: the last place choice from the bottom of the list on each round is removed. Oh, sorry, what that your choice? Too bad. Thus, it has exactly the opposite effect of preventing parties from playing games, it makes game-playing the very core of the exercise --- only now the game is way more complicated so you have to hire more consultants.

Bah. It's a terrible system.

[David Nieporent]

That's not what any of those words mean. (How can "everyone" have their vote diluted? That doesn't even make sense.)

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not a terrible system for the general election. I do object to it for these "top two" primaries, because it's being used to limit who people can vote for in the only election that matters, the general election.

Even in general elections, it's no cure all; Arrow's theorem still applies to it, EVERY voting system can fail given the wrong inputs.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There are significant issues with Ranked Choice voting.

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/ranked-choice-voting-bad-choice

[David Nieporent]

The polemic is wrong in many ways, though given the author I assume that's deliberate rather than confusion. It contradicts itself and pretends that problems inherent to having more than two candidates on the ballot are actually problems with RCV.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And yet, you offer no specific argument as to why it's wrong.

Generally speaking, a runoff election is much better. It offers voters a clear choice between two candidates, two choices, where after the primary people can fully assess the positive and negatives of each candidate.

RCV can be manipulated and suffers from ballot fatigue. Often a popular candidate who may be liked will be ranked low by partisans in order to avoid a disadvantageous final two choice.

[David Nieporent]

It does offer voters a clear choice between two candidates, yes, artificially making it look like the winner has majority support. But it does not actually guarantee that; no system can when there are more than two candidates. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem) It's also significantly more expensive for taxpayers and causes a lot of people to not vote at all for that 'clear choice.'

There are certainly other viable possibilities worth exploring — approval voting, for instance — and RCV/IR isn't perfect. But it's better than plurality rule (the most common arrangement in the U.S.) and has definite advantages over non-instant runoff.

[bernard11]

And yet, you offer no specific argument as to why it's wrong.

You don't have to read very far to find this falsehood:

In the end, a voter’s ballot might wind up being cast for the candidate he ranked far below his first choice—a candidate to whom he may have strong political objections and for whom he would not vote in a traditional voting system.

Wrong. The voter does not have to include every candidate in his ranking, only those he finds acceptable, whether that's one, two, or ten. Leave a candidate out of your ranking and that candidate will not get your vote.

So, big surprise, von Spakovsky and Adams, two major "vote fraud" grifters, either don't know WTF they are talking about or are deliberately lying.

Am I supposed to take Heritage seriously?

[Voize of Reazon]

That article gives the Australia 2010 federal election as a failure of ranked choice voting, saying

The liberal Labor Party won the Australian House despite receiving only “38 percent of first-place votes on the initial ballot, while the second-place Liberal-National coalition [the center right choice] captured 43 percent” of first-place votes.

Actually it was a 3 party election and missing from this summary are the Greens who won 12% of the first choice votes. Australia 2010 was a success of ranked choice voting, not a failure. It prevented the splitting of the liberal vote that would otherwise have elected a conservative government the majority did not want.

[David Nieporent]

You noticed that, right? There was sleight of hand there where they just kind of forgot to address the existence of the 19% of people who didn't vote for either of the top two candidates.

[Rossami]

Ranked-choice is entirely consistent with 'one man one vote'. It is no different than the one vote you get at a time in an election that spills into run-off elections. All ranked-choice does is enable instant run-offs. You still only get one vote and your vote has exactly the same weight as my vote.

[FivebySixThree]

Liz needed the boot. Another war monger within the party who barely campaigned during the primary and tried to pass it off as her serving on that sham investigative panel was more important.

Amazing, a hero of many on the left yet she openly supports water boarding and more; as in her views are nearly identical with her father.

[JasonT20]

Amazing, a hero of many on the left yet she openly supports water boarding and more; as in her views are nearly identical with her father.

She is not a hero to me (though I am "left" only in comparison to most people here), but I acknowledge that she at least has the integrity to stand up for basic principles of democracy and the rule of law in this one case rather than slavishly abase herself in loyalty to Trump like almost every other Republican in office or seeking office.

That she has in the past and continues to hold positions I strongly disagree with does not erase that.

[Nige]

"A hero of the left.'

She's a bog-standard Republican with the one exception of openly disbelieving Trump's lies about the election, and the Republicans are working hard to make sure that no Republican candidate can succeed without claiming to believe Trump's lies about the election.

[Sarcastr0]

It's telling where the GOP is these days that the baseless 'hero of the left' insult is the best they got.

Negative partisanship, and nothing but.

[David Bremer]

Honestly, I don't understand why the Wyoming democrats don't have their candidate resign and put his support behind Cheney. Their candidate basically has virtually no chance of winning. But if they supported Cheney, they may be able to keep a pro-Trump candidate out.

It's the same reason why I don't know why republicans don't endorse moderate democrats in big cities controlled by democrats.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Wyoming democrats"

There are not nearly enough to matter. There are more registered GOPers than Dems and independents combined.

Fun fact, the Wyoming state senate has two Dems, one the minority leader and one the "whip". Not sure what is the most pathetic position to hold, a leader of two or a whip who has to get one other vote.

[David Nieporent]

I don't understand why the Wyoming democrats don't have their candidate resign and put his support behind Cheney. Their candidate basically has virtually no chance of winning. But if they supported Cheney, they may be able to keep a pro-Trump candidate out.

If you mean now, that's not procedurally possible. Wyoming — like most states — has a sore loser law. If you lose the party nomination, you can't run on the general election ballot on some other line.

But as Bob from Ohio says — being right in a stopped clock sense — it wouldn't work anyway. Wyoming is not a purple state; it is a brick red state. There are very few Democrats in the state; every one of them could vote for Cheney — twice — and it wouldn't do the slightest bit of good.

(I think that's a bit of hyperbole; if she could peel off a third of Republicans — which she couldn't in the primary — and could get every Democrat to vote twice, it would be enough. Barely.)

[Commenter_XY]

Nothing like picking an uncontroversial subject to blog about. LOL.

[Michael P]

The Dispatch posts fiction as fact checks, and Twitter uses this to suppress the truth: https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/15/big-tech-censorship-partner-the-dispatch-smeared-newsmax-reporter-who-called-out-pfizers-ceo-for-not-being-fully-vaxxed/

[David Nieporent]

Emerald Robinson has as much connection to truth as the Real Housewives reality tv franchise does, and she of course lied and the Dispatch did not. She tweeted an old story as if it were current. The Dispatch correctly called her out on it.

And of course you're doubly lying, because Twitter did not "suppress" anything. They simply put up a disclaimer on her tweet.

[Michael P]

You don't understand verb tenses. Got it.

[David Nieporent]

So you don't understand the word "news." Got it.

[Michael P]

The Dispatch didn't say "old news". It said "categorically false".

[Sarcastr0]

You are playing semantic games in order to keep angry at twitter.

A deception is still a deception, and giving a false impression is still giving false information.

You can continue your pedant's crusade all you want, but everyone without an axe to grind can tell who is the liar here.

[Bob from Ohio]

"A deception is still a deception, and giving a false impression is still giving false information."

You should know.

[Sarcastr0]

Where have I lied like this, Bob? Or was this just an empty insult because you can't separate political and personal?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The difference between "old news" and "categorically false" is just semantics!

Said no smart person anywhere.

[Ben_]

Also no honest person.

[David Nieporent]

No, the Dispatch did not say that it was categorically false. Steven Danehy, director of media relations at Pfizer, said that. The tweet from the Dispatch said:

A frequent purveyor of bad information tweeted yesterday that the CEO of Pfizer had to "cancel a planned trip to Israel because he was not fully vaccinated."

The Pfizer CEO was fully vaccinated in March.

Nothing about "false." The underlying article from the Dispatch (linked in the tweet) used the term "misleading." Which is accurate. Robinson tried to pretend that the CEO of Pfizer was not vaccinated in August 2021, when the truth was that he had been vaccinated five months before.

There was absolutely nothing newsworthy in August 2021, when Robinson tweeted, about the CEO of Pfizer not having been fully vaccinated in March. She's just an anti-vax loon who was trying to pretend that the CEO hadn't been vaccinated as proof that the vaccine was dangerous.

[Michael P]

Fact check: The Dispatch never said she was right. It quoted someone saying the claim was "categorically false". It called her a "frequent purveyor of bad information".

Everyone without a partisan axe to grind can see who was being dishonestly pedantic and narrow in their parsing here.

[David Nieporent]

She is a frequent ("constant" might be more precise) purveyor of bad information. And her tweet was misleading and dishonest. And the Dispatch correctly noted that.

[Michael P]

NLRB whistleblowers reportedly say that the Board has a pattern of illegally sharing mail-in ballot information with unions, so those unions can target employees. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/15/starbucks-asks-labor-board-to-suspend-mail-in-ballot-union-elections-alleging-misconduct-in-voting-process.html

[FivebySixThree]

Unions have been trying to remove any ability of employees to not be a member of a union by having Congress pass laws making all votes public; they really want to get rid of the secret ballot.

[Aunt Teefah]

Source: trust me bro.

Starbucks has shown itself to be a serial lawbreaker willing to say and do anything to stop the unionization efforts in its stores. Why anyone with half a brain would take them at their word about an anonymous whistleblower is beyond me.

[Ben_]

Unions routinely get to keep holding vote after vote until they win.

[Michael P]

Catholic institutions continue to be under fire, targeted by serial hate crimes. Certain members of the VC commentariat continue to deny the trend. https://wtop.com/crime/2022/08/vandals-have-targeted-dc-catholic-school-twice-in-less-than-a-week/

[David Nieporent]

So, in fact, the link does not show "hate crimes" and is about one single institution.

[Michael P]

You don't understand how plurals work. Got it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So, what is the second institution that is "under fire"?

[Randal]

I think you, M Pichael , doesn't know how plurals work. Plural means more than one.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's a link that does, with a letter from the DC police describing it as a possible hate crime.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-catholic-school-vandalism-suspect-arrested-possible-hate-crime/3135512/

[David Nieporent]

Anything is a "possible" hate crime; that's an empty label. The DC police press release reflects that a suspect was arrested for ordinary crimes: burglary and vandalism. And it says that they're looking into whether they could upgrade it to a hate crime. Which strikes me as ordinary bureaucratese to mollify the victims. (I'm not prejudging; maybe the guy hates the Catholic Church. But there isn't anything substantial to support that based on what we know so far.)

[bernard11]

Nor does it show "a trend."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Google Search: "Firearms regulation in Switzerland" Read the Wikipedia article all the way through, and comment as you please.

I suggest a framework modeled on that example—enacted with particulars variously implemented according to state-by-state preferences—could form the basis of a realistic, and constitutional, national model for U.S. gun control.

I expect that with various state implementations in use simultaneously, the uniformity of the framework would provide a basis to develop comparable experiences among the different states, and help discern which choices worked best. In time that would likely guide convergence toward a de facto national standard, while still leaving states free to suit themselves.

One great advantage of the Swiss model is that it has stood the test of time, to provide a famously workable bulwark against tyranny.

Please tell me what you think.

[PeteRR]

What's the upside for gun owners? It looks like we surrender and gain nothing in return.

[dwb68]

again. still.

yawn, wake when progs are no longer demonstrating with their every breath every step is the next step to a ban.

[JasonT20]

I haven't looked into it yet, but I would guess that the gains would be the whole of society if guns are still available but more limited to people with proper training and likely to use and store them responsibly. Just a thought.

[apedad]

"One great advantage of the Swiss model is that it has stood the test of time, to provide a famously workable bulwark against tyranny."

I think the Alps have more to do with being a bulwark against tyranny than their weapon laws.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Alps are a bulwark against foreign tyranny, I don't think they protect the Swiss against domestic tyranny.

One factor the Swiss have going for them is that they're a small and largely homogeneous nation. Multiculturalists really hate admitting it, but cultural homogeneity really makes it easier for a society in all sorts of ways. You get less conflict if people generally agree to begin with.

[Mr. Bumble]

As is the case with Japan as an example.

[Sarcastr0]

Japan, just a great place with an awesome culture I look forwards to America being just like the moment it embraces white nationalism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, cultural homogeneity has upsides and downsides, and there are a lot of things about Japan to not admire. Lack of stability, however, isn't one of them.

[Sarcastr0]

I cannot argue with that. But some folks seem to be...emphasizing the upsides on here lately.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
Why the backhanded slap at Japanese culture.
It was pretty racist of you.

[Sarcastr0]

Japan has issues. Among them are cultural issues. You and I both know it's not racist to say that.

[Don Nico]

It has a lot fewer issues than the US

[Don Nico]

Your original comment really reeks of racism, despite your trying to tone it down in your response.
Japan of today is not the Japan of WWII. I wonder how often you actually view and study today's culture and politics in Japan.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What's the official language of homogeneous Switzerland again?

[apedad]

You beat me to it!

Yup, only three official languages with mandatory English.

Because of their homogeneousity (sp?)!

It's amazing driving through the Goddard Road Tunnel (10.5 miles).

When driving from the north, all the road signs are in Germany.

Once you pop out on the south side, all the signs are in Italian.

[David Nieporent]

One factor the Swiss have going for them is that they're a small and largely homogeneous nation.

Brett, once again, the problem is that you don't know what you don't know. Switzerland is not at all "homogenous." You read something somewhere about homogeneity being a meaningful issue so you're trying to apply it in places you don't understand. Switzerland has four official languages, it's so non-homogenous.

[Don Nico]

David,
Times have changed. In Geneva shopkeepers no long refuse to understand German.

[Kazinski]

We already have a great framework called the 2nd amendment, and we aren't charging it, other than enforcing it's restrictions on government better.

[Commenter_XY]

I see it the same way, precisely.

[apedad]

Useless prediction:

After the 10,000th mass school shooting of the 21st century, the US will rescind 2A sometime around 2088.

[M L]

Democrats will keep pushing policies that harm society and contribute to school shootings until they get this!

[apedad]

Yeah like Uvalde, TX.

Bunch of scummy Dems down there in the Lone Star State.

[ragebot]

What a pile of shit.

A month of weekend corner boy drive by shootings in half a dozen libtard big cities results in more deaths than all the "mass school shootings for a whole year or more.

The real problem with gun violence in the US is too many ghetto thugs resort to shoot outs to resolve drug territory disputes.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski and Commenter_XY, what do you see in the Swiss system, as you would be free to amend particulars in a state-by-state implementation, which would violate the 2A?

What if any legitimate objectives of having and defending a 2A personal right to firearms do you think the Swiss system could not achieve?

Presumably you both concede the Swiss system better serves the militia right. Why not take it from there?

Or, if your aim is actually gun rights absolutism, enforced alike nationwide—without any controls, explain whether you think that will turn out to be a politically realistic prospect long-term.

[Don Nico]

SL,
While you're at it SL, explain why it took the Swiss so long to allow women to vote.

[Kazinski]

Switzerland doesn't have a right to bear arms, it's very restrictive may issue.

Bruen just confirmed that right for all Americans nationwide.

But what are you offering in return for us giving up that right? It's an awfully big ask.

Maybe something like repealing the income tax, and reversing Wickard v Filburn, and reinstating Lochner.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, you misdescribe the Swiss system. It is peculiar to assert flatly, "Switzerland doesn't have a right to bear arms," To get to that, you have to discount the militia purpose to zero, and insist non-militia gun use go completely unregulated. Both assertions defy any common-sense understanding of the Swiss system.

[Ben_]

Wishing something might be constitutional isn’t a great analysis.

[Michael P]

A group in Los Angeles set up a phone line where people can report such COVID abuses as children eating indoors or suboptimal climate control. (Then deleted their tweet about it.) https://redstate.com/kiradavis/2022/08/15/los-angeles-group-touts-snitch-line-where-people-can-report-sick-kids-indoor-eating-at-school-n612791

[David Nieporent]

And?

[Michael P]

You don't understand how totalitarianism works. Got it.

[David Nieporent]

Reporting on what the government is doing is "totalitarianism"?

[Michael P]

Telling people they should report things like children eating indoors is totalitarian.

[Sarcastr0]

How is this different from the private actions of libs of TikTok, publicizing info people snitch to them?

[Kazinski]

Libs of Tik Tok reposts videos people voluntarily post on the internet for other people to see.

Not any different than quoting someone's stupid comment on this thread.

[Nige]

If every time you posted someone's stupid comment the commenter was subjected to a barrage of death threats, then all you're doing is selecting targets for death threats.

[David Nieporent]

No. It's not. They're asking people to report on schools allowing kids to eat indoors. While that's incredibly stupid at this point in time, it has nothing whatsoever in common with "totalitarianism."

[Mr. Bumble]

Then what is the purpose of such "reporting"?

[Sarcastr0]

It's a private group, like the libs of tiktok is a private individual. Any thoughts on how to approve of one's tactics and not the other?

I have some ideas, but they all go against the direction I think you want to go.

[David Nieporent]

They want to put pressure on the school system to engage in what they consider to be important anti-covid measures. Some are good, like improved HVAC. Some are stupid for late 2022, like eating outside.

[Randal]

What do you think the purpose is, Mr. Bumble?

[bernard11]

WTF is wrong with you?

The article starts with this:

A shocking report from RedState’s Jennifer Van Laar recently exposed the shady connections between Los Angeles Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer and a study the CDC used as the basis for school reopening guidelines. As it turns out, Ferrer’s daughter was the author of the study, and her mother has used it to justify keeping COVID restrictions in place for students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).

Shady connections?

And then, the group setting up the "snitch line" is a group of parents, not the LA government. "Totalitarianism?"

Is this crap the kind of thing you rely on for information?

No wonder you are a deluded idiot.

[Michael P]

Madison / Dane County, Wisconsin, seems to have committed to paying protection money to organized crime. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2022/08/15/blm-themed-groups-are-still-getting-paid-not-to-burn-madison-wisconsin-n1621118

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I wonder how long before regular White people rise up against these evil Democrat monsters?

[apedad]

Since you're a "regular White" person who has been planning to kill Democrats, shouldn't you be giving the answer and not asking the question?

BTW, when you stack your thousands of ammo cans, do you stack them like a Lego fort?

And then run around making Pew Pew Pew sounds?

[OtisAH]

You sure are mouthy for a target of a ruthless, tyrannical government.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I fucked up and donated twice to President Trump. I already know my days of freedom are numbered.

[David Nieporent]

The author is identified as a comedian. The lack of standards of PJ Media is pretty amusing, since nothing in the article in any way supports the claim.

[Kazinski]

Well there is the memo he linked to from the public health Director about giving the organizations Downey was highlighting 300k:

“We’re so happy to be giving this money to these organizations who know our community best,” says Aurielle Smith, Director of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation for Public Health Madison & Dane County. “The work of reducing violence cannot be done alone. We need to leverage the expertise and experiences of partners across sectors to get it done. Providing financial support to help them in their work is one way to jump start that process,” continues Smith.

The organizations who will receive funding are:

Urban Triage - Supporting Healthy Black Families and Youth"

[Kazinski]

Also it's not like it's unheard of social model to give public money to organized crime. Madison is just up the road a ways from Chicago:
Gangs and Politicians in Chicago: An Unholy Alliance

[Nige]

So, giving money to black organisations is like paying protection money, because black people are criminals.

Wait'll you find out how much money is given to the police, and how violent they are.

[Kazinski]

The link specifically cite Urban Triage as an organization encouraging violence, and show their official Twitter feed calling to "Burn it Down" if they don't get what they want.

Are you calling all Black Organizations violent? I'm not, but specific organizations that are violent should be called out, and I suspect Urban Triage like a lot of radical groups is mostly white, I said nothing about them being black.

[Nige]

Well, I wouldn't trust their links, for a start.

[David Nieporent]

No, they did not show their official Twitter feed calling to Burn it Down.

Let's set aside that the single tweet (which you have morphed into their entire "twitter feed") you're referring to is from two years ago. It's not even their tweet! They were retweeting someone else! And the person whose tweet it was wasn't calling for that either; he was reporting that this is what people were chanting. In a city 450 miles away from Urban Triage.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, and? My prior is that such spending is always wasteful, and this particular group seems like standard left wing loons, but the article can be pretty much summed up as, "These are black people, so they're criminals, so the money must be to keep them from committing crimes." There's no support for that at all.

[Kazinski]

BLM themed groups doesn't mean Black, Madison is only 6% Black, quit trying to pretend Blacks are the only violent people in a city of far left whites.

[Nige]

Yes, there's all those cops, for a start.

[David Nieporent]

https://urbantriage.org/about/team

[Michael P]

The link to the MacIver article supports it. One more hop from there takes you to https://www.wkow.com/news/crime/sheriff-calls-on-freedom-inc-urban-triage-to-denounce-violence/article_0097c974-2834-504a-bd02-d67765853f08.html

But I guess you don't know how hyperlinks work. Got it.

[David Nieporent]

No, the link to the MacIver article does not support it, nor does this link. Nothing in a 2020 article (that, incidentally, notes that the group has been getting money since before the 2020 protests) asking a group to denounce violence says that the group is getting money in 2022 to bribe them not to commit violence.

[Kazinski]

Reparations/Ransom what's the difference?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Oregon has a confirmed case of Pride Pox in a child linked to an adult case.
France has the dog of a gay couple with Pride Pox in its butthole.

What's there to be proud about?

[DaivdBehar]

Please submit your entry to the WHO naming contest, looking for an alternative to The Monkey.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Schlong COVID?

[Nige]

The Homophobe's Favourite.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If being an "ally" means supporting gay molestation of children and pets then you can have it all to your Democrat selves.

[Nige]

If being a homophobe means accusing gay people of molesting children because some kids caught a highly communicable disease, then you can have it all to your homophobic self.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you think it's "highly communicable" when the mode of transmission is degenerate butt sex? And that's what the science says.

[Krayt]

degenerate butt sex

You say that like it's a bad thing. Or a really good thing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Statistically speaking, what are the health outcomes of people who participate in chronic degenerate buttsex?

Do you think their health outcomes are better than a normal person's, equal to a normal person's, or worse than a normal person's?

[Nige]

They are normal people.

[Nige]

That, of course, is not the mode of transmission. Nor is butt sex degenerate, especially.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/23/monkeypox-outbreak-is-primarily-spreading-through-sex-who-officials-say.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/sex-men-not-skin-contact-fueling-monkeypox-new-research-suggests-rcna43484

Education yourself, you ignoramus.

[Nige]

I suspect I'd be waiting a long time for you to spot the logical fallacy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Articulate your argument.

[Nige]

Transmission is primarily through intimate contact, not the sexual act itself. However, it is not the only source of transmission, merely the one which currently predominates. Constantly trying to link children getting ill with the sexual act with no evidence other than a logical fallacy - it spreads amongst this group primarliy through intimate contact therefore all spread must be through intimate contact - is pure homophobia. Mind you, delighting in the fact that the gay community is experiencing this level of illness was the first clue as to your homophobia.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So these children and dogs got Monkeypox through intimate contact with infected adult male homosexuals, but not through sodomy?

How did it get in that dog's butthole then?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

P.S. My second article, which apparently you didn't even read the URL says as it's subtitle:

"The claim that skin-to-skin contact during sex between men, not intercourse itself, drives most monkeypox transmission is likely backward, a growing group of experts say."

So either you know that and are lying or I gave you proof of my claims and you ignored it, or I read read proof that contradicts your beliefs so you refused to accept it.

None of those are good looks for you.

[Nige]

Wow, that sounds soooo definitive and final.

[Ben_]

You think they aren’t proud of these accomplishments?

[Kazinski]

So much for settled science:

"For all who see them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the universe are beautiful and awe-inspiring. But for most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also quite surprising, and quite different from what theory predicted. In the flood of , the authors report time and time again that the images show a surprisingly large number of galaxies, surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small, and surprisingly old. There are many surprises, but not always pleasant ones. The title of one paper begins with the blunt exclamation point “Panic!”"

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/08/james-webb-space-telescope-shows-big-bang-didnt-happen-wait/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Although we didn’t usually hear of it, there’s been dissatisfaction with the Standard Model, which begins with the Big Bang, ever since it was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre nearly a century ago. But no one expected the James Webb Space Telescope to contribute to the debate.

I expected the James Webb Space Telescope to contribute to the debate. Admittedly, I am, "no one."

[Krayt]

Well that was interesting. The telescope sees dep redshifted stars, which means moving away very fast, which means very far away, which means very early in the universe. And seeing way too many.

Early on, the first stars form from gravitational collapse of gasses. Some of those go supernova, and the shockwaves cause further densities that form many more stars. They expected these very early stars to be in numbers supported by the pre-supernova rates, but are in larger numbers. So now they have to work on their theory, from proposing new dark matter condensing gasses to mmmmaybe giving up on the Big Bang theory, but that's a long way away.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, that was interesting, though it seems more information doesn't always answer questions, but rather raises new questions confirming that science is never "settled".

[JasonT20]

,,,it seems more information doesn't always answer questions, but rather raises new questions confirming that science is never "settled".

It is true that science is never "settled", but that is often used as a straw man to target theories and hypotheses that some people don't like. Particularly when the implications of those scientific claims run against those people's political or religious priors.

Newton's Laws of Motion were 'settled science' for around two centuries before experiments started contradicting them in some circumstances. But we still teach them in introductory physics classes and still use them in engineering and physics when quantum or relativistic effects are insignificant. It is possible that the Standard Model of particle physics is incorrect, or at least incomplete, but it works really well for the vast majority of experiments and other tests of its accuracy and precision.

In most cases where people claim that science is "settled", even if they don't use that word explicitly, they are justified in taking a position that the evidence is sufficient to provisionally accept the conclusions as being valid and correct until such time as new evidence against them is found. Since much of the reasoning in science is inductive, that is as confident as you can ever be in a scientific claim. But we still need to make decisions regarding problems we face and find ways to move forward, so endlessly challenging ideas with solid empirical support is counter-productive.

[Mr. Bumble]

"so endlessly challenging ideas with solid empirical support is counter-productive."

In your example of Newton above, there was solid empirical evidence until there wasn't. For scientific claims to have some validity the basis needs to be shared and the results of experiments reproducible.

[Sarcastr0]

Science isn't only experimental.

[Mr. Bumble]

Care to expand on that?

[Sarcastr0]

Theory is not empiricism, and it's still science, and it's not experimentally reproducible.

[Kazinski]

A theory that can't ever be confirmed is not even wrong.

Einsteins special theory of relativity certainly couldn't be proved or disproved at the time, but since then several aspects of it have been proved with the expectation that of more proofs to come.

[Sarcastr0]

You haven't contradicted anything I said, Kaz.

For scientific claims to have some validity the basis needs to be shared and the results of experiments reproducible.

This is a statement that elides theoretical work. It's present tense. Scientific claims can be valid and even adopted well before they are empirically proven.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, geocentrism was considered a valid scientific claim for centuries. Empirical data disproved it. History is replete with 'valid' scientific claims in the absence of empirical data that just were not so.

Sorry, but I have to disagree on theory being accepted as valid in the absence of empirical data that proves it. In the end, you must experiment to prove (or disprove) the theory, for the theory to hold validity.

Maybe our definition of validity differs.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not what I'm saying - I'm taking issue with the idea that all science needs an immediate experimental upshot, which is what Kaz says.

Einstein's theories were widely adopted before they were fully empirically backed up. Also, in scientific circles adopted does not mean ever tested; rather the opposite in fact - everyone races to have the glory of first confirmation.

[Ridgeway]

But a good scientific theory should generally have two important (and related) characteristics. It should be predictive and falsifiable.

[Kazinski]

You said theory isn't experimentally reproducible.

It is.

Like the classic experiment confirming that the gravity of the sun bends the light of a distant star. Or more recently, gravity waves.

[Sarcastr0]

Bumble said this: For scientific claims to have some validity the basis needs to be shared and the results of experiments reproducible.

My thesis is that this is wrong, as it ignores theory. Do you disagree?

[bernard11]

Observation?

Is astronomy science?

[Krayt]

It is true that science is never "settled", but that is often used as a straw man to target theories and hypotheses that some people don't like.

It's the new "it's just a theory statement".

Having said that, there is no shortage of politicians ready to use anything to increase their power, so vigilance should exist, even if true.

[John F. Carr]

From a block quote in the linked article: "Instead, I propose that the first stars were not made of Hydrogen, they were made of ice. The Big Bang synthesized abundant C and O which combined with H to form H20, CO2, CH4 etc."

This guy makes Halton Arp look mainstream.

For most of my life there has been deep disagreement about the age of the universe because different techniques predicted values differing well beyond their error bars. This year the disagreement is greater than usual.

[Moderation4ever]

The block quote makes no sense at all. First the big bang would not start with atoms at all but rather the subatomic particle that will build to atoms. Then starting with the simplest atoms like hydrogen. It would make no sense to form atoms as complex as carbon and oxygen.

[Brett Bellmore]

The issue is that expansion terminates early nucleosynthesis before it can get past turning some of the hydrogen into helium. It takes that dense, hot soup and spreads and cools it before heavier elements can be created. No expansion implies that nucleosynthesis gets further, and creates heavier elements.

[Moderation4ever]

Where is the energy for nucleosynthesis of heavy particles? We know that as hydrogen is used up stars will move to heavy element fusion, but only up to a point and it takes a supernova to create the heaviest elements.

[Sarcastr0]

As of 2014, we think neutron star nucleosynthesis also contributes.

https://twitter.com/jajohnson51/status/1547590914645696514

[Moderation4ever]

Cool table.

[Don Nico]

Even that is not quite right.

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably a better link.

A big issue here is the geometric illusion one. Basically, in an expanding universe, when you look further away, you're seeing a younger universe, which if the universe is expanding means a smaller universe.

In theory this should really throw off the ratio of circumference to radius you'd see in a non-expanding universe. Essentially, Pi gets smaller the further out you look. This should result in anything you see at great distances looking wider than it should, stretched out.

They're not seeing that. That implies that the universe hasn't been expanding. Or at least, wasn't expanding early on; Some versions of expansion have it accelerating as time goes on, and I suppose they're still viable if they start with practically no expansion at all, and hence no big bang.

Interesting stuff, though by no means definitive yet.

[Don Nico]

"Pi gets smaller the further out you look."
Whoa! now you are confusing apparent values with actual geometry as a function of time (what ever that is)

[Brett Bellmore]

It's rather like measuring pi drawing circles on the surface of a sphere, actually: If the circle is very small compared to the size of the sphere, you get the classic number. As the radius increases, 'pi' decreases, and becomes zero when the radius reaches half the circumference of the sphere.

Because the further away you're looking, the larger you draw the circle, the smaller the universe was, you get that same effect.

[apedad]

I like watching the Numberphile and Stand Up Maths segments on Youtube.

It still pisses me off that on the standard Pythagorean triangle (sides 1 unit), the hypotenuse IS a finite length but has an infinite quality (√2).

[Nige]

There's hardly a less settled area of science than astronomy and cosmology.

[Don Nico]

Spoken like a guy who does not know much about either

[Nige]

Oh go and argue that string theory is settled science, bub.

[Don Nico]

Pure whataboutism.
String theory is NOT cosmology;Nor is is astronomy.
You really can't admit when you are wrong.

[Nige]

Damn you're right, that's physics, got me.

[legalizeshrooms]

I’m just going to drop this here
https://youtu.be/31uWQhYB4Ww

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's conduct regarding removal of government documents from the White House to Mar-a-lago may prove to be even more difficult for him to defend than his corrupt endeavors to overturn the election results. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/us/politics/trump-cipollone-philbin-interviews-fbi.html

[Krayt]

I've given up on speculation and merely wait. One of two things will happen.

Something big will come out.

Nothing big will come out.

Both are terrible for this nation, the latter simply being proof they went after him for political reasons.

[Brett Bellmore]

More likely something will come out that half the population will think was big, and half will think was a total nothingburger.

[M L]

And Trump will be indicted for that something.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I expect so; They've gone too far this time to not take that step, even if they can't make it stick. They HAVE to indict him for something at this point, to make it look like the raid was reasonable.

And, of course, if they can try him in DC they have an excellent chance of convicting him of basically anything, since the jury pool runs to about 95% Democrats.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know the numbers for the jury pool, but neither do you.

And being a Democrat doesn't mean you have no integrity. Do you have integrity, as a Republican?

[bernard11]

Brett is just preparing his retreat, in case Trump does get convicted of something.

It lets him ignore any facts presented at the trial.

Since he is a devoted cultist who would never convict Trump of anything, he assumes that a juror who votes to acquit must be an equally irrational Trump hater.

[Commenter_XY]

That is precisely where I am....just waiting for the affidavit to be published so we can see everything the judge saw in making his decision to sign the warrant. That context matters very greatly.

[JasonT20]

That is precisely where I am....just waiting for the affidavit to be published so we can see everything the judge saw in making his decision to sign the warrant. That context matters very greatly.

It will matter, so eventually it should be revealed to everyone. But the DoJ is currently opposing unsealing it, saying that it would compromise their investigation at this point. That is certainly a possibility. If the unnamed sources are right, and there was someone in Trump's camp that gave the FBI the information they needed to get that warrant, then exposing that person now could open them up to intimidation or other pressure. (Particularly threats from Trump's most strident supporters, as we have been seeing of just about anyone that has spoken out against Trump.) There could also be hints about what else they are investigating in that affidavit that the target(s) of investigation could use to hide or destroy evidence, compromise potential witnesses, etc.

I'm not saying that any of that is true or definitely would happen if the affidavit was released now, but it is something that could happen anytime that the targets of an investigation get access to evidence against them at an early stage of the investigation.

In the end, the basis for the warrant is mostly about whether the warrant was constitutionally justified. What they found in the search won't change after we find out how they got the warrant.

[not guilty]

The reasons given by the DOJ against unsealing the search warrant affidavit are boilerplate and conclusory. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.59.0_14.pdf Information regarding claims of prejudice to the investigation in this case are notably absent from the government response.

The DOJ offer at footnote 6 to file a sealed ex parte supplement that addresses with more specificity the contents of the affidavit and the harms identified in the DOJ response implicitly acknowledges this deficiency. It seems fundamentally unfair to the news media movant/intervenors to ask the magistrate judge to entertain such an ex parte communication.

[David Nieporent]

The reasons given by the DOJ against unsealing the search warrant affidavit are boilerplate and conclusory.

But that doesn't make them false!

[Mr. Bumble]

Doesn't make them true, either.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

C'mon man, you're not pretending that Trump supporters aren't looking for people to direct violence against for daring to pursue the crimes of their idiot leader?

The only reason Trump wants it released is so that his supporters have people to target. It's quite telling that in the actual hearing, his attorney's did not share his same enthusiasm about released the affidavit.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The facts don't matter.

A Democrat prosecutor with a Democrat judge and a Democrat grand jury will indict President Trump.

And the Federal GOP will do nothing to stop them.

[David Nieporent]

The facts don't matter.

We know. You will lie and troll regardless of them.

[Mr. Bumble]

Haven't seen much in the way of facts from either side.

[bernard11]

No?

You mean there were no documents at Mar-a-Lago?

It's true that Trump has responded with his usual endless stream of lies, which his supporters gleefully embrace.

[Life of Brian]

Trump said there were no documents at Mar-a-Lago? I must have missed that one.

[Sarcastr0]

Read one comment up above that, and you may have a better sense of the thread of the conversation.

[bernard11]

No. Not what I said.

Bumble claimed there were no facts coming from DOJ. Plainly, there were.

And Trump did claim, among his stream of crap, that there were no classified documents because he double-secretly declassified them with his powerful brain waves.

But that was easy to miss, I guess in the roaring river of lies he has spewed out here.

[Life of Brian]

If you're limiting your point to classified documents, at least that's clearer. But unless you were there during the raid/inventory/seizure and also have something beyond hopeful Internet commentator theories that Trump couldn't have declassified the documents, I think you're confusing "facts" with "allegations."

[Nige]

The lie about Obama was pretty egregious.

[bernard11]

Who spread the story that the cameras were turned off?

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought the story was that they asked for the cameras to be turned off. They were then briefly turned off, and back on again when it was realized the FBI couldn't enforce that demand.

FBI Quest for Trump Documents Started With Breezy Chats, Tour of a Crowded Closet

[bernard11]

The story that was repeated here was that the FBI did have the cameras turned off, and this was grounds for suspicion of the whole search, including the claims of planted evidence and whatever other nonsense.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, just asking for the cameras to be turned off is cause for suspicion, just like their no badge cam policy, or not recording all interviews.

[bernard11]

It may be ground for suspicion, but those suspicions appear to be unjustified, since Trump&Co. watched the whole thing.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And Brett is stretching. Not unlike the Norah O'Donnell report that the DOJ didn't have the passports, which encouraged people to jump to the conclusion that DOJ never took the passports, the Trump team's report that the FBI asked for the cameras to be turned off was interpreted by some here as a "demand" that they be turned off which was further interpreted by many, many people that the cameras were turned off.

But the fact remains they weren't, so any suspicions Brett or the Trump team had could be allayed by watching the actual video. Which they did and haven't alleged it shows anything untoward. Though they are "threatening" to release the video, by which they mean highly edited excerpts, they haven't yet probably because showing the FBI politely collecting boxes of classified documents that belong to the U.S. government but which Trump refused to return isn't going to fit with the cultist narrative of Dear Leader being under siege during a raid of his home by hostile FBI agents.

[Nige]

And that they hadn't gotten a copy of the warrant?

[Moderation4ever]

To my knowledge judges do not run on or are not appoint based on party affiliation. Many Republican appointed judges and many Trump appointed judges have rules against the former President in past cases.

Also, while I have never served on a grand jury, I don't believe you are required to indicate party affiliation when being considered for a jury.

The reality, as Trump supporters see it, is that everyone Democrats and Republicans are out to get Trump. There is no hope of relief for this great man.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How would you expect the Grand Jury pool to be split partisanship-wise in the DC area?

[John F. Carr]

If there are charges if mishandling of classified material we could see the spectacle of Donald Trump being cross examined about his claims to have declassified the documents. But there are no video cameras in federal court. We could read conflicting reports about how Trump demolished the prosecution's case or was utterly incoherent in his explanation.

[not guilty]

None of the federal statutes cited in Attachment B to the Mar-a-lago search warrant distinguishes between classified and unclassified documents or records. With the prosecution not having to prove classified status, Trump's claim to have declassified anything is immaterial.

[John F. Carr]

18 USC 793(d) and (e) don't mention classification specifically but refer to authorized and unauthorized access. Authorization is based in part on classification.

[Don Nico]

" mishandling of classified material "
An administrative offense. Not good, but not espionage.

[Sarcastr0]

That depends on the material and the specifics of the mishandling. Which we do not yet know.

[Don Nico]

Mishandling is a broad enough word to hide a lot of mudslinging and assumptions.
Where is the evidence of "with intent or reason to believe that the information may be used for the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?"
Oh yes, in the secret affidavit.
All any commenter here KNOWS is that the documents were stored in boxes and were not surrendered to the NARA upon receipt of its legitimate and proper request. That is ispo facto mishandling.

[shawn_dude]

As a non-lawyer, is it common for the government to release all information used to obtain a warrant at the time the warrant is served? Or does this happen later? Or only after charges are made?

[David Nieporent]

No, that's not common. It has to happen if charges are filed, but not necessarily before.

[Kleppe]

Is there any evidence Trump himself removed the documents from the White House, as opposed to a staffer?

[John F. Carr]

The legal question is not whether he removed them with his own hands, but whether he was responsible for their being removed. If he asked a staffer to box up everything on that desk he can still be responsible if he knew there were protected documents on that desk. I have seen no evidence either way.

[Nige]

He can hardly claim a year and a half later that he still didn't know, or that he wasn't trying to keep them, but the idea that organising a move was so beyond his competence that he took loads of classified documents by mistake would surely kill or maim the career of any other politician.

[not guilty]

Trump apparently claims that the documents in question were his own rather than the government's:

[Trump Deputy White House Counsel Patrick] Philbin tried to help the National Archives retrieve the material, two of the people familiar with the discussions said. But the former president repeatedly resisted entreaties from his advisers.

“It’s not theirs, it’s mine,” several advisers say Mr. Trump told them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/us/politics/trump-cipollone-philbin-interviews-fbi.html

[Nige]

Trump has made a LOT of claims, and yet as far as I'm aware, he has made no legal responses in support of or on foot of any of those claims, unless screwing over that lawyer who signed the declaration counts as a legal move.

[Don Nico]

Of course, no document with a valid clasification stamp is personal property of POTUS. That is preposterous claim that even an Orange Clown should understand

[shawn_dude]

Authoritarian leaders do not appear to distinguish the difference between themselves and the government.

[Don Nico]

Neither do narcissistic personalities like the orange Clown

[David Nieporent]

The legal question is not whether he removed them with his own hands, but whether he was responsible for their being removed.

You're not wrong about that, except that the legal question isn't really who removed them, but about who refused to return them.

[not guilty]

Resisting the subpoena for remaining records during June is highly incriminating.

[Mr. Bumble]

The question is does the DOJ have a legal basis for the search?
See:
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact

[David Nieporent]

The question is why anyone pays attention to what disgraced ex-journalist John Solomon writes. The ruling that the article was based on was that Judicial Watch lacked standing because it sued the wrong defendants under the wrong statute, not that it's legal for former presidents to keep government property — in particular classified or defense information — when the government wants it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Because Solomon checks his facts, gets them right, and posts the items that the NY Times doesn't and would prefer to bury.

[David Nieporent]

Solomon got fired because he doesn't check his facts or get them right, which is why he runs a vanity blog instead of having a job.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is there something in the linked article that you believe to be untrue?

[David Nieporent]

Absolutely: he completely misrepresented what the case that the article relies on said.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did you read the article?

[David Nieporent]

I did. And more importantly, I read the court decision that the article purports to describe.

[Mr. Bumble]

Purports to describe?

The article had links to the opinion and transcripts.

In any event, more this afternoon when the hearing takes place on whether or not to release the affidavit.

[JasonT20]

The article had links to the opinion and transcripts.

Up front: I haven't read either that article or those links, so I am not commenting on them.

The issue is whether the authors of an article are accurately describing something. That they provide links to the documents they are describing doesn't prove that they being accurate. I have seen plenty of polemical pieces that provide links to information that they are twisting and distorting to fit their opinion. It very well could be that the authors simply don't expect many of their readers to follow through and look at those documents themselves. Or, the authors could have blinded themselves into believing what they are saying, or any number of other reasons.

Bottom line, don't take polemicists at their word just because they provide links.

[not guilty]

What does a district court opinion dismissing a civil complaint for lack of standing (absence of redressability) have to do with the issuance and execution of a search warrant in a criminal investigation? The memorandum opinion referenced in the article linked by Mr. Bumble, https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-08/memorandum%20opinion.pdf, nowhere discusses or construes any criminal statute.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what is the crime?

[not guilty]

The scope of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 is quite broad -- have you read the statute? Trump's resistance of a subpoena for the subject documents during June strongly evinces his culpable mental state.

[Life of Brian]

The scope of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 is quite broad

This reminds me of your months-long gleeful spree of "interfering with an official proceeding" posts.

In your view is there a point where reasonable people might ask why such allegedly horrible behavior of such imminent threat to the nation falls only under broad, super-flexible statutes?

[M L]

What do you think about Hillary Clinton bleaching hard drives under subpoena?

"Wipe? You mean, like, with a cloth?"

[Nige]

She didn't.

[not guilty]

"In your view is there a point where reasonable people might ask why such allegedly horrible behavior of such imminent threat to the nation falls only under broad, super-flexible statutes?"

Donald Trump's criminal conduct is sui generis. Congress in all likelihood had not encountered anyone so brazen when it enacted some of the statutes I have referenced.

I think the Department of Justice should bring charges that are straightforward and simple for a properly instructed jury to understand, based non statutes that a result oriented SCOTUS majority is unlikely to let Trump weasel out from.

[not guilty]

"What do you think about Hillary Clinton bleaching hard drives under subpoena?"

I think that what Hillary Clinton did or failed to do is not germane to whether Donald Trump has or has not violated the criminal law beyond a reasonable doubt.

I also think that, as with other tu quoque replies, I have struck an exposed nerve of the Trump cult.

[Life of Brian]

Donald Trump's criminal conduct is sui generis.

L the fuck OL, dude. Seriously. That's REALLY the best you can do?

Hitler? Mao? Capone? Madoff? All outshone by a former President who kept some pieces of paper in a box that some disgruntled pencil-pusher wanted. Once more, together: L....O....L.

You have just confirmed to anyone who had the least shred of doubt that you are not a serious person.

That is all.

[not guilty]

Unclear on the meaning of sui generis, are we? Why am I unsurprised?

[Life of Brian]

Nah, I just made the mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt and imagining you were saying Trump's conduct was so uniquely bad that no legislature, graced with a long sordid history of bad actors in the world, could have possibly considered passing a law to prohibit it.

If you're just throwing cutesy Latin phrases around trying to obfuscate your naked cheerleading for the political prosecution of an opponent whose conduct you don't care for but isn't actually against the law, then we're right back to square 1 -- though perhaps with a bit more candor on your part.

[Sarcastr0]

sui generis is about kind, not magnitude LoB.

[Life of Brian]

And as I said, if that was truly his meaning then that's just Latin for "not illegal" and he's not moved the ball forward one inch.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And as I said, if that was truly his meaning then that's just Latin for "not illegal" and he's not moved the ball forward one inch.

No, that's definitely not what it means either. Uniquely bad behavior within the U.S. system doesn't have to be qualitatively or quantitatively the worst behavior in human history. And the cult leader's behavior is unlike that of any U.S. president in history and it is, without question, bad behavior. There remains the question of whether it is illegal, but being uniquely bad behavior among U.S. Presidents is suggestive that, if it somehow slips through the cracks of being illegal beyond a reasonable doubt, we need better laws.

Prior to the cultists elevating their leader to the presidency, it was assumed the U.S. presidents would adhere to certain norms of moral/ethical behavior based on a respect for the institution, no matter how questionable the personal morals and ethics of the inhabitant (Nixon, Clinton) were. And that held true until 46% of the country decided it was a good idea to elevate an utterly amoral narcissist to the highest office. It wasn't a good idea.

[Life of Brian]

And the cult leader's behavior is unlike that of any U.S. president in history and it is, without question, bad behavior.

So next you're redefining "without question" to mean "in my opinion." I suppose that's ultimately your only play when you're trying to get objective criminal statutes to cover subjectively bad acts.

[Life of Brian]

There remains the question of whether it is illegal, but being uniquely bad behavior among U.S. Presidents is suggestive that, if it somehow slips through the cracks of being illegal beyond a reasonable doubt, we need better laws.

And isn't this the crux of the issue I raised in the first place? If the current laws indeed don't fairly cover the complained-of behavior, pass appropriate laws (if you think you can articulate them in a way that doesn't create huge blowback risk down the road). But that doesn't give you license to selectively distort current laws as a band-aid in the meantime.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So next you're redefining "without question" to mean "in my opinion.

Pressuring Pence to violate the Constitution and, at least effectively, declare the loser of the 2020 presidential election as the winner is objectively a bad thing to do. So, no, not my opinion.

Scheming to put in place fake electors, which the schemers called "fake" electors, is, again, a violation of the Constitution and an objectively bad thing. So, no, not my opinion. Also, many of the acts were likely illegal. Whether Trump's support of this illegal scheme was itself a prosecutable crime is undetermined, but regardless, it is an objectively bad thing to cheer on an illegal scheme.

Shorter version:

I see you, Life of Brian, are fully adopting the cult leader's view that, if it's not illegal, it's not bad.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And isn't this the crux of the issue I raised in the first place?

You positively asserted that the statutes were too broad, or would have to be construed to broadly, to result in a valid prosecution of the cult leader.

I don't think that's established at this point. At all.

But I do agree that it is possible the provable behavior may not be prosecutable, given the uncertainty we currently have.

But the other point, and something of a counterpoint, that I raised is that behavior can be unethical, immoral, and disqualifying to high office without being illegal.

There are two streams:

Can the cult leader be convicted?

Should any decent rational person support the cult leader even if he can't be or isn't able to be prosecuted for a crime?

The first is indeterminate.

The second is not indeterminate. The answer of a person reveals their character and commitment to the Constitution and the highest principles of the American project.

[Life of Brian]

[Subjective, prejudicial, loaded harangue omitted -- you can load on as much of that as you want and it's simply part and parcel with my overall point.]

if it's not illegal, it's not bad.

Otherwise known as "if it's not illegal, it's not subject to criminal penalties." But in gotta-get-Trump land, who has time for such pesky distinctions?

[Life of Brian]

But the other point, and something of a counterpoint, that I raised is that behavior can be unethical, immoral, and disqualifying to high office without being illegal.

And once again, you're viewing every single one of those labels through your subjective, partisan eyeglasses, based on subjective, selective, partisan renditions of underlying facts. There's a large slice of the population that comes out in a quite different place over all that.

Calling those who disagree with you cultists, uncommitted to the Constitution, or whatever other slurs come to mind may make you feel better and elevate your social status among your echo-chamber buddies, but otherwise is as useless as any other ad hominem.

[NOVA Lawyer]

There's a large slice of the population that comes out in a quite different place over all that.

Over the fact that all unethical, immoral, disqualifying conduct is not necessarily illegal? (Which is the point you quoted as "that".) I don't think so.

Over whether Trump's conduct is disqualifying, even if not illegal? Sure. But that's just because about 30% or more of the country acts very cult-like in reflexively defending everything Trump does.

But what isn't disputed is that Trump said:

Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn't exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!

That statement alone should be disqualifying.

One possibility is that he honestly thinks the Constitution allows the Vice President to set aside the expressed will of the voters, which is such a egregious misreading of that document that he shouldn't be president. (But I doubt even someone as ignorant of basic constitutional principles as Trump truly believes the Vice President can just decide not to count whatever electoral votes he doesn't want to count.)

The only alternative is that he knows it would violate the Constitution, but he pressured Pence to do it anyway and even a year later openly admitted that he wanted Pence to violate the Constitution in order to stay in office. If that's not disqualifying, you don't have much commitment to the Constitution or the central concept underlying that document (i.e., self-governance).

And that's just one example of behavior that may or may not be illegal, but it is disqualifying.

[not guilty]

"The question is does the DOJ have a legal basis for the search?"

The search was conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by a United States Magistrate, based on findings of probable cause that a federal crime or crimes had been committed and that evidence of such crimes were located as of the time of issuance upon the premises to be searched. It is hornbook law that a search conducted under a warrant is presumed to be reasonable, and the burden of showing any invalidity thereof is on the party challenging the search.

We don't know yet what the affidavit supporting the search warrant says; a hearing is scheduled for this afternoon before the issuing magistrate regarding media requests to unseal the affidavit. Donald Trump has reportedly called for unsealing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/16/trump-mar-a-lago-affidavit/ (I don't know whether Trump has filed anything with the court or not.)

I hope the affidavit will be unsealed, although I am puzzled as to what advantage Trump thinks he will gain by public disclosure of facts which DOJ contends evince criminal conduct on his part. Perhaps he sees it as another fundraising opportunity.

[Mr. Bumble]

If the affidavit is unsealed, it will be so redacted that it will add nothing to our understanding of this issue.

[OtisAH]

He wants to know everything they have on him and who the “rat(s)” is/are. He’ll just lie about the rest and the MAGA Party will jump in line.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, we are in complete agreement regarding the affidavit. I do want that published, and any/all other supporting documents the judge saw in making his decision. Complete transparency is a must.

I don't know where it all leads, but I do know that we should see it.

[David Nieporent]

I hope the affidavit will be unsealed, although I am puzzled as to what advantage Trump thinks he will gain by public disclosure of facts which DOJ contends evince criminal conduct on his part. Perhaps he sees it as another fundraising opportunity.

They want to find out who is talking to the FBI (and if there's any other source of information, such as a wiretap.)

[Life of Brian]

(I don't know whether Trump has filed anything with the court or not.)

It took me a whopping minute or two to find a public copy of the docket (last refreshed today) and most of the unsealed filings here. Did you bother looking?

Spoiler: he hasn't.

[Michael Ejercito]

When was he found in contempt?

[Don Nico]

ng,
incriminating of what?
Except that he refused to comply with a valid official order from a competent authority. And that is self-evident

[Michael Ejercito]

Which official order was that?

[Don Nico]

A official request from the NARA.
Don't be dense.
Trump refused to comply. His lawyers acknowledge that

[bernard11]

He got a subpoena for the documents, for Pete's sake.

"I know nussing," would be a ridiculous defense.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges

[Sarcastr0]

Great post. Strong reasoning and great argument.

Not a partisan ipse dixit based on feelings and a purposefully biased media diet at all.

[Ed Grinberg]

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” (Lavrentiy Beria)

[Bob from Ohio]

Probably Andrey Vyshinsky, not Beria, but Vyshinsky was no better man.

[Sarcastr0]

I have that guy blocked, but in reality arguing on the Internet does not make me a Soviet.

[Michael Ejercito]

How were his endeavours to overturn the election results corrupt?

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, pick your poison.

Using Presidential authority to get governors to lie
Urging Pence to break the law
Condoning his people helping coordinate a group openly planning an invasion of the Capitol to stop the count
Condoning his people getting fake electors in an attempt to overturn the will of the voters

All of it is corrupt. All of it is anti-American.

[David Nieporent]

Let's not forget filing frivolous lawsuits based on false affidavits, such as by "experts" that are actually auto mechanics or gym teachers or the like.

[Michael Ejercito]

You seem to be accusing him of behaving like Kevin Clinesmith.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's obviously much worse than Clinesmith (because it involves illegal conduct in addition to misrepresentations to a court), but even conduct as egregious as Clinesmith's would be disqualifying and warrant a felony conviction, would it not?

I assume you meant to defend Trump with that. But that would be pretty damning for you to admit Trump did what Clinesmith did.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
You use corrupt in such a broad manner as to make it meaningless.
What I would have said is that your examples are close to and on both sides of the line of criminal

[Sarcastr0]

No, you can have a nice tight definition of corrupt that includes all of that and is not meaningless.

Trump tried every door he could think of to overturn the election. Each time he used the Presidential power to fuck with the Presidential election it was corrupt. As in, using the power entrusted with him for national gain to try and break the rules in service of personal gain (i.e. keeping that power).

I actually think criminal is the closer question. All criminal uses of Presidential power are corrupt. Not all ways to be corrupt are criminal. As we have recently learned.

[not guilty]

"How were his endeavours to overturn the election results corrupt?"

Ask Mike Pence, for starters.

[not guilty]

Even a dimbulb like Dan Quayle figured it out.

[Michael Ejercito]

Was a bribe offerred?

[not guilty]

Uh, corruption is not limited to bribery. Trump entreated Pence to unilaterally reject valid slates of electors, an action that Trump's own lawyer then and there acknowledged would violate the Electoral Count Act. (That lawyer subsequently asked to be included on the "pardon list.") The linchpin of the scheme was the antecedent, fraudulent submission of bogus slates of phony electors -- evincing a conspiracy to defraud the United States. The purpose of the scheme was to obtain a benefit for Trump to which he was not entitled -- a second term in office as president.

Corruption, topside to bottom.

[Bob from Ohio]

"entreated"

The bastard. Asking someone earnestly is so bad, Hitler like.

[NOVA Lawyer]

lol, this is what the cult has come to? Yeah, the guy we made president brought the full authority and persuasiveness of his position of power to bear on a person to try to persuade them to violate their oath to the Constitution in order to illegally remain president, but that's not Hitler-like!

With friends like these.....

[Michael Ejercito]

Entreating is protected by the First Amendment

[Sarcastr0]

You are bad at this.

Criminal solicitation; Any person who commands, entreats, or otherwise attempts to persuade another person to commit a felony other than murder, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

[Krayt]

That may be too broad a statement, if it encompasses standard political lying.

https://youtu.be/9iMy0969BTw

[Kleppe]

Liz Cheney lost in spectacular fashion. Hopefully more Democrats will follow her example in November.

[Sarcastr0]

So everyone who isn't lockstep with Trump is a Democrat? Personal loyalty tests are not a very healthy attitude to have in a republic.

[wreckinball]

She just proves that being Never Trump as your sole platform doesn't work. A lot of things that beltway libs think is popular is not so much.

[Sarcastr0]

Take it up with Kleppe who calls her a Democrat.

[OtisAH]

As of today the “personality loyalty test” is the sole standard for admission to and expulsion from the MAGA Party. And having a republic is the last thing on their minds if it’s there at all.

[wreckinball]

Are you wearing you pink "resist" hat today? Because no way no how was that movement anti-republic and transition of power right?

[Sarcastr0]

You think the pussy hat people wanted to end the republic?

[wreckinball]

They wanted to contest the election. You dispute that. Nobody wanted to end the republic. Nobody is charged with insurrection .

Were the pink hats in restricted areas in the Capitol? yes. Did they make public threats?, yes. Did they try and influence electors to be unfaithful and over tune the lection? yes. Did they riot and cause destruction in DC,? yes.

Bu you know that I think . You're not sarcastic at all change your handle to Contraro

So which elections this century were publicly contested 2000, 2004 , 2016 and 2020.

Which one is a whip to do? Only 2020. Seem like its OK to protest even violently even by trespassing in the Capitol if an R wins.

[OtisAH]

Of course it seems like that to you. You’re an idiot.

[Sarcastr0]

They wanted to contest the election.

And yet they managed not to invade the Capitol to try and actually via violence overturn the machinery of democracy.

Instead they...protested.

The utter lack of equivalence in what you are trying to compare only underscores how thing the straws are that you grasp at.

[Michael Ejercito]

Tens of thousands of people contested the 2020 election while not invading the Capitol.

[Sarcastr0]

Which was fine.

But they're still doing it, in the face of all evidence. That's getting bad.

[Michael Ejercito]

So they acted like the Mueller investigation team?

https://ethicsalarms.com/2022/05/22/its-confirmation-bias-stupid/

It was confirmation bias. It’s really as simple as that. Even though the lawyers and agents involved in the investigation could not find the smoking gun evidence they were sure was there somewhere showing that Donald Trump and his odious minions conspired with America’s enemies to steal the 2016 election from its rightful winner, Hillary Clinton, they were absolutely certain that’s what happened, and still probably believe that’s what happened. They believed it fervently before the investigation ever began, and it poisoned the objectivity and the legitimacy of their work throughout.

[Sarcastr0]

Deflecting via pop-psychology.

Weeeeaaaaaak.

[OtisAH]

Wreck I “love” watching you try to come up with zingers and counter-arguments. But I’m “in love” with your repeated failures.

[wreckinball]

You're dumb. Zero counter point

[OtisAH]

Not your best work but what can I say? The heart wants what the heart wants.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So everyone who isn't lockstep with Trump is a Democrat?"

She accepted an appointment from Pelosi. Close enough to being a Democrat.

Politics is a team sport, cheering the other team is tantamount to being on the other team.

[Sarcastr0]

So Reagan wasn't a Republican when he criticized Ford?

Quit trying to instantiate a cult of personality in your party of choice.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So Reagan wasn't a Republican when he criticized Ford?"

Dumb comparison. They were opposing candidates in a party race. Same team. He endorsed Ford after he lost.

He didn't accept a partisan appointment from the other team. She choose to break the code.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one saying you can't be in the GOP and think Trump shouldn't be President. Reagan did something quite like that, until you changed the goalposts.

What about all the Republicans that went against Nixon? Or the Dems that voted to impeach Clinton?

You really want to live in an autocracy, I think.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You're the one saying you can't be in the GOP and think Trump shouldn't be President."

I said no such thing.

"What about all the Republicans that went against Nixon?"

They were chumps too.

[Sarcastr0]

Politics is a team sport, cheering the other team is tantamount to being on the other team.

I, took you as saying criticizing Trump was cheering for Dems. Did you mean otherwise?

"What about all the Republicans that went against Nixon?"

They were chumps too.
You are a bad American.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nixon did nothing wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

What kind of country do you want to live in anyway? It must not be a republic or democracy.

[not guilty]

"Nixon did nothing wrong."

Is that as true as everything else you have said?

[Bob from Ohio]

"It must not be a republic or democracy."

Nixon had nothing to do with watergate beforehand. He was just defending his people, its what a leader does. Loyalty is good.

[David Nieporent]

So, Goldwater wasn't a Republican when he told Nixon to resign?

There is no such "code," and it wasn't a "partisan appointment." (Which is what really angers you about it: because her being on the commission gives the lie to the claim that it's a partisan commission.)

[Bob from Ohio]

Goldwater told Nixon he was going to be convicted, he always denied he advised him to quit.

no such "code,"

The people of Wyoming say otherwise.

it wasn't a "partisan appointment."

Pelosi appointed her after denying GOP their choices. Did any GOPers vote for Pelosi for speaker?

[JasonT20]

She accepted an appointment from Pelosi. Close enough to being a Democrat.

Was it an appointment, or an offer? McCarthy sunk a true bipartisan committee by trying to put Jim Jordan on it, when Jordan's actions leading up to Jan. 6 would be something scrutinized by the committee. And that was after Republicans in the Senate filibustered the deal that had been negotiated to form a commission that would have been made up of people not currently holding office and thus not likely to grandstand. (And equal numbers of Democrat and Republican choices.)

Every whine about the Jan. 6 committee being partisan is laughable. The MAGA crowd and other Republicans in leadership are the ones that made this committee the only option at all for congressional investigation. That was their goal. Either no congressional investigation at all, or one led by Democrats that they could blast as partisan. Either way, they figured that they would be able to spin the whole event to fit their narrative.

[Bob from Ohio]

"McCarthy sunk a true bipartisan committee by trying to put Jim Jordan on it"

Of course, the majority should always control the minority's choices. Its all about "saving democracy" don't you know.

[Sarcastr0]

McCarthy gambled most of America would agree with your blind bipartisanism take. Turns out, he lost that bet.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Turns out, he lost that bet."

Did he? I don' think all the results are in yet.

[Sarcastr0]

Despite the right's caterwauling, the American People seem to think the hearings are legit.

Whether that determines their vote is a different question.

Not that you care. Election uber alles, including morality, you always say.

[Michael Ejercito]

How did Jim Jordan's actions lead to the Capitol riot?

[Sarcastr0]

We don't know as of yet, but he was in contact both with Trump and with the Stop the Steal group the Willard War Room, Trump’s legal team, White House personnel, etc. in the runup to and on the actual Jan 06th.

[Bob from Ohio]

"We don't know as of yet"

But I'll defame him anyway!

[Sarcastr0]

Could you walk me through the defamation you see in my post?

[Michael Ejercito]

What was this alleged runup?

[Sarcastr0]

Ask the Jan 06 Committee.

“We understand that you had at least one and possibly multiple communications with President Trump on January 6th. We would like to discuss each such communication with you in detail,” the select panel's chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), wrote in a letter requesting an interview during the week of Jan. 10.

The panel indicated that it wants to question Jordan about conversations he had on Jan. 5 or 6 with “those in the Willard War Room, the Trump legal team, White House personnel or others involved in organizing or planning the actions and strategies for January 6th."

[David Nieporent]

For Bob, it's party over country, always.

[Bob from Ohio]

What is good for the GOP is good for the country, and vice versa.

[Sarcastr0]

When you are unironically sounding like Milo Minderbinder, you may be a bit out there.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a take off on something Ike's defense secretary, former GM head, said about GM.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that guy said something that was roundly satirized. You are acting like a satire of a blindly loyal tool of an aristocrat.

[Don Nico]

Unfortunately there is no path for her to the Presidency

[apedad]

Privacy bill strips FCC oversight of telecom data abuse, worrying consumer advocates

Sweeping federal privacy legislation meant to crack down on big tech could inadvertently give telecoms a free pass to mishandle consumer data, privacy advocates warn.

Under the American Data Privacy Protection Act, the Federal Communications Commission would no longer have the authority to enforce its privacy regulations for common carriers such as AT&T and Verizon that handle the vast majority of Americans’ phone calls and text conversations.

Stripping these authorities from an agency with years of experience overseeing the massive telecom industry, which has a long history of privacy lapses, could pose an immediate threat to consumer data protection, experts warn.

https://www.cyberscoop.com/adppa-fcc-privacy-ftc-congress-telecom/

OK Libertarians, how do you want to play this one?

We all agree that Big Tech is extremely powerful.

If the govt isn’t watching them then – who is?

Or another question; should anyone regulate them?

[Michael P]

The FCC has done a terrible job of protecting consumer privacy from telecoms companies, as you mention in passing. This law would make one agency (the FTC) responsible for overseeing and enforcing consumer data privacy regardless of industry. Are you suggesting that phone companies should get different rules than other large data processing companies?

[apedad]

Here's some of the concerns with moving oversight from the FCC to FTC:

Under the ADPPA, privacy enforcement for common carriers would go to the Federal Trade Commission. However, critics argue that the bill does little to set up the FTC to even match the FCC’s enforcement powers and agency expertise.

"For instance, the FTC would not be able to hold carriers responsible for third-party activities or issue injunctive relief without going to court, two authorities the FCC has. It’s also unclear if the FTC, which has for years expressed concerns to Congress about inadequate funding, will have the capacity for the additional oversight as it also takes on the sprawling tech industry."

I agree our govt does a terrible job at protecting our data (see my comment below for another example).

[Michael P]

Why should carriers be liable for the actions of third parties? According to the CRS, ADPPA regulates those third parties directly: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10776

Do people claim that this will be an unfunded mandate for the FTC, or is the FTC going to get new funding for the Bureau of Privacy?

[ducksalad]

"the FTC would not be able to hold carriers responsible for third-party activities or issue injunctive relief without going to court, two authorities the FCC has. "

When the government does anything that has the look or feel punishment - and the phrase "hold...responsible" definitely has that - going to court should be the normal default, even if it's just to plead guilty.

Same thing for injunctive relief, except for immediate and serious emergencies, and even then only until there is time for a court to look at it.

[David Nieporent]

This is not rhetorical or snarky: what privacy issues are people worried about here?

[OtisAH]

It shouldn’t matter since as of several weeks ago there is no right to privacy at all.

[David Nieporent]

See, that is snarky, and not at all helpful, and not relevant.

[santamonica811]

David,
What is Otis referring to? (And that's not a snarky question.) Was there a SCOTUS case I missed? New federal regs? Or something else???

[David Nieporent]

I'm 99% sure it was a Dobbs allusion.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is reportedly having difficulty hiring quality criminal defense lawyers to represent him. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/16/trump-lawyers-fbi-raid/

That is hardly surprising. Trump has a history of stiffing lawyers on fees, and he would be a difficult client. Moreover, a string of lawyers who have represented Trump have gotten into legal trouble themselves -- Michael Cohen, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman.

[David Nieporent]

and he would be a difficult client.

Trump is "difficult" in the same way that contracting ebola is "unpleasant": a massive understatement. The number one rule for being a defendant: shut up. Rules number two through ten for being a defendant: shut. up. Does anyone think Trump is capable of that?

[bernard11]

You mean it's not elite woke lawyers conspiring to deny him representation?

[Krayt]

Likely not. But there have been pressures in recent years to ostracize lawyers from law firms that defend the wrong people or things in court. It's possible they fear this, and so decline.

Normally, lawyers jump at something like this. If you can get OJ off, boy will people flock to you to defend them.

They are portraying it as nobody wants to defend a hopeless case. Yet he has money and it would be a goldmine, even looking at it from pure greed.

[OtisAH]

“Goldmine”? For who? There are two reasons and two reasons only why he cannot find any decent attorneys to represent him, both already stated. The first, he’s the worst kind of client. He listens to no one and he runs his mouth without care for what comes out of it. And the second? He stiffs every single person who works for him.

There’s no gold at the end of the Turnip rainbow.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, if you think he's going to stiff you, offer to represent him if he deposits the money with a third party.

[bernard11]

And if you think he's going to lie to you, not do what you say, screw up the case by mouthing off, insist you do all kinds of unethical crap, etc.?

It's not a conspiracy, Brett. It's common sense. These lawyers have plenty of business.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump plays by a different rule, Nieporent:

Scream bloody murder; raise money. That's his rule.

Use money to sue, to appeal, to re-appeal, to interfere politically, to promote insurrection, to litigate privileges real and imagined, to suborn perjury, to obstruct justice, to dangle pardons (even out of office, he can hint salvation post- re-election), to overturn subpoenas, to re-appeal upheld subpoenas, to fight depositions, to file lawsuits, to stonewall criminal cases, to run out the clock, endlessly. And, as a further defense, to organize mass corruption of state election procedures, to achieve fully partisan election administration, with impunity to dictate election outcomes at pleasure. Law as politics. Politics as law. Money as power.

At the end of the line—in the unlikely event the end ever gets approached—Trump counts on his rigged Supreme Court. How many lawyers are confident that won't work?

Even if prosecutors have Trump dead to rights on crimes, a partisan Court can manufacture new privileges, ameliorate consequences, overturn the worst convictions, rule out political consequences. The Court can keep Trump out of jail. The Court can keep Trump politically active. He is counting on it.

Against that, lawyers who try to run cases conventionally become road kill, get replaced, more roadkill, etc. It's a process and a strategy. Part of the strategic genius: folks who contribute money get loyal, stay attentive, and become belligerent. The political advantages of that make purely legal damage look trivial by comparison. Thus, in some ways, it is a strategy which runs on Trump's burned-up lawyers. To expend lawyers becomes a cost paid to hyper-mobilize Trump's base. He counts it a bargain.

With that happening, Trump prosecuted is almost more dangerous than Trump with impunity. The remedy, if there is one, would be to accelerate prosecution. Make it brutal and humiliating. Or, to put it better, as brutal and humiliating as it would be for any ordinary criminal.

Evidence shows Trump stole atomic secrets? What should happen to Trump is what would happen to anyone else. Take him into custody. Insist on no bail: flight risk; national security risk. For Trump, obstruction risk, big time.

How does the Justice Department know Trump hasn't got more national security secrets, stashed in various vaults throughout the Trump Organization? He lied about what he did have, probable cause for a corrupt motive. Get warrants, then raid Trump Organization properties everywhere. Let Trump's sycophants and enablers reckon what might turn up.

Looking political is the last thing any federal prosecutor should be worried about now. It is their duty to prosecute a supremely dangerous political criminal conspiracy. Prosecutors have to face that, act like it, and justify it publicly. Political crimes are the only crimes with power to wreck the nation. Teach that out loud, from the Justice Department, without shame or reticence. Then proceed energetically, with an eye to both law, and protection of the political process—but without partisan intent.

Otherwise, Trump at liberty runs roughshod, gives the finger to America, and wrecks American constitutionalism. Unless Liz Cheney can stop him. If the only workable legal approach seems too daunting—if the Justice Department lacks fortitude for it—maybe Liz Cheney is all the nation has left.

It seems a forlorn hope. But maybe politically, it could be an advantage if a leading Trump policy supporter inherited charge of national policy. Maybe that would stop Trump, but also short-circuit right-wing dreams of irresponsible retaliation against the left. If anyone could be sure of that outcome, maybe it would be worth doing. But who knows how anything Cheney might attempt would turn out?

[OtisAH]

As unseemly as it is exhumation would definitely be on my search list. That was an awful big casket for cremated remains. I expect no grass will ever grow over Ivana’s grave.

[Bob from Ohio]

Get professional help,

[David Nieporent]

At the end of the line—in the unlikely event the end ever gets approached—Trump counts on his rigged Supreme Court. How many lawyers are confident that won't work?

All of them.

Well, I mean, maybe not Jenna Ellis. But all real lawyers.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, do you really think the right wing majority can be counted on to uphold a harsh Trump conviction and sentence? I expect them to find some newly-created privilege, or to mumble at length about unprecedented situations, before delivering an unreasoned exoneration as a matter of (made-up) law, or even to assert a Court duty to protect the nation from an endless round of political retaliation.

Were you able to anticipate the reasoning and result of Bush v. Gore? I expect a harsh Trump conviction would put even more partisan pressure on the Court than did Bush v. Gore. I see no reason to suppose this Court would be any more principled than that one.

That said, I get that the legal profession is almost honor bound to profess in public complete faith in the integrity of the Court. So maybe my prediction misdescribed what lawyers would say they expect.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Your pessimism is warranted.

Former Gov. McDonnell (R) was convicted of corruption in federal court. The conviction was unanimously upheld by the conservative Fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction.

Chief Justice Roberts felt the need to acknowledge that McDonnell's conduct was well beyond norms of typical (acceptable) behavior:

None of this, of course, is to suggest that the facts of this case typify normal political interaction between public officials and their constituents. Far from it.

The vagueness of some of the statutes relied on here counsel caution and careful pleading and laser focused attention to well-crafted jury instructions before proceeding with criminal charges. McDonnell preened before the cameras after the charges were dismissed:

"I know in my heart, Chuck, I never believed that anything that I did was wrong or illegal."

And probably cultists believe him, adopting as their lodestar their cult leaders' belief that, if it's not illegal, it's not "wrong." And it's only illegal if sufficient proof can be mustered to prove both the acts and the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only benefit of this amoral narcissist is that he has revealed the amorality of about 30% of the country who believe winning is what matters and all means to that end are acceptable if they don't amount to a provable crime.

[David Nieporent]

Nieporent, do you really think the right wing majority can be counted on to uphold a harsh Trump conviction and sentence?

I can't possibly answer that without knowing the specific facts. But I think that the right wing majority will uphold it if the facts and law justify it, yes. There will be no 6-3 pro-Trump decision.

Just like there were no 6-3 pro-Trump decisions regarding the election itself, or the various privileges Trump has tried to assert.

[Don Nico]

"Evidence shows Trump stole atomic secrets? "
SL,
Nice bit of journalistic sleaze there, changing nuclear information to atomic secrets–the usual overworked phrase for the physics and engineering of nuclear weapons and devices. There is no evidence of that and nothing of that sort indicated on the receipt.
There may well have been material related to nuclear doctrine, deployments and readiness, none of which are called "atomic secrets"

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, for a contrary view, read, The Doomsday Machine, Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, by Daniel Ellsberg.

[Don Nico]

SL,
I was in that business for 30 years. I don't need to read Ellsberg.
Notice he called is book ..."Nuclear War Planner" not "Atomic War" planner

[John F. Carr]

And later, what if Trump needs to testify? Can he tell a simple, believable story and keep his facts straight on cross-examination?

So far nobody is backing him up on his standing order to declassify documents. He might need to testify to rebut a prima facie case of mishandling classified information. He might need to testify that he thought the election was rigged, depending on whether the charges allow that as a defense.

[not guilty]

Cross-examining Donald Trump in a criminal prosecution would be about as much fun as a lawyer can have with clothes on.

[apedad]

Data Breach of Federal Courts Dates Back to Early 2020; Details of Compromise of Records System Closely Guarded

A breach of an electronic records system used by the US federal courts for filing and case management is being investigated by the Justice Department, which is keeping most of the details of the incident from the public. However, recent testimony from House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler has revealed that the data breach first took place in early 2020 and may have had a window stretching into early 2021.

The US federal courts issued a statement in January 2021 acknowledging a “significant” data breach of its Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) records system, and issuing instructions for highly sensitive documents to be filed by hand on paper until the issue was resolved. A security audit was announced, but details about the incident have been thin ever since.

https://www.cpomagazine.com/cyber-security/data-breach-of-federal-courts-dates-back-to-early-2020-details-of-compromise-of-records-system-closely-guarded/

Hmmm….

Any of you CM/ECF users know about this?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. I mean, it was widely publicized at the time, and every single time one logs in on SDNY one is reminded that they have adopted special rules for sensitive documents.

[apedad]

FBI Announces Results of Nationwide Sex Trafficking Operation

The FBI, working with its state and local partners during two weeks in August, identified and located 84 minor victims of child sex trafficking and child sexual exploitation offenses and located 37 actively missing children during a nationwide enforcement campaign, dubbed “Operation Cross Country.”

In addition to the identification and location of adolescent victims, the FBI and its partners located 141 adult victims of human trafficking. Agents and investigators also identified or arrested 85 suspects of child sexual exploitation and human trafficking offenses. Those suspects identified will be subject to additional investigation for potential chargers. The average age of victims located in similar operations is approximately 15.5 years old, while the youngest victim discovered during this operation was 11 years old.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/fbi-announces-results-nationwide-sex-trafficking-operation

What kind of sick fucks are involved in human trafficking.

I can see fraud, drugs, etc., because that's just somebody trying to make (steal) a buck, but trafficking in human beings is sick.

[David Nieporent]

What kind of sick fucks are involved in human trafficking.

Basically, nobody. It's a dysphemism for prostitution. As Reason perennially points out when these operations take place, the government press releases are vague and misleading.

https://reason.com/2022/08/17/what-we-know-about-the-fbis-latest-national-human-trafficking-sting/

[Krayt]

PBS had a documentary on a woman who went to a third world country to "buy back" some sad woman's 12-14 year old. She found the brothel she was working in, negotiated to "buy" her for $2000, and took the girl back to her mom.

As soon as the cameras were off, she went back.

Now this is not a good situation, but "sex trafficking" serves a rhetorical purpose in the west to make it sound like they're dragged off. Some may be, some may not, and after a while, it ends being a bad life decision after some point. Assuming it is worse than living on a dirt floor waiting for some ugly dude to marry you and take you to a different dirt floor.

[David Nieporent]

Just to be clear, when I implied that sex trafficking is really just prostitution, I meant in the U.S. I am not opining on how women are treated in other countries.

[Nige]

'and after a while, it ends being a bad life decision after some point.'

What you're describing does not offer much in the way of life choices.

[Sarcastr0]

Krayt, you are blaming the victim pretty hard in the story you posted.

I know libertarians are not good at seeing when economic reality means you really have no choice, but good lord man.

Assuming it is worse than living on a dirt floor waiting for some ugly dude to marry you and take you to a different dirt floor.
Are you one of those 'turd world country' assholes?

[OtisAH]

The traffickers are in it for the money too. By your standard human trafficking should be “understandable” as well.

[Bored Lawyer]

What kind of sick fucks are involved in human trafficking.

Ghislaine Maxwell would like to comment, but her internet connection is not working today.

[DaveM]

Earth's climate changes a LOT -- but over a very long time. Here is a news clip from weather.com about an engraved stone that was created in the 1600s to mark a low water level in the Elbe river now being exposed again for the first time since then.

https://weather.com/news/weather/video/hunger-stone-in-czech-republic-has-grim-warning-about-european-drought

I am a geology enthusiast, and one of the very first things I learned about climate is that it undergoes huge changes, and those changes are literally written in stone. I can walk outside my house and see evidence of climate changes over tens of thousands of years right in the very ground upon which I stand.

So, do I believe in "climate change"? Oh yeah, you betcha. But 500 years is just a tiny period of time over which that change occurs. Hyperbolic talk about "tipping points" is just talk. The earth is massive and its climate mechanisms are highly dynamic. There are very long periods of large, cyclic changes. For example, one current theory is that all of North Africa experiences a cycle of drought and equatorial rain forest over a period of 15,000 years, and we are in the middle of that cycle today.

[Sarcastr0]

If it's just a cycle, weird coincidence it kicked off right when science said this other thing would kick off the same change.

Sure, cyclic change is one cause of climate change. But there is currently some pretty good science about greenhouse gases being another cause. And right now that second looks like it's in play.

This is just deflection.

[wreckinball]

Weird that actual temperature data doesn't bear out the climate catastrophe story. Here is National weather service data from my area, Western PA

https://www.weather.gov/media/pbz/records/warmmonthave.pdf

Astonishing that the records don't seem recent.

[Nige]

Not sure one set of data from one single area taken in isolation contributes much to our understanding of a global climate emergecy.

[wreckinball]

Well I could look at others if you wish. You mean climate change skipped Western PA. Explain that science.

[Nige]

You think the effects of something like this are evenly distributed?

[jb]

Not sure if you know this or not, but at different times different parts of the world are cooler and hotter. It might be hotter than usual in New York at the same time it is colder than usual in Mexico City. To understand what's going on with the global climate, you want to look at a lot of data points from all over the globe. Just like if I was trying to understand the US economy, it wouldn't be that helpful to just look at how Elon Musk was doing or how the random homeless guy down the street was doing.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you still not know the difference between climate and weather at this late date?!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Astonishing that the records don't seem recent."

We have not had a 100 degree day in NE Ohio since 1988 when there were 3 in a row.

Most other heat records are from the 1930s and 1940s

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett arguing that changes in laws made in 1982 were "recent."

Apparently David doesn't consider 1982 to be "recently".

Clearly, he should have a conversation with Bob who, in the context of climate change, suggests that 1988 plainly is not recent.

I'm pretty sure the standard for recent in terms of climate change is longer than that for changes to U.S. law, so Brett and Bob both can't be right.

(I agree with Bob, 1988 isn't "recent", but also local temperature records are close to irrelevant as pointed out above. And contrary anecdotes are readily available:

The normal high temperature for the day is around minus-56 Fahrenheit (minus-49 Celsius), which puts the March 18 reading at close to 70 degrees Fahrenheit (around 38 Celsius) warmer than normal.

If the World Meteorological Organization actually tracked this particular metric, scientists say it would likely set a world record.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/28/weather/antarctica-world-record-high-temperature-anomaly-climate/index.html

[Nige]

Yes, climate changes over long periods of time. Now the climate is changing over a very short period of time, this current change being caused by human emissions that could easily have been curtailed at any time over the last fifty years or so - or 'easily' relative to the costs and difficulties of not doing it, as we are in the process of finding out. An ancient stone with the words 'if you see this, weep' is not an argument for complacency or vague handwaving about 'cycles.'

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, the climate record tends to lose temporal resolution as you go back in time, the usual measures of it tend to blur short term events, so you can't really say that climate changing over a short period of time is all that unusual.

[Nige]

Well you can say that it's unusual, going by our current understanding, but previous sudden shifts, by their nature difficult to detect and study, will have their causes, just like this one does, which we are monitoring as it happens with a level of data and understanding that is unprecedented. You can't point to previous shifts for which we have incomplete data and say that their existence means our current shift can't be understood or its causes explained.

[wreckinball]

Short term events like heat waves are sensationalized to support the world is ending scenario.

But no worries. The US government is there to save the day with the Inflation Reduction Act which also is going to change Climate back to whatever?

That will do it!

[Nige]

Yes, we should let the market take care of it. Oh no, wait, the market is literally causing it and making it worse.

[wreckinball]

So explain how an all wind/solar grid works. Add in everyone driving an EV. Looking outside right now cloudy and still. Politicians don't know WTF they are doing.

Here's an idea. Maybe set a reasonable CO2 limit power production and then back off. But there's no kickback sin that so nah they're not interested.

Everything is a market. It's whether it's a free market that matters

[Nige]

No, you cannot trust fossil fuel companies, they are malign, one of the most malign forces on the planet today.

[wreckinball]

But you can trust the Democrat congress they'll undoubtedly get the engineering of our power grid right!

[Nige]

You can definitely trust any politicians in the pockets of the oil companies to do their best to delay and sabotage it, which certainly includes some Democrats, but also all Republicans.

[wreckinball]

So don't put too much power in the hands of politicians right? Why should they decide whether pipelines are built power plants are operated?

[OtisAH]

Wait, are you getting dumber in real time? Sweet!

[Nige]

Remove all power and influence from fossil fuel companies, more like.

[Michael Ejercito]

They provide us with consumer goods.

[Nige]

We could get by with a fraction of the consmuer goods produced.

[Michael Ejercito]

You decide for yourself.

I decide for myself.

[Sarcastr0]

Not how to solve collective action problems, Mike.

[Nige]

I try to influence government policy. Bet you do, too.

[Michael Ejercito]

How is the market making it worse?

[Nige]

Because we are still using fossil fuels and fossil fuel companies are making enormous profits, and that is wrecking the climate, even though we know it is wrecking the climate.

[Michael Ejercito]

How do they wreck the climate?

[Nige]

You need to do some basic research in climate change.

[apedad]

I think we all agree with your comment; however the question is how has (or whether) human activity accelerated changing environmental conditions, especially in the past 100+ years.

Bad News for Earth: Rainwater Is No Longer Safe to Drink, Study Says

Remember when you were a kid, and it was fun to tip your head back during a rainstorm and open your mouth to drink the drops? You shouldn’t do that anymore. That’s because you’ll be ingesting too many particles of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), the hazardous chemicals that leach from the ultra-durable plastics we’ve created for about the past 120 years.

Earth is officially past its safe zone for plastic contamination. The PFAS “boundary has been exceeded,” according to a study published August 2 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. PFAS are known to be hazardous to both the environment and human health. At this point, these “forever chemicals” are all over the globe and have seeded the atmosphere. Most importantly, they don’t break down in the environment.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a40859859/rainwater-not-safe-to-drink/

[Nige]

There's a report just out about how the lead in fuel shaved IQ points off an entire generation. Fossil fuels have been profoundly harming us for over a century.

[Mr. Bumble]

You realize that what I assume to be your preferred choice of "green energy" is not possible without the use of fossil fuels?

[Nige]

You can make that claim if you like, it doesn't change the fact that continued use of fossil fuels is non-viable.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh it is more than viable and is the only way we may eventually get to the point where alternative energy sources become practical.
You do realize that the only reason you are able to post comments here is because of fossil fuels?

[Nige]

Yes, I realise that the fossil fuel industry, supressing its own knowledge of the effects of its products on the climate, spending millions to deny those effects, has continued to make itself essential at almost every level of society, knowing the difficulty in extricating societies from fossil fuels would come with enormous costs in lives and property. The enormity of this evil is staggering, and therefore diffiicult to acknowledge.

[Mr. Bumble]

A simple question: Have you been and are you still the beneficiary of fossil fuels? Are you willing to do your part against what you claim is so harmful by quitting using them right now and completely?

[Nige]

Yes, I am. No, I am not. I am prepared to do everything I can to advocate for my society to quit using fossil fuels, because that's more effective.

[Mr. Bumble]

" I am prepared to do everything I can to advocate for my society to quit using fossil fuels, because that's more effective."

Hypocrite.

[Nige]

Not really. What's more important, that one person stops using fossil fuels, or that entire societies stop using them?

[Michael Ejercito]

Come up with an alternative that competes in terms of cost and/or convenience.

[Nige]

It's not about something that can complete. Using fossil fuels is killing the planet. Arguing that ok, so what, it's competitive is really fucking missing the point.

[Michael Ejercito]

Explain how fossil fuels are killing the planet.

[Nige]

Look it up, smarter people than me can dumb it down for you.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I don't think those "smarter people" are actually that talented at dumbing things down, Nige.

[Michael Ejercito]

There is nothing evil about using fossil fuels.

[Nige]

Using fossil fuels isn't evil, because most people don;' have a choice outside of completely opting out of society. Fossil fuel companies are evil, though, and perpetuating the use of fossil fuels in the face of a global crisis they are causing is evil.

[Michael Ejercito]

There is no global crisis.

[Nige]

If only saying it made it so.

[Michael Ejercito]

We will ise whatever has the best cost and the best convenience.

Sonetimes, thar is fosdil fuels.

[Sarcastr0]

Best cost under what timeline, and including what externalities?

That's basically the whole issue here.

[Nige]

Not sure floods, fires, droughts and famines are cost-effecitve or convenient.

[Michael Ejercito]

Please explain how floods, fires, droughts, and famines would occur.

[Sarcastr0]

Have occurred.

[Michael Ejercito]

https://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWbd0.html

We considered a war in which a mere 100 megatons were exploded, less than one percent of the world arsenals, and only in low-yield airbursts over cities. This scenario, we found, would ignite thousands of fires, and the smoke from these fires alone would be enough to generate an epoch of cold and dark almost as severe as in the 5000 megaton case. The threshold for what Richard Turco has called The Nuclear Winter is very low.

If 100 megatons can generate an "generate an epoch of cold and dark", then 1 teraton can make the planet dark and freezing cold forever.

So why have we not done this? Why not make the whole planet freezing cold forever, thus eliminating floods, droughts, fires, and famines?

Have you even heard of the Nuclear Winter Theorem, one of the greatest scientifici discoveries since Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"?

If not, ask yourself why the media does not mention this.

[Sarcastr0]

...I'm not sure you understand the brief here.

[Nige]

Are occurring.

[Nige]

'Why not make the whole planet freezing cold forever'

Questions that answer themselves.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They're covering up for the drop in IQ from mandated fluoridated water.

Which has been shown to decrease IQ.

[apedad]

Sheesh you're a fucking clown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J67wKhddWu4

[BravoCharlieDelta]

This isn't a secret you ignorant dunce.

"Prenatal and childhood excessive fluoride exposures may impair the intelligence development of school children."

Published in BMC Public Health 2020

"It is concluded that IQ level was negatively correlated with fluoride level in drinking water."

Published in Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry 2016.

“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”

Published Environmental Health Perspectives 2012

Read a book.

[Absaroka]

I picked one of your quotes: "It is concluded that IQ level was negatively correlated with fluoride level in drinking water". That's an accurate quote, but using that as a summary of the study is statistical malpractice.

The quote comes from the abstract of this study, which refutes your thesis. That study is not about fluoridating water to prevent cavities; it is about places with naturally occurring high fluoride levels - higher levels than are added for dental reasons. As with almost everything, you can have too much of a good thing, and fluoride is no exception. That excessive levels of fluoride can be harmful is hardly news.

Have a look at 'Table 1', which found lower IQ for both very high and very low fluoride concentrations. The highest IQs were from areas with moderate levels ... the same levels, in fact, as are added to drinking water to prevent cavities.

However, before proclaiming that 'fluoridating water increases IQ!!!!', do read the caveats.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Cherrypicking.

How scientific. You must be a Gender/Sexuality or CRT scholar.

[Absaroka]

I commend your chutzpah for complaining that someone cherrypicked a source ... from the list of sources you provided! Well done.

But I like to accommodate, so I went and read the papers referenced by your other two quotes (which are from abstracts or press releases). They are *also* referring to the effects of naturally occurring fluoride levels higher, and usually much higher, than the levels of fluoride added for cavity prevention. This, again, is not news.

TBH, you seem to be overlooking the much greater hazards of excessive levels of dihydrogen monoxide, which can lead to effects much worse than mild retardation, and dihydrogen monoxide is frequently found in shockingly high levels in almost all drinking water.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Only a genuine retard can think they can trip someone up with that very stupid dihydrogen monoxide trope.

Congrats!

[Nige]

Who are covering it up? Why? Prove it.

[David Nieporent]

I guess we now have the explanation for BCD.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's easy enough. Just unleash Mutant #59.

[Absaroka]

Well, that's going to be bad news for cities that get water from watersheds (Seattle, ...) or rivers (most cities).

[William Cheswick]

Anyone who has taken geology 101 knows that the climate changes all the time through the ages. And it certainly is plausible that man’s actions have had an effect on it. My complaint is the economic consequences of the proposed solutions, which seem likely to reverse the benefits of post-Enlightenment properity. See the Copenhagen Consensus for a discussion of the issues.

[Nige]

My complaint is maintaining the current status quo for economic reasons when no economic satus quo could possibly survive the climate chaos being caused by the current status quo is incredibly stupid.

[shawn_dude]

What are the economic consequences of most of Florida losing fresh water due to saltwater intrusion? Sea level rise bankrupting the state-owned property insurance company while millions of its residents lose their homes during hurricane season? Will the consequences stay bound within Florida's borders, or will millions of its citizens relocate to other parts of the US as refugees? Now multiply that by every state along the Gulf of Mexico. And drop Manhattan into that mix as well.

As California dries up and its agricultural sector shrivels up in the heat, where will the rest of the US get 1/3 of its fresh fruit, vegetables, and nuts? Especially during the Winter when the rest of the country has limited ability to grow crops?

Or, consider the economic consequences of continuing to support the fossil fuel industry, which is largely concentrated among aggressive, non-democratic nations like Saudi Arabia and Russia. Wouldn't it be better, economically, if the oil cash stopped flowing to those states? Think of all the money we'd save and crow we'd avoid eating if we didn't have to prop up the Saudis.

[ragebot]

Reality check time.

Natural Vulcanism completely blasts any manmade factors that affect the climate out of the water. Every time some ignorant libtard starts babbling about climate change they have to ignore this fact. It is well documented that 'The Year Without A Summer" was a real thing and it was the result of the Mount Tambora eruption on 10 April 1815. This event far over shadows anything humans have ever done to affect climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

[Stephen Lathrop]

ragebot, that natural vulcanism has potential power to out-catastrophe man-made climate change seems unquestionable. The Tambora eruption was not an example of that. It had a sharp effect, followed by a declining effect which may even be continuing at present, to some hard-to-measure degree. By contrast, evidence seems to show man-made climate change exerting a cumulative and increasing effect. Absent actions not yet taken to constrain fossil fuel emissions there is no reason in sight to expect that trend to reverse.

In general, one place to look for comparative insight has to be relative impacts on species habitats, biological profusion, and species diversity (both within and among species). The Tambora eruption seems unlikely to have delivered any impacts by those measures as lasting or as widespread as, for instance, arctic and antarctic warming caused by fossil fuel use. Nor is there any evidence of ongoing decline in those impacts. Increasing impacts seem to be the rule for man-made climate change, but not for the Tambora eruption.

[Nige]

We don't have to ignore that fact, we just have to point out that THAT was caused by a volcanic explosion, THIS is caused by human emissions. We have no control over volcanoes, we have complete control over human emissions. Also, one year without a summer, versus a couple of centuries of increasingly severe weather chaos with the potential to render swathes of the planet uninhabitable - I think we might be winning that contest, unfortunately.

[wreckinball]

https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/10/survey-8-in-10-americans-believe-u-s-has-two-tiered-justice-system/

We do

[Moderation4ever]

Of course we do, like many things in this country money makes the difference and if you have money, you get more justice. You can get a free lawyer in court but don't expect that lawyer to be the same caliber as a one from a white shoe firm.

[wreckinball]

True on the quality of lawyer statement. But there is more to the two tiers than just that

[Commenter_XY]

The problem I see longer term is that the perception of a 'two tiered justice system' by a significant proportion of the population leads to a complete loss of institutional legitimacy. People will not support illegitimate institutions, and that leads to all sorts of unexpected and negative outcomes.

[Michael Ejercito]

Such as?

[Moderation4ever]

I would suggest that money is the dominate factor and that other things are far less significant. Look at cases and which side has the deepest pockets, and you can often, not always, tell who will win.

[defaultdotxbe]

I think we have at least 3 tiers.

[Code_Ginger]

So I know that the supreme court has very strict time limits for arguments. I was wondering if American's with Disability's Act accommodations would apply to those time limits?

So I just had to have cancer removed from my tongue. This required removing a large chunk and reconstruction. I now talk noticeably slower since my tongue is stiff and not as responsive. This is also required to ensure I am understandable. I feel like this would put me at a material disadvantage in the amount of information I could convey in a similar time span as some one with out this impediment.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court allows motions for more time to argue. Would a clumsy talker really be a good advocate? I had trouble listening to Diane Rehm.

[MoreCurious]

Although I posted this question a couple of months ago, recent events make it seem a little more likely that a former president of the United States might get indicted. If it happens, and if he is tried and convicted, would the obvious logistical and security problems mean that he could never be sentenced to prison -- not even one of the so-called "country club" prisons?

[David Nieporent]

Especially not one of the so-called 'country club' prisons, because they have much less security. (Remember, you need to protect the president from other prisoners and from the outside world.)

In my estimation, the logistical issues with sending an ex-president to prison are insurmountable. If he were convicted of something serious enough to warrant prison, I would expect he would be sentenced to house arrest.

Though… Gitmo might be workable.

[wreckinball]

Well if he's guilty of not listening to the Records Archive folks him and Obama could be cell mates? No? Maybe Bill could join them

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure Dave, or maybe Super Max.

[wreckinball]

Some are suggesting just executing him. Why not right? Unprecedented!

[Sarcastr0]

Who is suggesting executing Trump?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Former CIA director Hayden.

[John F. Carr]

How many countries would accept Trump and refuse to extradite him?

I imagine Trump fleeing to Russia and being treated like the folks who used to hijack airplanes to Cuba.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he would be sentenced to house arrest"

The White House works. The likely result if convicted of a mere process crime.

[Nige]

Why, so he could steal more classified documents?

[Bored Lawyer]

"In my estimation, the logistical issues with sending an ex-president to prison are insurmountable."

Really? Why? Once someone is locked up behind bars, there is little chance of someone outside getting at him.

And as for other prisoners, the low security prisons tend to be populated by non-violent types like Bernie Madoff. I doubt they would be much danger to someone like Trump.

[IsaacDanielcm]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.133602/gov.uscourts.nynd.133602.19.0.pdf

New York filed its response to a challenge of its new gun law. As usual, it's filled with nonsense. For example, they assume the truth of their conclusions and show their true colors by saying that many places are "inappropriate." They state that the private property owner has a right to his own control, but doesn't explain why those rights should be overridden by public accommodation laws. They also fail to state any restriction whereby breaking an owner's wish is a felony.

"Guns would immediately be allowed in a host of inappropriate places – courts, churches, playgrounds, libraries, nursery schools, addiction facilities, domestic violence shelters, and polling places, just to name a few"

[Noscitur a sociis]

They state that the private property owner has a right to his own control

I strongly support gun rights, but I also strongly support property rights. If someone doesn't want people carrying weapons on their property, why shouldn't they be allowed to implement that desire?

[Bored Lawyer]

I agree with you, but I think he is pointing out an inconsistency with public accomodations laws. A theatre or restaurant cannot ban someone for being black, but can for carrying a gun.
Not a compelling argument, IMO, but not as frivlous as you make it out to be.

[IsaacDanielcm]

It's compelling in the sense that conservatives shouldn't die on the hill of principle. If private property rights should be trumped for things that liberals like (like mandatory cake baking), we shouldn't hesitate to do the same for things we like.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think you understand the concept of principle. Also, since when did private property rights become not things that conservatives like?

[IsaacDanielcm]

I do understand the concept of principle. But principle shouldn't be a suicide pact. It doesn't make sense to adhere to principle if your opponent is going to use it as a weapon with which to bludgeon you.

"Turn the other cheek" might have worked for Jesus. it doesn't work for conservatives in modern liberal society.

[David Nieporent]

Principle that you abandon when it's inconvenient to follow it is not, in fact, a principle at all.

One does not adhere to principle because it gets one what one wants; one adhere's to principle because it's the right thing to do.

[David Nieporent]

*Ugh. No idea how that ' snuck into "adheres."

[IsaacDanielcm]

So you're on record acknowledging that liberals have no principles beyond their own power?

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure how that follows from what I said, and I certainly wouldn't make a generalization about "liberals" as a class. Obviously some liberals are unprincipled because that's a natural human trait. And some are principled.

But what I don't see much if at all online are liberals proudly boasting that they are unprincipled, the way you do above (and the way Bob from Ohio routinely does).

[IsaacDanielcm]

Liberals constantly say "We don't obsess about rights the way you do." You are being disingenuous.

[David Nieporent]

Liberals constantly say "We don't obsess about rights the way you do." You are being disingenuous.

I think you're confused: the fact that I haven't seen an imaginary quote of yours¹ is not disingenuousness.

¹That quote gets literally zero results on google.

[bernard11]

A theatre or restaurant cannot ban someone for being black, but can for carrying a gun.
Not a compelling argument, IMO, but not as frivlous as you make it out to be.

Pretty damn frivolous. The black guy can't say, "Sorry, I'll be white next time."

[Bored Lawyer]

Which has nothing to do with the argument.

[bernard11]

I thought that was exactly the argument - that it is inconsistent to require a business to serve blacks and let them bar those carrying guns.

Which is pretty dumb.

[IsaacDanielcm]

No, what's pretty dumb is your drawing a distinction where there isn't one.

[IsaacDanielcm]

No, but the man wearing a kufi or a yarmulke can say "Sorry, I'll leave it at home next time." But I suspect you wouldn't support letting a business owner prohibit religious head coverings.

Further, cake baking has nothing to do with the identity of the customer, but the circumstances of what they're going to do with the product.

Your argument sucks. Face it, you support overriding private property rights when you think it's something REALLY worthwhile, but you don't when it's a right you don't like. You're not principled at all.

[bernard11]

Yes. I support overriding private property rights when I think it's something REALLY worthwhile. So do you, I bet.

No, but the man wearing a kufi or a yarmulke can say "Sorry, I'll leave it at home next time."

Call me when a yarmulke is used to kill someone.

[IsaacDanielcm]

Right, so you don't really support private property rights, you just don't like guns, and you dress up your support for these draconical laws as support for private property rights as a cover.

[bernard11]

You need to go back to mind-reading school.

[IsaacDanielcm]

You as much as admitted it in your post.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Face it, you support overriding private property rights when you think it's something REALLY worthwhile, but you don't when it's a right you don't like.

Yup. Like Madison. Read Federalist 10:

But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

[IsaacDanielcm]

I don't see anything in there about mandatory cake baking.

[IsaacDanielcm]

So do I. But that doesn't change the fact that guns are being treated uniquely versus any other exercise of private property rights. In all other cases, if you violate an owner's wishes and refuse to leave, it's trespassing. And in those cases, the owner doesn't preemptively get the power of the state to levy a felony to enforce his "rights."

For example, a restaurant can have a sign that says "No shoes, no shirt, no service." But if you walk in barefoot, you haven't committed a crime. At worst, he can ask you to leave, and if you don't do so, it's trespassing (which is usually a violation or misdemeanor, at worst). You haven't committed a crime by merely entering his restaurant without shoes. That's what New York is attempting to do here.

Also, leaving aside whether states should be allowed to criminalize carrying a gun in violation of a private property owner's wishes, New York's "opt in" regime (whereby all private property is presumed to be a "no gun" zone unless an owner states otherwise) is clearly intended to chill the exercise of the right. Similarly, there are no other instances of this for anything else.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There are 9 confirmed cases of Pride Pox, a disease spread primarily via high-risk sodomy, in children in the USA.

What is the Federal Government going to do about this public health menace?

[ragebot]

Not disagreeing but would like to see a definition of "high-risk sodomy'.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If Elon Musk's $40B he was going to use to buy Twitter could solve world hunger, why didn't the Federals choose to solve world hunger two times over instead of giving the IRS $80B?

Is it because 1 snarky African-American billionaire is more intelligent and effective than an entire Federal bureaucracy?

[defaultdotxbe]

SNAP, NSLP, WIC, TANF, and other programs spend well over $100 billion each year, so clearly world hunger is already solved.

[Ben_]

Because people who want to spend money they didn’t earn like to make fraudulent promises — like the one about hunger — in order to get that money.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

$80 billion -- apportioned over a decade -- is about $25 per American.

I pay more than $25 in federal taxes every hour of every standard working day.

People with cramped perspectives see $80 billion and faint. People with marketable skills and financial experience see $80 billion, shrug, and hope the investment is worthwhile.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

$25 per American per year.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When has an $80B investment in the Federal Bureaucracy ever been worthwhile?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Innumerable $25-per-person-per-year investments in the federal government have been not only valuable but in some circumstances invaluable.

$25 a year. For modern society?

Only a hopelessly lost, anti-government malcontent would dispute this.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why on Earth would a person believe having a huge massive government with the single largest agency being tax collectors is a "modern society".

What sort of dumbass thinks the largest component of an economy should be non-productive burden on the backs of the productive class?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why, I do declare, Johnny Ringo here considers himself qualified to lecture me on the "productive class."

If you care to compare educations and economic value, BravoCharlieDelta, rather than just mumble on behalf of the riff-raff, I am still your huckleberry.

And you are still no daisy, no daisy at all.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Facts:

- Government employees do not produce economic value.
- Factoring in spending of government at all levels and compliance costs, the people in government control 50% of our economy.
- Government is an attractant for stupid people. The lower your education level, the more you make over your private sector peers in terms of total compensation.
- Virtually every ill in modern society can be directly tied to a government policy or program.
- Clark Kent confirms it's "huckle bearer" and he's an authoritative source being Superman and all.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If my blog attracted you as a fan I would be humiliated and motivated to improve.

Prof. Volokh seems unburdened in that regard.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm sorry for hurting your feelings by posting those facts.

[Sarcastr0]

Those are facts straight from your feelings. You have a compulsion to hate a certain group of people and post nonsense about them that you fervently believe because you gotta justify your hate.

It's pretty sad, really.

Some might look at the Internet and radar and GPS and the Hoover damn and computers and realize that even if you believe the private sector is better at productivity, nothing is absolute.

[Sarcastr0]

Also the gay sex thing.

Really a sad show of twisted emotions.

I should put you back on mute; you may be the most depressing poster out there.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Oh your so concerned about my tone! I better correct myself so Sarcastr0 approves of my tone!

lmao get fucked you lying bootlicker.

[jb]

Investments in the IRS are generally ROI positive. As someone who complies with existing tax laws, I'd prefer for the government to get as much money as possible under existing tax laws so that they could potentially reduce tax rates to get the same revenue.

At the point where money spent on enforcement doesn't provide a reasonable return in terms of revenue, then stop investing in it. Pretty straightforward.

[John F. Carr]

A former Prime Minister of Australia is accused of secretly taking on portfolios, i.e. giving orders directly to departments nominally under the direction of a cabinet member. His critics said that's the kind of thing a President would do. That's why the scandal has me scratching my head. I'm used to the President running the show and if his cabinet doesn't like his orders they can quit. I feel like I did when it was revealed that Monsanto's French division kept a list of reporters and critics of the company. Of course they did... you're saying that's not how things work in France?

[Michael Ejercito]

Is there an expert on Australian law that could chime in on this?

[Voize of Reazon]

John, is my sarcasm detector broken or are you really surprised that the Australian government isn't organized according to the US Constitution?

[John F. Carr]

From the press coverage I gather the move was constitutional but not customary.

[Voize of Reazon]

Executive power is formally held by the Queen, and exercised by her local delegate the Governor-General. The GG also appoints all ministers (including the PM) to their portfolios, and they all serve (again, formally) at his pleasure.

Lots of "formally"s there, because a few statutes and centuries of tradition establish that the GG has very little discretion and almost always acts as advised by the PM, or occasionally some other minister.

If you conclude from the above that the PM can't simply exercise the authority of other portfolios, you would be correct. Their powers are not received through him, they were delegated by the GG.

But if you also conclude that if the PM instructed the GG to "make me a co-minister of these 8 departments" the GG would do as he was told you would be correct about that too. That is what happened in this case, and how the PM was able to direct those departments. The scandal is that it was all done without public notice, and arguments whether the GG had a moral duty to ensure the appointments were publicized, and whether new laws should be passed to require appointments to be published in the Commonwealth Gazette.

[John F. Carr]

The blog software needs to introduce breaks when authors don't provide them. The main page is still too wordy.

[Bored Lawyer]

“I don’t accept a Jew, Israeli or Zionist, or anyone else who speaks Hebrew. I’m with killing them wherever they are: children, elderly people, and soldiers,” Hanona asserted, adding: “The Jews are sons of the dogs… I am in favor of killing them and burning them like Hitler did. I will be so happy.”

A freelance reporter in Gaza, who has contributed to numerous NY Times articles, as well as articles by outlets such as the BBC, Guardian, and others, was outed as having posted the above words. The Times, duly embarassed, severed connections with him.
Queries:
(1) What efforts, if any does the Times (or others like the BBC) make to vet the views and biases of freelancers?
(2) Have they made efforts to vet the view of other freelancers in the area? Would it be too much to ask freelancers to disavow these sentiments?
(3) What efforts, if any, have they made to verify the accuracy of contributions by this Hitler admirer in past contributions and correct same?
(4) Why should readers give any credibility to reports by the Times or the BBC on the Israeli-Arab conflict, when it has taken contrbutions from such a person?

[IsaacDanielcm]

Given that many Muslims in Israel speak Hebrew, this guy is a real moron.

[Sarcastr0]

If he was just outed, what makes you think any of your questions are relevant?

[Bored Lawyer]

Try reading them again and ask your question. Otherwise, you are acting like a troll.

[Sarcastr0]

Obviously don't pay Hitler-lovers once they are revealed. But also don't preemptively police the thoughts of everyone you plan to pay.

Insisting that a newspaper dig into the views of its freelancers smells like ad hom to me.

If the Hitler-loving reporter is reporting facts, usual fact-checking protocols should catch any lies.
If the reporter is giving opinion, usual editorial board vetting should ensure no Hitler-loving opinions make it into print.

Why should readers give any credibility to reports by the Times or the BBC on the Israeli-Arab conflict, when it has taken contrbutions from such a person?
Ahhh, you are going for ad hominem by proxy. Get stuffed.

[IsaacDanielcm]

You lefties have a sack dance every time some no-name Republican politician from somewhere in the United States says something stupid, using it to paint the entire GOP with a broad brush.

Hypocritical, much?

[Sarcastr0]

My purported hypocricy aside, you seem to be saying Bored Lawyer is doing something like that broad brush painting here.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, you troll. I am saying that the credibility of the Times and others is in question. And if they stick their corporate head in the sand as you suggest, their credibility is shot.

A newspaper is not like a politican. It purports to supply the truth about current events. An event like this calls that into question. The same as if, say, a government official forges evidence to the FISA court. (Just to hypothesize.)

[Sarcastr0]

Read my comment again - I said nothing about what you said in this comment you replied to - I'm pointing out what Isaac must be assuming you said for his argument to work.

But your argument also sucks - you're outcome-oriented in what you call into question and why. This is ad hominem by association with a freaking freelancer. It's a very weak case, and I would like to think you wouldn't be making it if you didn't want to push the outcome.

[Bored Lawyer]

If you think this guy's views are either unique to him, or did not bias his reporting, you are a moron. "Usual fact-checking protocols" are notoriously flawed. And many of these things are matters of opinion, which are, ahem, colored, by the fact that the guy admires Hitler.

Basically, you are engaged in deflection. There are many more out there who agree with this guy, but are smart enough not to post their thoughts on Twitter. Your attitude is, ho-hum, "he revealed himself, so of course he was fired, but we can just stick our heads in the sand about anyone else, or anything he contributed in the past," is indicative.

Suppose it came out that Tucker Carlson posted somewhere that he thinks the KKK is a groovy organization and wishes he could join. You would be screaming to the hilltops about how this severely damages Fox News' credibility.

Your current apologia reveals what a contemptible worm you really are. Expected that from RAK, not you.

[Sarcastr0]

"Usual fact-checking protocols" are notoriously flawed.
Are they now?

I'm not saying court clearly biased journalists, but you are trying to say employing an journalist not yet known to be biased retroactively invalidates the entire publication.

This guy sucks, but your larger upshot is pretty bad - I really don't want a world wherein every potential journalist has their social media scrubbed for wrongthink.

Suppose it came out that Tucker Carlson posted somewhere that he thinks the KKK is a groovy organization and wishes he could join. You would be screaming to the hilltops about how this severely damages Fox News' credibility.
Your counterfactual telepathy sucks. It never proves anything but your own worldview.

Associating with Tucker's opinions already damages Fox's credibility. If they didn't fire him upon finding out, then yeah that would reveal something.
Fox News writers have previously been found to be white supremacists. Enough for it to look a bit like a pattern. And yet nothing like what you describe has happened.

[Bored Lawyer]

" but you are trying to say employing an journalist not yet known to be biased retroactively invalidates the entire publication."

Google the term "beating up on a straw man." You might learn something. Most likely not, in your case. But one can always try.

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, you're taking someone revealed as bad and going back in time with it to try and go after the publication as though they knew or should have known. Having established neither.

It's a bad argument, dude.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

But Attack the Messenger arguments are good arguments!

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0....Should a national lead opinion-making professional journalism organization with a pedigree of 100+ years of reporting 'vet' their employees (which would include social media examination)?

I think you and I and Bored Lawyer would agree: The answer is yes, employees should be vetted. It is actually pretty routine these days in private industry.

Does the failure to do so call NYT's credibility into question? I think it is a fair question. The NYT is not some 'Mom & Pop' operation. They should have known better. And if we find they passively tolerated hiring antisemites, it sure makes Bari Weiss' resignation letter a lot more poignant. To me, it harms (not eliminates) their credibility.

[Sarcastr0]

Freelancers are not employees, Commenter. They are paid for their content only.
I get itchy with them being preapproved for having acceptable views. A slippery slope, if you will.

I *do not* want the NYT to know better. You would think folks on the right would not want NYT the institution taking a heavier hand in who is proper to write stories for the NYT.

So no, freelancers should not be vetted like SCOTUS Justices. Once something is found, act accordingly. But this is a dumb line of attack based on disagreeing with some NYT viewpoints and finding a reason to attack them based on ad hom by association.

We don't even know if this guy said anything wrong in his NYT reporting!

[Absaroka]

I'm going to disagree.

IMHO, I'd rather have true facts than no facts, but I'd rather have no facts than false facts. The value proposition that media can offer me as a customer is that they have vetted things before they publish; that saves me the tedium of vetting everything myself.

Whether they publish hokum from a freelancer or staffer doesn't matter to me - their institutional legitimacy is equally on the line for either. If I have to look at each byline and vet the reporter myself most of the value is gone.

[Sarcastr0]

Facts from a pre-policed cohort will have a bias which is itself deceptive, in a more insidious way than particular facts being incorrect. This is a lesson the right has taught me from this blog - it's why I'm in favor of affirmative action for conservative faculty in universities.

Due to editorial standards and the employment of fact checkers I'm not as worried about false facts.

[Absaroka]

"Facts from a pre-policed cohort will have a bias which is itself deceptive..."

True facts will have a bias towards the truth that false ones won't have. I consider that a feature, not a bug.

"Due to editorial standards and the employment of fact checkers I'm not as worried about false facts."

????

If the editorial standards and fact checkers in fact screen out falsehoods, then they are useful. If they don't, you have a mix of truth and falsehoods, and you don't know which are which. Believing falsehoods is worse than 'I don't know', at least in my opinion.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't see how selective reporting, or regular subtle shading of nonetheless true stories can have an insidious effect on the truth? I mean, I got the idea listening to the conservatives on here go off about liberal media bias (albeit a lot more watered down than their coordinated conspiracy)

Reporters even in the best of times get stuff wrong, if that's what will make you lose trust in media, I have bad news for you.

[Absaroka]

I certainly don't see that inaccurate reporting has any advantages over accurate reporting.

You seem to feel that stirring some falsehoods into accurate reporting makes it less biased on the average? I'm afraid I don't follow that at all.

I read the news so I can make informed decisions. If that reporting is giving me false information, there is no way that helps me make better decisions. GIGO is not a good way to make decisions.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to feel that stirring some falsehoods into accurate reporting makes it less biased on the average? I'm afraid I don't follow that at all.

I'm not sure where you think I said that. My point is only that this fix you posit of letting editorial vet who reports for the paper won't eliminate the ill you are worried about.

[Stephen Lathrop]

IMHO, I'd rather have true facts than no facts, but I'd rather have no facts than false facts.

As a practical matter, a formula for total ignorance.

The journalistic ambition of the NYT includes reporting from all over the world. They cannot have pre-vetted professional staff at every location which might at some time furnish a story. Their stringers are typically people found in response to temporary or intermittent need, who work locally in journalism, and who have enough local institutional connection and demonstrated writing ability to make competence seem likely.

When the stringer stuff comes in, it gets lightly vetted by full-time editors. Those practices cannot hope to meet your demand for no falsehoods ever, but they are demonstrably able to deliver journalism which is much more often usefully informative than false and misleading.

Dismissal for bad work is the standard you ought to support, because it is practical. It not only works, but also enables you to receive far more accurate journalism, from many more places, than you could otherwise have.

Your formula above suggests you prefer ignorance to the risk of being rarely misled. I doubt you have thought that through, or intended what your comment suggests. I think you just intended to number yourself among the many critics who criticize journalism carelessly, as a popular political tendency.

[David Nieporent]

Suppose it came out that Tucker Carlson posted somewhere that he thinks the KKK is a groovy organization and wishes he could join. You would be screaming to the hilltops about how this severely damages Fox News' credibility.

I think we'd actually be saying, "Um, yeah, we already knew that."

[not guilty]

It looks like popular reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs is biting Republican candidates for office in the backsides. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/08/voters-mad-roe-overturned-democrats-midterm-polls.html

As Groucho Marx observed, time wounds all heels.

[Commenter_XY]

Love Duck Soup. 🙂 = Groucho Marx reference

[Both Sides]

Different Marx Bros. movie, but many blog comments make me think of Groucho singing "Whatever it is, I'm Against it!

[Ben_]

Looks like people are going back to trusting polls based on whether they like the results, despite polling doing an increasingly poor job of predicting election results.

[M L]

As everyone knows, the mainstream media act as mouthpieces for the "intelligence community." Of course the statements they make in this capacity are typically lies of some sort. This was quite an example of that:

https://twitter.com/NorahODonnell/status/1559312970173259784

[Sarcastr0]

NEW: According to a DOJ official, the FBI is NOT in possession of former President Trump's passports. Trump had accused the FBI of stealing his three passports during the search of his Mar-a-Lago home.

Seems like the reporter misunderstood what the DoJ told her. not anything else.
Unless you think the DoJ lied to her about something that was going to be clear that very day?

I don't think you thought very hard about your complaint here.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Can you explain how the reporter misunderstood?

She said plainly that the FBI did not have the passports. Are you saying she misunderstood "did not have" as "did have"?

Do you work on FISA warrant applications, by chance?

[Nige]

Seems like a weird thing to lie about in that particular instance when they went on to have no problem saying they'd seized them, then returned them.

[David Nieporent]

1) The FBI acquired the passports during its search.
2) The DOJ taint team reviewing the results of the search looked at them and said, "Hey, we don't need these."
3) The DOJ contacted Trump and said, "Hey, we've got your passports. You can have them back. They're ready for pickup."
4) Trump, in his cunning but dishonest way, then tweeted (er, truthed) "The FBI stole my passports!!!!! They're evil!!!!!!!"
5) A reporter asked someone at the FBI about it.
6) The FBI source said, "No, we don't have them."

That part we all know. What we can infer is that when the reporter asked her FBI source, the FBI source asked around and was told that the FBI didn't have them (either because the DOJ had them instead or because they had already been given back). The source relayed that information to the reporter. Either the source gave the explanation but the reporter misunderstood, or the source didn't give the explanation and just denied having them.

Either way, a non-story. The FBI had already given them back before Trump first issued his strategic rant.

[Bob from Ohio]

Do you get tired carrying the FBI's water?

Strange for a "libertarian".

[Sarcastr0]

Is there something there you think DMN got wrong?

[M L]

Source for "The FBI had already given them back before Trump first issued his strategic rant." ?

[not guilty]

Actually, the passports being located at Mar-a-lago is evidence of Donald Trump's possession/control of the premises where the more consequential documents were located. Glenn Kirchner explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWb7itW4i-I

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why did they take them to begin with? Did the Federals not know what a passport was?

[David Nieporent]

Once again: the warrant instructed them to take all boxes (including all of their contents) that contained any classified material, as well as any boxes (including all of their contents) stored with the boxes containing classified material.

If Trump shoved the nuclear launch codes into a banker's box that contained his passports, once the FBI agents conducting the search saw the nuclear codes they were to seize the entire box — not to pick out the classified documents and leave the rest behind.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you lick the boots of those in power?

[ragebot]

David once again you illustrate why lawyers are held in such low esteem by the public. First you try to justify a crazy broad search warrant that says grab not just classified stuff but all the stuff around it and then grab all the stuff around that. Sooner or later some judge is gonna tell the FBI/DOJ to take all that shit and shove it up your ass cuz it is not coming in the court room.

But even worse then you try and start some shit about nuclear codes. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows (and that obviously excludes you) knows the only nuclear codes Trump ever had access to were when he was in office and as soon as Biden took over those codes were changed so any codes Trump had would be useless. I do put Trump in the group of people who have an IQ above room temperature and he would have known that any nuclear codes he had were out of date and useless.

But when someone like you suffers from TDS as severe as you do rational think is impossible.

[David Nieporent]

David once again you illustrate why lawyers are held in such low esteem by the public.

Of course. People don't like to be proven to be wrong.

1) The search warrant was not 'crazy broad.' It was normal broad.
2) I didn't "try to justify" it; I explained it, to someone who didn't understand what he was talking about.
3) Of course the things seized pursuant to such a warrant are broader than the things admissible at trial. But that's how warrants for papers work; law enforcement doesn't plop down on someone's couch and read each document before seizing it. They take anything that might be relevant, and then review it afterwards.
4) Really, no shit? You couldn't figure out that my use of "nuclear codes" here was a metonym?

[M L]

Right! Must have just been a misunderstanding, haha.

Glenn Greenwald has so many good things about this. Just one: "In the U.S. corporate media, the surest way to advance is to loyally spread lies and deceit from the U.S. security state. Bertrand is just the latest example." https://greenwald.substack.com/p/cnns-new-reporter-natasha-bertrand

[M L]

One of the harms of the Trump era is the infiltration of security state officials like this - an ex-GCHQ agent - into "news analysis" as popular commentators. They are trained, professional liars. They lie because it's what they were taught to do. This whole tweet is a lie . . . US media outlets love to accuse others - domestic competitors as well as media outlets in the countries they hate - of being "state TV." But if your "news" is packaged, assessed & delivered by paid agents of CIA, FBI & NSA - as is true of many of them - *that* is "state TV."

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1065330446643404800

[Sarcastr0]

This is just opinion...are you appealing to authority here?

[M L]

No, it is factual examples.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read what you excerpted - it's not examples, it's an opinion of what a single example means.

[M L]

No, in the two links there are numerous factual examples (for example there are several lies in the single "whole tweet"), as well as opinion about what those numerous factual examples mean.

But why don't you mount an affirmative case for your position, rather than saying "not enough examples, sorry." Or "thats like your opinion man." Duh. LOL! I had to laugh at the thought of you actually making a holistic argument or supporting your positions with evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

I read your excerpt. But also Glenn is not a reporter, he is a polemicist. Taking his anecdotes and spin on them and offering them for truth is indeed appealing to his authority.

[M L]

Well check out the links if you're actually interested in the topic, rather than just being a boring shill.

[Sarcastr0]

I might, but I know Glenn and the case he makes; he's not a very unpredictable poster, right down the the fallacies he employs.

[Sarcastr0]

The alternate theory is that the DoJ lied to her (or worked with her to lie) about something that they knew would be clarified shortly thereafter.

That's...a pretty dumb theory.

Glenn Greenwald has some scorching hot takes and is terminally online. I'm not surprised you like him.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why wouldn't they do that? They could count on you taking their word for it anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

The thing is, that's not what happened, is it? I'm not believing that tweet.

So you fail at even empty name-calling.

[David Nieporent]

No, Brett. You can't prove that someone did something by saying, "Why wouldn't they do it?" Why would they do it?

[David Nieporent]

Glenn Greenwald has so many good things

No. Never.

[John F. Carr]

I don't habitually follow him but I liked his talk 10-15 years ago about the surveillance state.

[John F. Carr]

"Allen Weisselberg, the longtime top financial officer of former president Donald Trump’s company, pleaded guilty to more than a dozen counts on Thursday, more than a year after he and the business were indicted and charged with undertaking a long-term scheme to avoid paying taxes by concealing executive pay. ... agreed to testify, if called, at a pending trial for the Trump company. ... was not expected to help with an ongoing inquiry into the former president."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/18/weisselberg-trump-guilty-plea/

[Bob from Ohio]

Walls are closing in.

[Commenter_XY]

Weisselburg might be pulling a Colson.

[M L]

President of National Border Patrol Council says we have “the least secure border in our history.” https://nypost.com/2022/07/21/alejandro-mayorkas-secure-border-claim-a-lie-cbp-official/

Illegal immigration from various parts of the world is up hundreds or thousands of percentage points. Border arrests have topped TWO MILLION in fiscal year 2022 so far.

This is all of course driven by the Democrat's policy of allowing illegal immigrants into the country. Even the millions who are arrested, they give them a court date then release them into the country, most of them never to be seen again.

As the President of the National Border Patrol Council explains, "This is all cartel-driven . . . they are able to go throughout the world and advertise their services, based on our policies in the United States. If people know they are going to be released, if they know they are going to be rewarded for violating the law, then they are going to continue to come. And they are going to give cartels thousands of dollars to facilitate travel. ... These people are in Mexico illegally as well . . . but Mexico is not charging any of them. They're not being true border security partners right now, and that's simply because of the amount of money that these cartels are generating."

So this ongoing massive illegal invasion is orchestrated by Democrats for the purpose of harming the country and essentially conquering it slowly by forcibly changing the electorate that is not receptive to the radical left agenda. Empowering and working with cartels and being responsible for countless deaths, rapes and assaults is barely an afterthought.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There is a video floating around of the Texas State Police locking a gate that's keeping out illegal invaders then Democrat Border Patrol going there and unlocking it and letting the illegal invaders in.

Hopefully they got right on a chartered bus and shipped to the crybabies in DC or New York.

[David Nieporent]

Sure there is. Is that like the fake Hunter Biden video you were promoting the other day? Were the "Democrat Border Patrol" people identified by their devil horns on their heads?

[Ben_]

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2022/08/18/watch-this-was-the-moment-border-patrol-arrived-with-the-key-and-let-migrants-into-texas/

[Nige]

The US economy would grind to a halt if they weren't coming in, but relentless xenophobia like yours ensures they get treated as a disposable underclass, which is how most employers wish they could treat their employees.

[Michael Ejercito]

How would the economy grind to a halt?

[Nige]

Well, maybe not all of it, just the bits the depend on cheap disposable labour.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So you think it's moral to have an underclass of illegals doing dirty cheap labor?

[Nige]

Holy shit no.

[David Nieporent]

Border arrests have topped TWO MILLION in fiscal year 2022 so far.

"We arrested a lot of people trying to cross the border! This proves that we're not controlling our borders!" said no intelligent person ever.

[Brett Bellmore]

"We arrested a lot of people trying to cross the border, then gave them bus tickets further into the country, and let them go."

[Sarcastr0]

You think that's happening at scale?

Brett, don't make shit up.

[M L]

You're a liar. You can't be this ignorant while also spouting off.

"An estimated 234,088 illegal migrants were encountered at the Southwest border in April, the highest monthly total in the history of the Department of Homeland Security. Of the record number of migrants illegally crossing the border, an estimated 184,000 were released and remain in the interior of the United States. . . This is on top of the estimated 58,000 got-aways who dodged Border Patrol altogether." https://grothman.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2993

So yeah, they are releasing 80% of them.

[Sarcastr0]

I can find these numbers nowhere but on this guy's website. The term he uses 'humanitarian release' appears only on his website.

And, of course, this guy is...a bit of an entrepreneur in the area of anti-immigration populism:
https://www.riponpress.com/editorial/editorial-wisconsin-congresional-rep-glenn-grothman-should-swap-airline-tickets-for-a-pen-to-draft/article_dcb6c06a-f233-11ec-b130-a301729783c2.html

But some sources are too good to check, eh?

[M L]

Go read a few Wikipedia articles or something on US immigration policy before you bother to comment so ignorantly.

If you are claiming that border patrol under Biden is not releasing the vast majority of the illegal border crossers they encounter from all around the world into the country (which set records in 2021 and again in 2022), then a) where's your evidence for this? and b) you are not working talking to seriously.

[Sarcastr0]

My claim is that your source for your proposition is a bad one.

That does not shift the burden to me to prove a negative, chief.

[M L]

The US government has a policy that is (pejoratively) called "catch and release." Maybe you should look it up.

The burden is not on me to prove a negative (i.e., prove that they don't have the policy, that they don't release illegal border crossers that they "encounter" (2.24 million and rising so far this year)), chief.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett tossed this off: "We arrested a lot of people trying to cross the border, then gave them bus tickets further into the country, and let them go."

You've picked that up, but not yet supported it. Your one source was bad.

That is where we are in this discussion.

[M L]

I misspoke -- I meant to say the burden is not on me to prove a negative, i.e. that border patrol does not keep the 2.2 million per year and rising in detention. It's on you to show that they do. (Point being, "prove a negative" is in how you frame it.)

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know your semantics, but if you're going to advocate that what Brett posted is true, the burden is on you to back that up.

[M L]

I don't know how many of them are getting "bus tickets" but they are being released. You didn't hear that Biden ended the Remain in Mexico program? It was talked about on this blog. And do you think that Biden is detaining children and families? You haven't heard of the Flores settlement? Better read up on the basics before bothering to comment.

Here's a nice puff piece for you. There is an image at the top for those who need pictures.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/08/15/migrants-celebrate-joe-biden-ending-remain-mexico-program/

One border crosser told the San Diego Union-Tribune that he was “free” after learning he would be released into the U.S. interior rather than being returned to Mexico.

“In this moment, I am free,” he told the Union-Tribune in Spanish a few minutes after he was officially released from custody. “Before, I was not free.” [Emphasis added]

The man was among the first migrants released from [Remain in Mexico] this past week with the Biden administration’s announcement that the program was ending, following a lengthy legal battle in federal court.

[Sarcastr0]

One border crosser told the San Diego Union-Tribune that he was “free” after learning he would be released into the U.S. interior rather than being returned to Mexico.

You do realize how unresponsive to the facts you claim to know are true, this is, right?

Anecdotes aren't data, especially from Breitbart who is 1) bad at checking facts they like, and 2) love to pretend anecdotes are data.

[M L]

It's just a nice human interest story that provides an illustration of what is going on. Joe Biden ended Remain in Mexico, he did not revert to "locking up kids in cages," he has not changed the Flores settlement, and he is letting millions of illegal border crossers into the US.

[bernard11]

Breitbart. 'nuff said.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh....vetting the reporter, Sarcastr0? How very interesting. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

😛

Since it's opinion, yes I think awareness of Glenn's previous performance matters.

[Commenter_XY]

I simply could not resist. It was too good to pass up, Sarcastr0.

[M L]

Actually, they're not being called "arrests" any more. They're being called "encounters." That's probably more accurate.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics

[John F. Carr]

There is an old tradition in police agencies to count quota credit like
1 point per encounter (e.g. traffic stop)
2 points per written warning
4 points per traffic ticket
6 points per arrest

[Ben_]

Bussing migrants to sanctuary cities shows us the answer.

Red state governments should go beyond providing bus tickets. Pay a financial incentive (like $500) to migrants and homeless drug addicts to move to rich neighborhoods in blue states. And pay them a monthly amount (like $75/month) for up to two years if they stay there. It will save red states a lot of money and give Dems the opportunity to experience the results of their policy choices.

[John F. Carr]

How do you move to a rich place on $500 plus $75 per month? The shelters are in poor places. Boston is spending tens of millions of dollars to move its drug addicts to an island where the well off people won't even have to drive past them looking the other way.

[Ben_]

They don’t have to stay in the rich neighborhoods 24/7. Just physically deliver the monthly payments in rich neighborhoods every month.

[JasonT20]

There are a lot of Republicans that love to cry about invasions of illegals, but then do the opposite of dealing with the supposed problem. In 2020, the Florida legislature passed SB 664, which required state agencies to use E-Verify to vet their hires. I mean, everyone knows that it is state government hiring illegals, amirite?

They could have included private companies in the use of E-Verify, particularly the agriculture industry that hires most of the estimated 770,000 undocumented workers in Florida. But nope, too much campaign money comes from Big Agriculture and Big Tourism that relies on illegals for low-wage jobs American citizens won't do at those low wages. Oh, and of course Ron DeSantis signed that law, and said that he would have loved to require all employers to use E-Verify, but the legislature just wouldn't pass a law to make them, darn it.

There are a lot of people complaining about illegal immigration that just don't seem to get that at least 50-70% of farm laborers in this country are undocumented immigrants and that produce would be much more expensive without them since few Americans would do those jobs for the same low pay those immigrants will. (note that those numbers come from the American Farm Bureau, not some lefty outfit)

If you really care about illegal immigration, then I would suggest that you start holding Republicans accountable instead of letting them whip up your emotions with talk of cartels, gangs, secure borders, and beautiful walls, all while allowing businesses that contribute to their campaigns to profit from the low-wage labor provided by all of those illegals.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FaXojidWAAEyCDT?format=jpg&name=small

This image was found in a UK grade school. Since they stopped transing children, do you think they're going straight for homosexual grooming?

They're usually a few months or so ahead of the American Democrats, so parents get prepared to defend your child's butthole from the Groomers.

[Nige]

Wow. That looks... real.

[David Nieporent]

This image was found in a UK grade school.

No, it wasn't.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Where was that image from then? You should see page 4.

[apedad]

BCD discussing buttholes again. . . .

This time childrens' buttholes!

BCD, when are you going to; a) commit suicide, b) commit mass murder, or c) b then a?

[Aunt Teefah]

What sexual repression does to a mfer . . . One wonders if he had the courage to come out of the closet and live openly as a gay man, perhaps he could find happiness. But instead he lives blinded by seething rage, disgusted by his own barely-concealed sexual fantasies. Sadly, your prediction of violence is all-too-plausible in men like this.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I appreciate how in order to insult me you try and claim I'm a secret homosexual.

I know why I think using homosexuality as a slur and an insult is appropriate (the "4S's of Gay": STDs, the Shame, the Shit-eating, and the Suicides), but why do you?

Can you articulate what you find is so repulsive about being gay that you'd use it as an insult?

[Aunt Teefah]

Nothing at all repulsive about being gay. What’s repulsive about you is that you’re a violent bigot. But you talk about gay sex more than any “out” gay guy I know, and you certainly wouldn’t be the first guy whose repressed homosexual urges curdled into violent rage.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You fuckers spent two years oppressing Normal people over some bullshit Kungflu now you bitches won't say shit when a bunch of filthy degenerates set the world on fire because they can't stop their high risk multiparty sodomy. Now their STD is appearing in children's buttholes and even dogs buttholes.

You people are sick and evil.

[Nige]

Not an STD.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There is so nothing wrong with gay that you insist on using it as an insult. LOL

Hey you know what phrase has never been uttered by a father any where in the entire human history? "I'm so proud my son is gay." nothing wrong jndeed

[Aunt Teefah]

Dude, I’m not insulting you for being gay, I’m insulting you for being a self-loathing gay, and taking out your hatred on gay people who have caused no harm to you or anyone else.

And if you don’t think any father is proud of his gay son, you need to get out of your bubble and join reality. There are millions of men that disprove your assertion.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Proud that their son is gay? No father ever.

And there are atleast 9 children and one dog who are proof that homosexuals harm others.

And again with the slur. I like it. I like it when people insult others with the term. Evidence of their true feelings.

[MoreCurious]

What's repulsive is that you continue to write and act like the fifth grader that you obviously are. Looking forward to when your mother confiscates your laptop so we don't have to read your childish, boorish garbage.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Shouldn't you be all righteously righteous about some church goer not wearing a mask?

[Aunt Teefah]

Granted, having sex with children is basically the UK's national pastime, but if you think this is anything but a hoax, you're even stupider than I imagined (which was already really fucking stupid).

[M L]

Planned Parenthood to spend historic $50 million on midterm elections

Isn't that a nice racket? Get like $600 million a year from the government, stolen from taxpayers.

Get more money almost entirely from abortions, including insurance payments that other people are forced to pay for, and reimbursement for selling valuable baby body parts (oh but not selling, just "reimbursing" lol!).

Then, turn around and contribute millions to Democrat politicians who are stealing the money for you. Spend millions on lobbying to kill as many American babies as possible because that's your business. Oh but that's a separate division of Planned Parenthood and money isn't fungible!

[apedad]

And all legal too so what's your point?

[M L]

Exactly, even better. Isn't that quite a nice racket?

[Aunt Teefah]

Now do Raytheon.

[M L]

Boom! You're right.

But at least they're only killing bad guys in other countries, right? /s

[M L]

A good reminder what many of the most powerful and influential people believe in and work toward. In particular, many billionaires, politicians, government bureaucrats, and all of their apparatchiks.

"I'll bet that within the next hundred years .. nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority.. national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

-Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State under President Clinton. America Abroad: The Birth of the Global Nation, Time Magazine, July 20, 1992

Only 70 years left to go!

[Sarcastr0]

Rootless cosmopolitans!

[Nige]

Isn't that what libertarians want? All governance reduced to a thin veneer that protects corporate power and restrains democracy from interfering with profit?

[M L]

I don't know about "libertarians," but personally, I think a global government is bad for liberty. I disagree with Strobe Talbott, his Brookings Institute, and the rest of them. However I'd love to hear differing opinions and respectful discussion on the issue.

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure you can cool down this bit of globalist conspiracizing: A good reminder what many of the most powerful and influential people believe in and work toward. In particular, many billionaires, politicians, government bureaucrats, and all of their apparatchiks.

You have one quote. From someone predicting it, but not clearly supporting it.

Is this a secret infiltration? Is there a Protocols of the Elders of Globalism?

[M L]

Some people think we should have single payer health care, some don't. Some people think we should have lower taxes, some higher. Some people think America should be world police, some don't. Some people think there should be stronger global government through organizations like the UN or even just the US acting as world police, some don't.

It's weird that you are unable to discuss an issue rather than lying and saying it's not even an issue that people disagree on.

[Sarcastr0]

You're not saying 'some people like globalism' don't pretend that's what you posted.

It really shows you know how bad what you posted is, that you are now claiming not to have said that.

What you said, to review, is that powerful and influential in industry, politics, and embedded in the administrative state, have an agenda to work towards this regardless of what you and I think.

That's not just unsupported, it's a very familiar trope. One I learned about even back in high school. And not one that ended in anything good historically.

[M L]

Every issue has gradations. A spectrum. Truly, Strobe Talbott, longtime President of the Brookings Institute, is at a pretty far end of the spectrum with saying "all states will recognize a single, global authority." I don't think there's many people who advocate going that far, and of course this is barely an issue in the minds of the American public. But there are plenty of influential people who unequivocally voice support for this or various lesser ideas along the spectrum in that direction. Neocon and neoliberal are designations for people who are at least mildly inclined in this direction.

As we all know, there is a lot of conspiracy theorizing around this subject. I think that can be harmful, in part because it prevents serious discussion. All my adult life, I've heard these theories such as certain families control the world or whatever, in many different forms. What I've never seen is, a lick of evidence for any of it. So I have nothing to do with any of that. I'm not accusing anyone of having views other than what they've publicly expressed.

So with that out of the way, I think it's a topic to consider. And it's not just think tanks, international climate orgs, intelligence agencies and state departments and the like. There are regular, average, everyday Americans I know in real life who express various beliefs in globalist ideals (ideals not descriptors of economics), even up to and including "world government." That last point is a small minority, but there are many more who believe in all sorts of global interventionism and militarism. Which really raises the question. Say hypothetically that there is a global superpower that uses its economic and military might to direct world affairs, regularly conducts military interventions and special operations in foreign lands, etc. What is really the difference between than and the label, "world government?"

[Sarcastr0]

think tanks, international climate orgs, intelligence agencies and state departments

You think all of these want to do away with nations?! Because that's something you should probably back up.

Once again, you are switching back and forth between 'some people have this view' and 'many powerful and influential people are working to foist this upon you.'

I'd call it a motte and bailey, but you can't seem to resist arguing both, sometimes in the same post.

[M L]

No, I was trying to saying that it's not just a subject for hoity toity intellectuals. It's not just people in organizations like that who can have globalist views. It's regular people as well.

[M L]

But great talk without a scintilla of substance from you, as always.

[Nige]

I don't think global government is really going to be a thing until we're the heart of an intergalactic empire, part centre of galctic power, part glactic backwater.

[Mr. Bumble]

Confirming that you are the ultimate dipwad. Go play with your light saber.

[Nige]

You must be from one of the outer colonies where hardscrabble homesteading erodes basic manners.

[Mr. Bumble]

Suggest you go play with Jason.

[Nige]

You got suckered in by the outworld colonies spiel, huh?

[Sarcastr0]

You are posting on an Internet political message board; burnishing your cool dude cred is not going to work well.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you vying for the ultimate dipwad title? This is open thread Thursday and unlike last week it really is Thursday>

[Jimmy the Dane]

Sarcastro has already won that coveted trophy many times over.....

[David Nieporent]

Isn't that what libertarians want? All governance reduced to a thin veneer that protects corporate power and restrains democracy from interfering with profit?

I mean, not in the pejorative way you describe it, but kind of. But why do you think that implies a global government?

[Nige]

I think a global government is likely to be so diffuse as to be borderline useless.

[Michael P]

"Cambridge [MA] is MAGA Country", writes someone whose sense of the absurd is on point. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/8/16/some-lgbtq-harvard-affiliates-receive-violent-threats/

[David Nieporent]

That sounds very Jussie Smollettesqe.

[bernard11]

JFTR

2020 Cambridge election results:

Biden-Harris: 50,233
Trump-Pence: 3,519
Others: 1,287

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yeah I'm sure those are totally real.....

[Michael Ejercito]

Here are some TV Tropes entries regarding Climate Change®™.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JustBeforeTheEnd

And now we have climate change. In poorer countries, the worst effects are already wreaking havoc on their ecosystems and economies, and even the West is starting to see increasing extreme weather events like hurricanes and floods. From day to day, everything seems normal, but year on year you can see the creeping catastrophe. Most scientists agree that the 21st Century is going to be a series of natural disasters, financial catastrophes, mass refugee crises, resource wars, famines and novel pandemics. That doesn’t mean everyone will die, but worst case scenario, only possible if no country does anything to reduce emissions, is the world becoming a permanently miserable place to live.

There is no evidence that reducing emissions will freeze climate change in its tracks. OTOH, Carl Sagan proved that the simultaneous detonation of a cumulative 100 megatons of hydrogen bombs is enough to generate an epoch of cold and darkness, which will prevent "extreme weather events like hurricanes and floods", "natural disasters, financial catastrophes, mass refugee crises, resource wars, famines and novel pandemics".

[Jimmy the Dane]

These people are no longer just your crazy next door neighbor who no one really pays attention to that much. They are dangerous people and need to be taken seriously. When they say something like "we can save the world by setting off some nukes...." they really mean "we can save the world by setting of some nukes!"

There is no evidence for any type of manmade climate change. None. All the dire predictions have come up unanimously wrong. Why do we think they are going to get it "right" "this time" with this kind of track record?

[Michael Ejercito]

They make a great point.

If the whole planet was freezing cold, how many wildfires would there be?

Feel free to use Pluto or Europa as comparisons.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Climate change analysis from Volokh Conspiracy fans are, like pandemic management tips from disaffected, half-educated, superstition-addled losers, always entertaining.

If this white, male, racial slur-heavy blog is really the best current right-wing legal academia can generate . . . great!

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, much better to follow the advice of the CDC (re Monkey pox advice for gay men, engage in mutual masturbation staying 6 feet apart) or Covid pronouncements of Fauci and Birx.

[Jimmy the Dane]

CNN Analyst Jeffrey Tobin took the advice to heart!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is the audience you have cultivated, Volokh Conspirators.

Ouch.

Very ouch.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I think Tobin was recorded as saying "Oh" "Oh Oh" not "ouch".

[Jimmy the Dane]

There is something to be said about the guile to post something racist while supposedly denouncing racism.....

[Nige]

It's unsurprising that you get your info on things like climate change from tvtropes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Trump Organization's chief financial officer has admitted that he is a felon and a tax cheat who participated in that company's longstanding tax evasion. He has agreed to report for incarceration and to pay a fine of nearly $2 million.

He apparently has pledged to testify truthfully and comprehensively concerning the Trump Organization's crimes during that entity's trial.

[Jimmy the Dane]

In other news, study finds even if you are a well off citizen, with paid defense attorneys, if the government leans on your with all of its resources for multiple years in a row, restricting your liberty under a parade of endless questionable charges, that citizen will eventually break and capitulate to the exercise of raw governmental authority. Tyrants every rejoice at the news that all you have to do is try really hard and investigate someone really hard and you can get your way!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A tax cheat was identified, investigated, and held accountable for his crimes. He also will testify against those who engaged in the criminal conduct with him.

Quit whining, Jimmy.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Have fun with the DeSantis DOJ in 2025. No one is going to care about your crocodile tears then. In fact, I think it will be funny to see all the BLM terrorists squirm at the threat of actually having to answer for their crimes of looting and violence.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I doubt DeSantis could beat Trump in the primary.

That's the candidate clingers are counting on to reverse the tide of the culture war and stop getting stomped by their betters?

You might as well hope a rapture saves you.

[bernard11]

But Trump knew nothing about it.

Plus, he tried to stop it

Anyway, it was all legal, and these are fake laws that Hillary has broken consistently.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Presented without comment.

https://imgur.com/a/3xHtJmy

[John F. Carr]

A quote from my memory of the 1990s TV show Northern Exposure:
"There are other ways besides sex to get a yeast infection."
"Yeah, but sex is the funnest."

[shawn_dude]

Another Northern Exposure fan!

[John F. Carr]

I wouldn't say "fan". "Aurora Borealis" was wonderful and it went downhill from there. The scene I quoted from must have been in the first two seasons.

[bernard11]

So a judge in Wisconsin had a few words for Michael Gableman and his "investigation" and lawyers.

A Dane County judge revoked the ability of five out-of-state attorneys to represent in court the Assembly Office of Special Counsel — which has spent more than a year conducting a review of the 2020 presidential election.

The judge, Frank Remington, wrote a scathing opinion in which he systematically refuted a number of false claims the attorneys had made while representing the office and its leader, the recently fired Michael Gableman. Remington wrote that because the five attorneys signed their names to motions which applied “phony legal principles to invented facts” the lawyers no longer have the ability to work on the case pro hac vice ..

From the decision:

“From August 30 through December 4, 2021, the evidence speaks for itself. OSC accomplished nothing. It kept none of the weekly progress reports the Wisconsin State Assembly required it to keep. It recorded no interviews with witnesses. It gathered no measurable data. It organized no existing data into any analytical format. It generated no reports based on any special expertise.”

“It did commence lawsuits against other parts of our state and local government, although at time of this writing, OSC has received no relief,” he continued, alluding to lawsuits Gableman filed seeking testimony from local and state election officials. “Instead, it gave its employees code names like ‘coms’ or ‘3,’ apparently for the sole purpose of emailing back and forth about news articles and drafts of speeches. It printed copies of reports that better investigators had already written, although there is no evidence any person connected with OSC ever read these reports, let alone critically analyzed their factual and legal bases to draw his or her own principled conclusions.”

Another Trumpist clown show.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dane County? lol oh come'on. That's like DC Circuit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Educated . . . reasoning . . . economically adequate . . . modern . . . reality-based . . . cultured . . . inclusive . . . any other damning faults, from the clingers' perspective?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Read those quotes. Those are the statements of a partisan with his fat tyrannical Democrat thumb on the scale, not a neutral umpire just calling balls and strikes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Gableman, the disgraced clinger, was fired by a Republican.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Right, every Republican loves Trump, especially Establishment wannabes. Therefore the election fraud investigation wasn't squashed to cover up the steal!

[Jimmy the Dane]

How many liberal governmental authorities fail to produce anything of value? All I would venture to say. It would be nice if we could get such scrutiny of a college "diversity" department.....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let us hope the professional standards authorities of the jurisdictions in which those lawyers are admitted have been alerted to this court's ruling.

No free swings, clingers. Especially the lawyers, who should know better.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Federals at the CDC confessed that they grossly mismanaged the COVID pandemic.

Who will be held accountable for the harm suffered by their mistakes?

Why should they be trusted in the future?

[David Nieporent]

Who will be held accountable for the harm suffered by their mistakes?

I guess the buck stops with everyone other than the president at the time.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The CDC stopped making mistakes on Jan 20th?

[Michael P]

Things that were not said by the director of the CDC in this announcement: The people responsible have been dismissed. We have brought in new management. The buck stops here.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact

"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.

let's so how far this two-tier legal system will go. Looks like it's looping back onto itself.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Shut up! Trump STOLE NUCLEAR SECRETS! STOLE! TOP SECRET INFORMATION! That is all that matters!

So what if he might have been permitted to retain copies of those documents as personal records or potentially declassified records. So what if he still holds a security clearance as all past Presidents do. So what if every President handles a large amount of records that eventually go into their archives and library. TRUMP WAS HIDING NUCLEAR SECRETS! Nothing else matters. Not facts. Not law. Nothing. Oh yeah and it was TRUMP who is a criminal. We just endlessly investigated him for five years and have yet to find something to stick him with. Plus RUSSIA! That is all.

[Sarcastr0]

DMN dismantled this above.

The question is why anyone pays attention to what disgraced ex-journalist John Solomon writes. The ruling that the article was based on was that Judicial Watch lacked standing because it sued the wrong defendants under the wrong statute, not that it's legal for former presidents to keep government property — in particular classified or defense information — when the government wants it.

Looks like 2 more got taken in by something too good to bother to check on the case it talks about.

Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to you?!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Weird how those quotes ain't talking about standing or lack thereof.

Get off twatter it makes you look stupid

[Jimmy the Dane]

What does this have to do with anything other than it is a huge strawman distraction?

[Sarcastr0]

The article is incorrect. For the reasons DMN lays out.

You have such practice posting wrong things, I'd think you'd be better at this by now.

[Michael P]

The layers of fact-checkers and editors at the New York Times needed a second chance to realize that 1/96 is larger than 1/100. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/pageoneplus/corrections-aug-18-2022.html

[mydisplayname]

The equation for the total volume of the Artemis SLS is quite similar to the equation for an erect human male penis; however, an erect male penis has only a single dorsal vein whereas the Artemis has two booster rockets. By what multiplier would the equation for the volume of the Artemis overestimate the volume of the average human male penis?

[mydisplayname]

Do not listen while computing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtVBCG6ThDk

[Sarcastr0]

The treatment of Mitt Romney during the 2012 election radicalized a lot of GOP voters in a way that the left and the press still don’t seem to understand.

[Ben_]

The crime issue in one animated gif: https://nypost.com/2022/08/18/sex-offender-accused-of-nearly-killing-man-with-punch-freed-without-bail-after-charges-reduced/

Jesus Cortes was sucker-punched from behind and is in the hospital in critical condition after brain surgery. He might die. His attacker is a level 3 sex offender who got a life sentence for sexually abusing a girl in 1994 but was paroled in 2019. The violent criminal attacker is already back on the street, released without bail.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

An FBI agent, Robert Cessario, pled guilty to erasing exculpatory evidence against an early Trump supporter, Arkansas State Senator Jon Woods, in a criminal case.

In the appeal, the judges knew the FBI erased evidence showing the Trump supporter's guilt and still denied him.

That ex-politician is serving 18 years on a frame job by the DOJ and FBI.

That FBI agent will probably serve zero time and get promoted to some powerful office in Washington or get hired by the Democrat media for millions of dollars.

[apedad]

Corrupt federal agents should spend a long time in jail.

Cessario could possibly face 20 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, forfeiture of property involved in the criminal offense, and supervision upon release.

For Woods, it seems like a pretty tight case on him regardless, especially since several co-conspirators pled guilty (or were found guilty).

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-arkansas-state-senator-sentenced-more-18-years-prison-bribery-scheme

[TwelveInchPianist]

From an Op-Ed by lefty law professors in the NYT:

"It’s difficult to find a constitutional basis for abortion or labor unions in a document written by largely affluent men more than two centuries ago. It would be far better if liberal legislators could simply make a case for abortion and labor rights on their own merits without having to bother with the Constitution."

OK, who wants to tell them?

[Sarcastr0]

Oops, one of the authors (Doerfler) seems to be FedSoc. So much for lefty!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? What does that mean, to be FedSoc? Is that even a phrase?

What's Doerfler's affiliation with the Federalist Society, Sarcastro?

[David Nieporent]

In what way does he seem to be FedSoc?

I hope you're not basing it on the fact that he has a bio on the FedSoc website. As they repeatedly explain to try to correct this misunderstanding, anyone who speaks at a FedSoc event gets such a bio. It does not mean that they are a member or a sympathizer or anything like that. (FedSoc is famous for having a wide spectrum of speakers at their events.)

A person listed as a contributor has spoken or otherwise participated in Federalist Society events, publications, or multimedia presentations. A person's appearance on this list does not imply any other endorsement or relationship between the person and the Federalist Society. In most cases, the biographical information on a person's "contributor" page is provided directly by the person, and the Federalist Society does not edit or otherwise endorse that information. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All expressions of opinion by a contributor are those of the contributor.

[Sarcastr0]

OK. I didn't know that - I was following both of their careers to see what their previous interests were, since I found that article pretty off the wall.

I sit corrected, and will know for the future.

Nevertheless, his previous scholarship doesn't seem very 'lefty' as AL blithely put it.

[Ben_]

What if you focused on ideas instead of ad hominems and finger-pointing? Then you might have something worthwhile to add to the discussion.

[Sarcastr0]

...I did. I found his profile on FedSoc because I was looking up his previous scholarship.
And I was looking that up to figure out how he came up with the ideas in the linked opinion piece.

Thanks for telling me what I think and what I did, though! Important to keep the Sarcastr0 in your head fresh full of things I don't think so you can hate that guy.

[Ben_]

Yet we heard no talk about ideas.

[Sarcastr0]

Sometimes I do research for myself, not to post on the VC. You should check him out - his Harvard profile links to some of his papers and they are...quite academic on discussing academics having discussions.
Not political, but also well outside anything that I found to be grounded.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you were privately contemplating ideas while you were typing poorly researched crap in the comments?

Good to know.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean...yeah?

Dude's bio wasn't relevant, except for what I thought was the FedSoc connection, so I didn't put my whole dive in the comments. It wasn't very deep, but that's what I was doing.

I also researched the other guy, who does European history o f the 20th century with a bit of jurisprudence thrown in.

I don't see why this is not believable to you.

[John F. Carr]

NPR is a little concerned that a January 6 defendant gets to go to Renfaire before going to prison. https://www.npr.org/2022/08/20/1118595848/the-woman-accused-of-stealing-pelosis-laptop-gets-a-house-arrest-break-for-ren-f