Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[DaivdBehar]

Free Speech retaliation and denial of reality by woke Austin government.

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/former-austin-fire-chaplain-dr-andrew-fox-lawsuit-blog-posts

[DaivdBehar]

Staring needs to be Mirandized. Winking is completely out of the question without a lawyer review of the informed consent.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/6072174/nightclub-bans-staring-without-getting-verbal-consent/

[DaivdBehar]

Sample complaint against scumbag federal magistrate.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/tea-party-seeks-removal-of-anti-trump-raid-judge

[David Nieporent]

Jenny Beth Martin is just lucky that one can't be sanctioned for filing frivolous complaints against judges.

[DaivdBehar]

David. Are such complaints absolutely immune in the federal court system?

[Ed Grinberg]

You'd think that a girl at nightclub would want guys to "stare" at her (as opposed to ignoring her).
As someone said:
"Feminism is a cult of women who hate being women."

[Michael Ejercito]

Who is Club 77's target market?

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

The thing you linked to doesn't seem to have anything to say about women who hate being women!

In any case, feminism has nothing to do with women who hate being women. My generation's feminism - the feminism which began in the 1960s and 1970s in USA - is about women who hate being deprived of basic human rights, such as the ability to earn a wage sufficient to support themselves and their children if their husband runs off with his secretary, and, the right to decide for themselves who shall be sustained by, and sheltered in, their (the feminists') bodily organs, and when, and how long.

[Darth Buckeye]

Sheesh. Just insane. I am married to a woman who, when I first saw her in 1989, I could not help but stare. But I was careful; she was never aware of it. We became friends and I later told her about my staring; she said she never noticed that I was doing this.
We became a couple in 2007 and got married in 2010. Three cheers for discreet staring.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hilarious joke I saw a while back on that topic:

"How is cleavage like the sun?
If you wear sunglasses you can stare at it longer without injury."

[AmosArch]

WOOHOO. Literally just scored 10000 cool ones. I'm going to be rubbing it in the faces of my friends (suckers) who went through all the trouble of paying every single cent of their student loans and always gave me the third degree about it. Who's stupid and irresponsible now? lol Thanks Bran- I mean Biden!

[DaivdBehar]

Biden should be impeached and arrested for blatant voter bribery.

[Don Nico]

Behar,
I don't criticize anyone who takes the money.
Mr. Biden has been on a binge of bribing voters since he took office.

[DaivdBehar]

I cannot find it to thank the author somewhere below. Today's Internet Comment of the Day is:

My mortgage identifies as a student loan.

[TwelveInchPianist]

My mortgage identifies as a student loan.

[santamonica811]

See? That's the difference. The difference between being a dick (*cough* Amos *cough*) and being dickish but also really funny. 12, I genuinely laughed...loud enough to startle the kittens I'm fostering right now.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and one of the swells of VC comments has ruled on what is funny and what is dickish. Also, makes sure to let us know about fostering kitten: isn't that wonderful?

Truth is there is nothing funny about Brandon's illegal acts.

[santamonica811]

1. Well, I haven't been called a swell since the good old days of the 1920's, so that was a breath of fresh air. You, sir, are both a rapscallion and a scallywag. 🙂
2. The President is named Biden, not Brandon. Alas, no Edit Button to fix typos on this site. And if Biden's illegal activities has your panties in a bunch, it explains why you posted 5-10 times a day during Trump's presidency, complaining similarly about Trump's much more frequent, much more consequential, illegal acts. I respect your integrity and character, in applying similar standards to presidents you support and do not support.
3. When 12's comment did make me laugh out loud, it did startle the kittens; and I thought that worthy of note. I stand by that editorial decision. But, I do agree with you; I could have left out that they were foster kittens...that added nothing to my point. But virtue-signaling??? I dunno--are animal fosters seen as more virtuous than animal owners? That's not my perception.
4. I see nothing wrong with my giving Amos (and 12) feedback on the humor quotient in their posts. It's almost like, on the Internet, one gets feedback after posting something publicly. Just like I have no problem with you criticizing that I mentioned fostering poor defenseless hungry kittens, who would otherwise have been murdered by Animal Control if not for me. [I hope you get that *that* was a joke--what I see as an example of virtue signaling. LOL]
5. p.s. Amos, I am one of the people who gave up trips and nice restaurants to pay off every cent of every student loan I took. So, I'd be one of the "suckers" you reference. I'm happy for you, glad you got this windfall, and I don't begrudge you a penny of it. When my Republican party gives me a massive tax cut, we're the winners and the non-rich are the losers there. The fact that students with outstanding debt are the winners here, and not me, bothers me not one whit.

[Mr. Bumble]

"panties in a bunch"? Continuing down memory lane? (OK I started it)

"it explains why you posted 5-10 times a day during Trump's presidency, complaining similarly about Trump's much more frequent, much more consequential, illegal acts."
Not likely since I only use one screen name and have only been on this site for a few months. Stop making things up.

Glad to hear that you pay your own way (as do I). Would be nice if more people did and weren't looking to be bailed out of poor decisions using other people's money.

I thought both post were funny and neither was "dickish" but if my post offened you (it was meant to be humorous as well as critical) I apologize.

Agree on the need for an edit button, but Brandon was not a typo.
Also wish there was a way to sort comments, since when thay number over a hundred or so, following up becomes time consuming and difficult.

Good luck with the kittens.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

"A pig, an ass, a dunghill, the spawn of an adder, a basilisk, a lying buffoon, a mad fool with a frothy mouth." --Martin Luther, describing Henry the Eighth

[Jerry B.]

I'm definitely stealing this.

[NonLawyerDan]

F-ing brilliant. And I'm not even fully in line with the underlying politics. Just brilliant.

[DaivdBehar]

12 inch. Thank you for The Internet Comment of the Day.

[Sarcastr0]

Work on being glad for others' dodging misfortune, rather than trying to gin up resentment for them.

Now, I think there may be some logistical and maybe even legal issues (check out Orin Kerr on that front) but finding nothing but contempt for students with unreasonable debt loads getting some relief is no way to be.

[Mr. Bumble]

What's the misfortune? Going to college or having to pay for it?

[Mr. Bumble]

Is loan forgiveness taxable as income?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Is loan forgiveness taxable as income?"

Normally but I've read that one of the Covid relief laws says this would not be. Can't vouch for it.

[Mr. Bumble]

If you're right will the left be complaining about a "loophole"?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Money isn't free Sarcastro. It's got to be paid back either with taxes, or inflation. Since this wasn't paid for with taxes, it's going to be inflation.

And this doesn't go just to students with "unreasonable debt loads" but virtually anyone with college debt. (There are a few minor exceptions).

Essentially what this does is a massive regressive tax, which gives to those people who are doing better and making more, those with college loans...and pays for it with inflation, which hurts the poor and working class the most.

[Sarcastr0]

Have you given any thought to what kinds of people are college grads still with debt?

Essentially what this does is a massive regressive tax, which gives to those people who are doing better and making more, those with college loans
Um, you do realize the current states on college degrees, don't you?

Anyhow, at least you're making a policy argument rather than just pure resentment like Amos seems to bathe in daily.

[Brett Bellmore]

Have you given any thought to how blindingly stupid, and, yes, immoral, it is to reward bad judgment, and punish responsible behavior? All those people who made a point of slaving away to get through college with minimal debt? Those parents who scrimped for years to save for their children's educations?

Suckers, every one of them. And I'm one of them: Put my wife through college after our son got old enough to not need her at home during the day, and we lived on the cheap to do it without borrowing. So, no debt to forgive.

That idiot who went into debt to get a degree in X "studies", only to graduate and find nobody would pay him to do it? Score!

You get more of what you subsidize, and Biden decided to subsidize bad judgment. And that's not even getting into the utter lack of statutory basis for this: Biden is literally dictating, and Democrats love having a dictator in the White House so long as he's theirs.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know a damn thing about this issue if you think those with education debt are the irresponsible ones.

And your moral hazard argument is you choosing to be resentful of others fortune. You don't need to do that.

That idiot who went into debt to get a degree in X "studies",
Oh, STEMlord crap. Look at the stats before you imagine yourself the perfect student to hate-on and then generalize.

Just self-baiting yourself into outrage. Think about why you are so set on choosing resentment and anger.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you leave college with education debt for a degree that doesn't increase your income enough to make that debt manageable? Yeah, you were irresponsible.

I studied biology and electronics, pursuing a career in medical instrumentation, and though that didn't work out, I became an engineer. My brother studied electrical engineering, he's an engineer, too. Neither of us had any debt to speak of, easier at that time, due to working summers in unpleasant jobs.

My wife studied dental assisting, and she's working in that field. No debt, we scrimped for years to see to that.

By nephews studied civil engineering, and geology, and one has graduated, the other in another semester, debt free, because my brother lived cheap to pay for their educations. Both will end up working in well paid fields.

A friend of mine put his wife through college for nursing, she just started work. No debt, because they scrimped for it.

All responsible people, pursuing only degrees that promised a decent income doing productive work, all debt free.

And every one of us suckers.

[Sarcastr0]

As you often do, you resort to facile general principles without looking a real-world experience.

Fuck off with all your 'I sacrificed so fuck everyone else.' Virtue policing people getting helped based on speculation as to their circumstances is choosing to be angry when you could choose to not compare yourself to a generation that doesn't really share a lot with you in reality.

[Nige]

Going to college when you could pay for it through a summer job wasn't a sacrifice, not even at the time

[VinniUSMC]

Going to college even though you can't pay for it isn't a sacrifice.

[Sarcastr0]

The point is that today is not the same as when you were a kid. Nor even when I was a kid.

[Jacob Grimes]

He literally gave you several real-world experiences.

[Sarcastr0]

He literally has some old and busted anecdotes on his end and addresses zero actual experiences among the people he's condemning; just made up examples.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're basically in favor of screwing over anybody who does the right thing, the responsible thing, to help the person who does the wrong, irresponsible thing escape the natural consequences of their choices. I think that's grossly immoral, and the consequences of doing that sort of thing, in terms of discouraging people from being responsible, and encouraging reckless behavior, are horrific.

There are natural dynamics at play here that just don't CARE if you think you're doing something nice.

But it's what you're all about: Screw over the responsible people who did the right thing, to help the irresponsible who do the wrong thing, and congratulate yourself on being so merciful towards the latter, with the former's money.

Well, I'm sure the fact that the people being screwed over mostly vote Republican, and the people getting the windfall just before an election mostly vote Democratic, has nothing to do with that. [/sarc]

[IsaacDanielcm]

Anyone who pays even a dollar on student loans in the future is a sucker. Why not just wait for it to be forgiven?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, no one is getting screwed! You're in the exact position you would have been without this relief.

If you feel screwed, that's your choice.

[Nige]

The only people being screwed over are the ones being subjected to compound interest and no recourse to discharge.

[IsaacDanielcm]

The only way that these loans get forgiven is by transferring it to the U.S. government. That either means that they either have to collect it through taxes (in which case we pay more taxes), through borrowing (which increases debt that we ultimately have to pay taxes for), or through printing (which causes inflation and dilutes the value of our labor and savings). In any of those cases, we're not in the "exact position."

You're either an economic ignoramus (which would make you typical of most liberals) or you're a despicable LIAR. Which is it?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Brett, no one is getting screwed! You're in the exact position you would have been without this relief."

Wow. People are in the exact position they would have been without the "relief", except for people who got the relief, who are better off?

Sounds like a free lunch. And who could be against a free lunch, amirite?

[Brett Bellmore]

"You're in the exact position you would have been without this relief."

I can't decide whether you're actually stupid enough to believe that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You're in the exact position you would have been without this relief."

It's like I said: Sane people do cost/benefit analysis, liberals do benefit analysis. You're categorically demanding we pretend the cost doesn't exist, here.

They're borrowing the money, of course, or, technically, foregoing the income, leading to borrowing more money for something else. This increases public debt, which increases debt carrying costs.

Are you really going to argue that nobody is effected by increasing government debt carrying costs? Can you bring yourself to explicitly make that claim?

[OtisAH]

I apologize Brett. I didn’t realize until just now the magnitude of the wrong that has been done to you. Someone is getting a benefit that Brett isn’t receiving? Shameful. Sinful even. I will light several dozen candles for you at St. Mary’s after work. If there’s anything I can do to help you through this, I dunno, is “crisis” too tame a word for what’s been done to you? I think it may be.

[IsaacDanielcm]

OtisAH, go fuck yourself.

[OtisAH]

Am I supposed to know who you are?

[Mr. Bumble]

Anyone notice a correlation between the increase in costs after the advent of a government program?

Track the rise of medical costs after Medicare and Medicade went into effect or college costs after student loans became widely available. They far exceeded any inflation.

[Davedave]

So what you're saying, Brett, is that you've been very lucky as well as hard working, and have benefited greatly from that, so fuck everyone else, you've got yours.

You're just a rancid unwashed cooch, and the world would be a better place if you did the decent thing and shot yourself in the face.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey DeeDee, got something against paying your own way?

[David Nieporent]

People paying their own debts that they voluntarily incurred to obtain things they wanted is not a punishment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure, I was very lucky to have been born in an era when government subsidies hadn't yet caused explosive increases in inflation, and it was still traditional for students to live very, very cheaply, so that you could get through college without debt if you were just willing to take unpleasant high paying jobs during the summer, like working in a foundry. (Ever have your shoes catch fire?)

I wouldn't call picking an engineering major "luck", though; I was quite determined to major in something that would pay well in addition to being interesting, which is why I didn't go into my first love, genetics. (How was I to know that "genetic engineering" would be come a thing just a few years later?)

I'm willing to grant that people who go into debt under today's conditions may be making a rational calculation if they pick a major that pays well. Or engaging in stupidly wasteful luxury spending if they pick a major that pays poorly.

Either way they're voluntarily taking on that debt, unlike the people Biden is shifting it to. The debt isn't disappearing, you know. It's just being redistributed away from the people who incurred it, to people who didn't.

I purely hate public policies that deprive people who make rational decisions of the benefits of having done the right thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

For what it's worth, in 1966 the tuition for one of NJ's state colleges (they hadn't become universities with six figure presidents yet) was $75.00/semester. Well within the means of most families without the need to borrow.

[Randal]

I purely hate public policies that deprive people who make rational decisions of the benefits of having done the right thing.

Wow Brett, I've never heard a better articulation of what it is to be a sad, resentful, zero-sum asshole, who believes that everyone else's loss is his gain and everyone else's gain is his loss. Trump has taught you well.

"I purely hate" yep, there's the Trump cult emotional Fox baiting.

"depriving people" no one has been deprived of anything....

"the benefits" unless by this you mean the sick joy of watching other, less fortunate people suffer.

Gross! Evil, really.

Now. I'm not a fan of the policy either, but it's not because I base my happiness on the suffering of others. And it's not because of the moral hazards either... I don't think this really changes any of the economic calculus of student loans by a significant extent, from the student's perspective at least.

The trouble with the policy is it does nothing to solve the underlying problem, in fact it exacerbates it. The cost of higher education is spiraling out of control even faster than health care, in large part because we've been subsiding it with all these loans which turn out to be essentially predatory to boot. It's a downward spiral: the higher the cost, the more we subsidize, which allows colleges to charge even more, putting students into increasingly impossible amounts of debt. And to the extent there is an economically significant moral hazard, it's that universities will see this as yet another subsidy, further eroding price constraints.

We need to restructure student loans going forward, not dig deeper. Universities that accept federal student loans should be required to match them according to a curve, e.g. 0% for the first $500, 10% for the 2nd, 20% for the 3rd, etc, so that a student paying $10500 in student loans also gets $10500 off their tuition, and even more beyond that. Price increases would then fall most heavily on students with the ability to pay, where there is still some elasticity, much more than on the feds.

Or something like that. I'm not an economist. But more loans with more subsidies and more defaults / forgiveness is definitely not a long-term solution.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

RE: "I became an engineer."

That's your problem, right there. Why did you think you needed four years of technical education, in order to run a train???

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And your moral hazard argument is you choosing to be resentful of others fortune."

What "fortune"? Any evidence that this is anything else than just a zero-sum transfer from winners to losers?

Why are you celebrating the "fortune" of some without bemoaning the misfortune of others?

[Sarcastr0]

Zero sum transfer? Where do you get that from?

Brett's position has not changed. He is not injured, and yet hates some other people now like they injured him.

That's a sad way to be.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Zero sum transfer? Where do you get that from?"

Huh? Student borrower gains $10,000, Federal Treasury is out $10,000. This isn't hard.

[Randal]

And Brett hardly impacted at all. Negligible. The only noticable impact to Brett is to his own level of sick resentment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And Brett hardly impacted at all. Negligible. The only noticeable impact to Brett is to his own level of sick resentment."

Huh. Maybe the government should give me $300 million. That wouldn't effect anybody else, right? Well, it would only have a negligible effect.

I suppose the only reason someone would have to oppose such a transfer would be sick resentment at my good fortune, right?

[Randal]

No, that would not be the only reason. In fact, that would be a stupid, evil reason, as it is here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. You guys are going to support the government giving me $300 million, just to avoid looking bad? You guys are the best!

[Randal]

As I said, there could be reasons to object to the feds giving you $300k other than resentment. It would depend on why. The government gives people $300k all the time, it's called a grant. Maybe you think a particular grant is a bad investment. That's a good reason to object to it. But just being jealous of the grant recipient is a pathetic reason.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" It would depend on why."

Because I would love to be filthy rich, and according to you the government can make me filthy rich without affecting anybody else. Why would anybody want to deny me such a good think if it can be done without cost to anybody?

[Randal]

We're firmly in sea lion territory now.

[Carl_N_Brown]

Randal: "The trouble with the policy is it does nothing to solve the underlying problem, in fact it exacerbates it. The cost of higher education is spiraling out of control even faster than health care, in large part because we've been subsiding it with all these loans which turn out to be essentially predatory to boot. It's a downward spiral: the higher the cost, the more we subsidize, which allows colleges to charge even more, putting students into increasingly impossible amounts of debt. And to the extent there is an economically significant moral hazard, it's that universities will see this as yet another subsidy, further eroding price constraints."

^Brett is in the wrong for resenting this?

Randal: "And Brett hardly impacted at all. Negligible. The only noticable impact to Brett is to his own level of sick resentment."

The first Randal quote outlines a noticeable impact to everyone.

[Randal]

What impact would that be, Carl?

Brett: I purely hate public policies that deprive people who make rational decisions of the benefits of having done the right thing.

What benefits have the people who make rational decisions been deprived of exactly?

You don't have to take every bad government policy personally. Fox News has y'all addicted to resentment.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden is literally dictating, and Democrats love having a dictator in the White House so long as he's theirs.

You say this about literally every policy you don't like. It's very silly.

[IsaacDanielcm]

No, you can say that about literally every policy that isn't allowed by statute.

[Sarcastr0]

Which is amazingly everything you lot don't like.

[wreckinball]

No he never ever thinks about how stupid he is.

[Sarcastr0]

You ipse dixit incorrect facts with no support, or insult people.
That's all you do.

I make arguments. Not always right ones! But I engage with other people's points and/or offer some of my own.

You should try it sometime - it's like exercising your brain!

[wreckinball]

You just make contrary points about anything that disagrees with the progressive point of view typically with no backup all the while claiming the original point is unsubstantiated.

You're just contrary but in a partisan way which is also stupid.

Not sarcastic at all. How did you come up with the handle?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I make points - that's what I want you to try!

I back them up as needed, but you generally don't need to source pointing out logical inconsistencies in someone's argument or support.

This was actually a pretty great comment from you; it made a point, it made an argument, it engaged with my previous comment. I had some substance to disagree with!

I say this with all sincerity - keep it up, just like this!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yes, I make points..."

Sigh. If you have to tell people you make points...

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You ipse dixit incorrect facts with no support, or insult people.
That's all you do."

Remember last week, Sarcastro, when you were typing bullshit into the comment box while claiming to be contemplating deep and important thoughts privately?

[Sarcastr0]

You mean when I looked up someone's bio but didn't post about it?

Yeah, what a clear lie.

Don't call me a liar based on your dumbass partisan gut.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You mean when I looked up someone's bio but didn't post about it?"

You're lying again, Gaslightro.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Have you given any thought to what kinds of people are college grads still with debt?"

Sure I have.
-Harvard law school students in 2L with a sitting offer from the highest paying law firms
-Medical school residents/fellows going on to a nice Plastic Surgery practice next year
-The dual-income, no kids pair of tech professionals, who make just $240K a year, and decided rather than pay off their student loans, they'd invest the money in a rental property.

Who doesn't get the money
-The single mother who couldn't afford to go to college
-The struggling elderly father who worked overtime shifts to put his daughter through college without loans.
-The minimum-wage kid at McDonalds

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. So imagination over statistics.

That is how you like to live - simmering in anger over imagined villains while ignoring reality.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So...no counter to any of that?

Would any of those people NOT get the free money?

But here's Forbes

69.79% of overall debt forgiveness would go to the top 60% of Americans by income, while individuals who make between $82,400 and $141,096—

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sounds like Sarcastro is happy about rich or soon to be rich people getting free loan relief, while poor people who didn't manage to afford college get jack or near nothing.

But that's "liberals" for you these day. They are all helping the rich and near rich, and only pretending to care about the poor and working class.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sane people do cost/benefit analysis. Liberals do benefit analysis, and get outraged if you talk about the costs.

[Sarcastr0]

Congrats on reifying moral hazard as though it's a legit moral maxim.

It is not. Condemning everyone who has student debt as making bad choices is calling a lot of people dumb. You want to choose misanthropy, that's not morally required - that's on you.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It is not. Condemning everyone who has student debt as making bad choices is calling a lot of people dumb."

I'm not doing that. Some people have student debt because they made a reasoned decision that going into debt to increase their earnings potential was the right thing to do, they weren't in a position to go the cash and carry route. The people doing that pursued degrees in subjects that typically pay off well enough to let you pay the debts. These people aren't dumb, but for the most part they don't need their debt forgiven, either.

Other people stupidly went into debt to finance idiot degrees in subjects that didn't do diddly to increase their earnings potential. They borrowed massively for luxury goods. They have no more claim to government help than if they'd borrowed to buy an expensive vacation or eat at four star restaurants. It's only a shame they didn't blow the money on something physical that could be repossessed or sold.

Biden, of course, is not distinguishing between these groups. He's just handing out other people's money, the grossest sort of vote buying imaginable.

[IsaacDanielcm]

Biden: "Vote for Warnock and we'll give you $2,000."

The Democrats are evil, vote-buying, Communist vermin.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett's argument:

This is terrible! People who made stupid choices ended up with student loans that are now being partially forgiven. Why are we rewarding stupid people?

Armchair Lawyer's argument:

This is terrible! People who made smart decisions and don't need this help are now having their student loans partially forgiven. Why are we rewarding smart people?

You guys should get together and decide who we're supposed to be mad at. Your arguments are very nearly the opposite of each other.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Trump and Perduped and Legs Spread Loeffler supported the $2000, Ipso facto—Trump and the Republican senators are evil communist vermin.

[Armchair Lawyer]

NOVA's argument...

"Strawman like the best of them"

[Sarcastr0]

AL, you are intentionally strawmanning, and you know it.

Shame.

[Armchair Lawyer]

A strawman would mean I was misrepresenting your position.

I'm not though. You do sound really happy about the free money for those who are better off, who are in general making more and richer.

Are you not?

[Sarcastr0]

You do sound really happy about the free money for those who are better off, who are in general making more and richer.

Not what I said, not what I think.

Read better next time.

[Armchair Lawyer]

OK, got it.

You're not happy about Biden's student loan relief package.

Is that accurate?

[Sarcastr0]

YOU are the one who thinks Biden's package is a giveaway to the rich. I've pointed out a number of ways that's bullshit.

So take your false choice strawman and shove it. Find another way to make your argument than pretending I agree with it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Typical Sarcastro...

"you're Strawmanning my argument"

So what's your argument

"I'm not telling!"

[Sarcastr0]

Really? You can't find where I gave arguments on how this is not a giveaway to the rich *on this open thread*?!

No - you're just being lazy and pretending it's my fault.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh, sorry.

I thought all the statistics that demonstrated that this loan program disproportionately helped the rich, and because it wouldn't be paid for, would hurt the poor through excess inflation had impacted on you.

Your view is basically that the stats don't matter and you don't believe them. Got it.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes 'all the statistics.' Great citation.

I recall one stat - ""69.79% of overall debt forgiveness would go to the top 60% of Americans by income" which ignores any numbers on how many Americans those are. And of course ignores the other 30%.

I suppose there was your incorrect discussion of upper class, but I am too charitable to count that.

If you're too lazy to look up real arguments, calling pretending I haven't seen all the arguments you didn't make isn't going too make you any more informed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Condemning everyone who has student debt as making bad choices is calling a lot of people dumb. "

Strawman alert!

He [nor anyone here] is not saying that people with reasonable amounts of undergrad debt are dumb. He's saying that people who borrow unreasonable amounts [for example post grad degrees in gender studies] are dumb.

Anyone who borrows 6 figures and did not go to med school or Ivy law or MIT is in fact very dumb.

[Sarcastr0]

Sane people do cost/benefit analysis. Liberals do benefit analysis

Sure sounds like this would apply to those taking out loans, as well as policymakers.

If not, I'd be interested in how Brett would distinguish.

[Sarcastr0]

You may want to check how Americans by income are distributed per capita, AL.

How many people do you think are upper class and don't need this, versus everyone else?

[IsaacDanielcm]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

In a better time, commies like you were ostracized, in America, and exterminated, in South America.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, lots of workers owning the means of production here, chief.

Knee-jerk redbaiting is so lame.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This is more Sarcastro economic denialism.

Last month it was, "Hey, why can't we just print all the money we want and spend it without having to work or anything?"

This month it's "Why can't we just borrow money, spend it, and cancel the debt so we don't have to pay it back?"

[Sarcastr0]

Double the strawmen, double the fun.

[Davedave]

"69.79% of overall debt forgiveness would go to the top 60% of Americans by income,"

Yes, working people.

FFS, you don't even lie with stats _well_.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Yes, working people."

You think the bottom 40% don't work?

[Davedave]

The bottom 40% by income are almost entirely retired. So, no. Obviously not. The other major part of that group are the unemployed.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Imagined villains while ignoring reality?

I have debt. I just have the 'wrong' kind of debt, so nobody's offering to forgive any of it.

I made the choice to go into debt, and I've made the choice on how to pay for it.

Why should people get rewarded for making a poor decision, while others get nothing?

Either everyone should get $10k to pay off debts, or nobody should.

[OtisAH]

Nobody is getting any money, dummy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Have you given any thought to what kinds of people are college grads still with debt?"

Laurence Tribe has.

[Sarcastr0]

Thousands.

Wow.

[David Bremer]

For just him. And thousands more from Yale. And thousands more from NYU. And so on, and so on, and so on, all the way down through lots of state universities where the default rates on loans are in the very low single digits. All of whom are getting a handout, paid at least in part by lots of people who couldn't afford school or lacked the academic ability to make it.

Meanwhile, this does nothing to address the reasons for the rising costs of schools or encouraging competitive pressure to keep their costs low. In fact, it reduces it by now encouraging kids to take on more debt with the belief that it will be cancelled for them in the future.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think everyone from NYU is doing great, yet making juuust under $125K? Or Harvard or Yale for that matter?

Don't be silly.

[Krayt]

The unreasonable debt loads are the result of the same assholes who feign ridong to the rescue now, as was predicted many years ago.

Politicians like to brag about college participation.

Politicians make loan guarantees.

Loans are easy to get.

Universities ramp up costs year after year, sometimes double digits. Why? Because an extra $20 a month on your loan payment is much easier to swallow than an extra $500. This is their part in the scam.

Loan companies loan without care because they know government will pick up the pieces. This is their part in the scam.

People predict "the bubble will burst some day", and it will collapse, and government will pick up the pieces. This is their part in the scam.

Rather than try to stop this runaway train, they all kept chucking logs into the firebox.

This isn't Biden being nice. This is the lead scam artist performing the scheduled dance on the stage, as predicted two decades ago.

This could have been avoided with simple law by Congress: We will refuse to guarantee loans at any university that increases its costs more than the lesser of 2% or inflation. And hold for 20 years.

It need not even be painful.

But it's a scam.

[darkknight9]

"Loan companies loan without care because they know government will pick up the pieces."

Loans are even easier to get now that the government is the sole lender for public student loans. Private, non gov backed loans are still available but are a wee bit more difficult to get.
"Please (financial institutions loan officer) I'll pay it back, I swear!"

🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Believe it or not, agree with the vast majority of what you're saying (though I wouldn't call it a scam - no one in the system is operating in bad faith; just the incentives are fucked.)

The system needs reform (and to my untutored mind, your solution is a decent first step). In the meantime, however, smoldering in generic rage about the mitigation of the harms this broken system has visited on people is not the way.

[Brett Bellmore]

The harms are the feedbacks that tell people to stop doing stupid stuff, Sarcastr0. You take away that feedback, you get more stupid stuff.

Now, if this were student loan forgiveness coupled with abolishing student loans going forward, that might not matter. Instead it's like all the amnesties in all of history, that caused a surge of whatever got amnestied.

[Sarcastr0]

No, actually Brett, the harms are the crushing debt a generation is under. Not some idiot bad lesson you've made up.

You can make up all the hypothetical stupid stuff you want. Me? I'm going to be happy for people and assume they'll do well with the additional liberty this allows them.

[Brett Bellmore]

If they incurred the debt to pay for a career that will earn enough to justify the debt, it's not "crushing", it's just an investment.

If they incurred the debt to pay for an X 'studies' degree that never had any prospect of paying for itself, they bought a luxury good, and should have to pay for it, they earned being crushed.

You're not eliminating the "crushing", you're just deciding that the people who should get crushed are the people who WEREN'T stupid. That's what you don't seem to get: You're not getting rid of the crushing, you're redistributing it to the people who weren't responsible for it.

[Randal]

Oh my god, watching Brett stomp around whining "but it's not fay-ir" like a fucking four year old is really warming my cockles.

[Jerry B.]

People who make $125K per year and consider $10,000 "crushing debt" have bigger problems than debt.

[Nige]

That's not the debt, that's the relief.

[Sarcastr0]

Taking the maximum margin as though it's everyone is a clue you're talking out of your ass.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Taking the maximum margin as though it's everyone is a clue you're talking out of your ass."

Do you agree that people at the maximum margin shouldn't be getting the free money? If not, then there's nothing wrong with bringing it up.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree some of them shouldn't be getting this relief as a policy matter. All of them? Not hardly!

You can't go door to door checking everyone. As I'm sure you know, TiP. Attacking a program because for not being precisely tailored is a common GOP tactic, and ridiculous to anyone who thinks about the issue for a moment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I agree some of them shouldn't be getting this relief as a policy matter. "

So the proper response would have been to acknowledge I was correct with respect to the people at the top end, rather than accuse me of talking out my ass. Got it.

[Sarcastr0]

But you're ambiguous. Your construction above 'people at the maximum...' seems to be talking about everyone at the maximum margin not being correct targets for relief.

Which I disagree with.

[Jerry B.]

Average student loan debt is around $25K. That’s less than most car loans and way less than a mortgage. For folks making up to $125K, that hardly seems “crushing “.

[Sarcastr0]

Well then, let them just ignore their car loan and mortgage and they will be all good!

You do know that debt is additive, not compartmentalized? Having a big debt over here doesn't mean relief over there isn't appreciated...

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, actually Brett, the harms are the crushing debt a generation is under. "

Somebody making $120,000 is under "crushing debt"? Please.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, actually. Look up living expenses for living in any of the coastal cities sometime.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Look up living expenses for living in any of the coastal cities sometime."

Those poor white collar college grads. They certainly have it far rougher than a non-grad in a coastal city. Poor dears.

Who will cry for the upper middle class?

[Sarcastr0]

They are not upper class. By even the most conservative definition (twice the average median income).

But you know this; you're just being a dick.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastro, you really have no idea what the majority of the American population makes.

The Median individual income in the US for workers 15 and up is just $41,535.

Twice that is $83,070. Upper class.

This "Woe is me, I only make $100,000 a year, I need my college loans for my MBA paid off" bit....you really have no clue.

[Sarcastr0]

Median household income was $67,521 in 2020
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-273.html

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastro.

Read better. I said median INDIVIDUAL income. Not household.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, why are you using a dumbass stat like that?

Do you think class tier is an individual thing? Because it is a household thing. As you would have seen if you did any research at all.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Because "dumbass"....Biden's forgiveness package is based on INDIVIDUAL income, not household.

[Sarcastr0]

The issue we are discussing in this thread is what upper class means. A term Bob brought into the conversation, and which you eagerly picked up. Apparently not really knowing what you were talking about.

[Armchair Lawyer]

In fact Sarcastro, you're the first one who brought up "household"

Everyone else, including the original package, has been talking about INDIVIDUAL incomes and debt repayments. Including you, when you bring up the <$125,000 a year. Repeatedly.

[Sarcastr0]

Upper, lower, and middle class are all metrics of households. *not* of individuals.

You should know that, if you're going to shoot your mouth out about it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If you're talking about household income Sarcastro, why bring up <$125,000 repeatedly? Which you have. Which isn't the upper limit for household income that results in student debt being relieved.

As is typical, you're talking out both sides off your mouth. You want upper limit for forgiveness to be talked about in individual income limit terms. But you want the "class" discussion to be in household income limit terms.

Like your support of pedophilia, you're being deceptive and disingenous again.

[IsaacDanielcm]

What new "liberty?" To buy new $1,200 iPhones? Fake nails? Car payments?

Now you know why inflation is out of control.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, you seem to be enjoying the freedom to make shit up on the Internet.

[Bob from Ohio]

College grads don't have iphones?

[Sarcastr0]

Isaac is going full Welfare queen, Bob. Don't be a pedantic jackass.

[Nige]

Way I see it, this is a way of helping people who have been subjected to a massive organised and official scam essentially designed to make getting a college education prohibitive for poor people. Maybe you think the correct response is to pubish the victims of scams, I prefer it when scammers get punished. Which this doesn't do, sadly, but baby steps.

[Brett Bellmore]

It isn't "punishment" to make people pay off debts they voluntarily entered into. Do you not get that? It's normal life.

[Nige]

Of course it is if the debts are unsustainable and cannot be legally discharged in any other way. Trump declared bakruptcy six times for fuck's sake.

[IsaacDanielcm]

They can't be discharged in bankruptcy because there is no collateral. No one would lend money otherwise.

[Nige]

It's such a stupid fucking system.

[IsaacDanielcm]

Agreed, but this makes it worse. It's a bailout to colleges.

[Structured Chaos]

Lenders often lend where there is no collateral. You have any credit cards?
We don't need debt forgiveness. We need student loans to be subject to the pre 1976 Bankruptcy Laws just as most other debts are.
Many people got hoodwinked. How is it fair for people who took out student loans in 1990 where there was an applicable 6 year statute of limitations in place for federal student loans, to have that later changed, by legislative fiat, to forever. And then for those same 1990 loans, to be again, by legislative fiat, changed such that where previously 7 years of paying on the loans you could then opt for bk against them to never being able to do so. All of this without a corresponding change in the interest rate charged for such loans.

[Nige]

No, it's an overall effort to make it impossible for poor people to go to college. Bail out all colllege debts, scrap the system, make college free.

[IsaacDanielcm]

Structured, then lenders won't be able to lend at 4% for people to get degrees in Gender Studies or African-American studies

[Bob from Ohio]

"Lenders often lend where there is no collateral. You have any credit cards?... We need student loans to be subject to the pre 1976 Bankruptcy Laws just as most other debts are."

Joe Biden voted to deny discharge of such loans. Now he is the champion of the debtors!

Dischargability will dry up loans. Nobody is doing high 5 figure or 6 figures of unsecured student loans if 6 months later you can avoid them. 21 years olds don't get 50K+ in credit cards.

Plus, credit cards have high interest. Do you want college loans at 24%?

[David Nieporent]

Contrary to what some think, student loan debts can be discharged in bankruptcy. It's not easy or automatic, but it's possible.

[darkknight9]

It is. I've only ever seen 2 folks do it in the time I spent working in student loans.

They were both lawyers.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe that suggests that the problem isn't nearly as big as activists are saying! It's not fun to have to pay off student loans, but it's not for the vast majority of people this life-destroying thing that causes or justifies bankruptcy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Way I see it, this is a way of helping people who have been subjected to a massive organized and official scam essentially designed to make getting a college education prohibitive for poor people."

But... we're continuing to perpetuate the scam. If it's such a scam, why haven't we heard anything about ending the program?

[Bob from Ohio]

" why haven't we heard anything about ending the program?"

You can't get elected as a Dem thinking like that!

[Nige]

Excellent question.

[Harvey Mosley]

If that is how you honestly see it then you must agree that not doing anything about the "...massive organised and official scam..." means that nothing is being done to solve the problem. It is being mitigated for some right now. How long before the cries form the left start demanding this on a regular basis? Every four years or so is my guess.

[Nige]

If the scam isn't ended, then yes, probably.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Work on being glad for others' dodging misfortune..."

Misfortune?

Ah, yes. Fortune is a woman, and if you want to have your way with her, you have to beat her and hold her down.

Got it.

[Don Nico]

"dodging misfortune"
C'mon.
You take a loan, YOU are responsible for it, not ME.
Tell your blah-blah to the local Mafia loan shark and see how far that gets you.

[Randal]

Actually, you are responsible for these loans. They're federally guaranteed. A lot of them would've defaulted anyway.

[Don Nico]

"They're federally guaranteed"
That was mistake #1.

[Ben_]

Why do Dems facilitate colleges taking advantage of 18-year-olds and US taxpayers to reap huge windfalls?

[Randal]

Yay, for the first time, Benz is the smart one! I think because he's barely over 18 himself, he gets this issue.

Of course this is the real problem. The rest of you are off moaning about losing your chance to feel better about yourselves through the suffering of others. Sad.

[OtisAH]

They’re not sending out checks, dummy.

[Jerry B.]

We just paid $10,000 of your mortgage/car payment/credit card debt. Is that not a $10,000 benefit to you?

[OtisAH]

No, you didn’t. That’s not how any of this works. And you probably don’t have two nickels to rub together so even if it was how it works, you’d still have your 10 cents.

[Life of Brian]

No, you didn’t. That’s not how any of this works.

Please do then explain how you think it does work, preferably without appealing to the Magic Money Tree. Money was borrowed; money was spent; money is not being paid back. The net effect is a transfer of wealth to the borrowers from everyone else.

[OtisAH]

I decline, thank you. I’m certain it’s been explained to you dozens of times since yesterday and we see the results. Now declare “victory” and go away.

[Jerry B.]

In other words, you can’t.

[OtisAH]

Of course I can. Why would I? You, like him, have probably been on blogs and social media for the last 24hrs having these same discussions and ignoring the same things I would say.

See, some of the guys here seem to enjoy getting on the tautology Ferris wheel and driving down roads to nowhere with you dopes. I don’t. And I tell you why.

If I jump in with an honest attempt to inform, you all just respond with the usual new goalposts, dissembling, and foolishness, all of which provides you hours of entertainment. But what’s in it for me? Nothing at all.

To summarize: Sea lions in the wild are exciting. Sea lions at SeaWorld are entertaining. Sea lions on the internet are just tedious.

[Don Nico]

Otis why don't you explain it to all of the simpletons here so that everyone can understand.

[OtisAH]

See what I mean? You all can’t even understand even the most basic things. Thanks Don for underscoring my whole point.

[Sarcastr0]

Don - you ask a good question.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sealioning-internet-trolling

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Of course I can. Why would I?"

Does your explanation, perchance, live in Canada?

[OtisAH]

If it’s up your ass you’d know it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If it’s up your ass you’d know it."

Well, I know it's up your ass.

Seriously, I haven't heard the old, "I totally know Karate and could kick your ass if I wanted to, but you're just not worth the effort" since sixth grade.

[Life of Brian]

If I jump in with an honest attempt to inform, you all just respond with the usual new goalposts, dissembling, and foolishness, all of which provides you hours of entertainment. But what’s in it for me? Nothing at all.

See, Otis, I might actually buy this song and dance if you had -- for EXACTLY the same reasons -- refrained from your initial snarky drive-by post. But you didn't. You threw out your little emotive barb and then got huffy when you got called out.

So at this point, you just look like someone who runs their mouth and can't back it up. Particularly when you're running your mouth that basic laws of mathematics and double-book accounting have magically been suspended for the sake of a pet social engineering project.

[OtisAH]

I don’t care about a single word of whatever you typed there, dummy. Bark bark somewhere else.

[Life of Brian]

Sticks and stones, my friend. It's crystal clear at this point you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and are flailing around trying to distract. Run along now and start planning your next synapse-free attack.

[jimc5499]

I hope the "suckers" (friends) pound you into a pulp when you try to rub it in.

[IsaacDanielcm]

The NAACP came out cheering this, but saying it didn't go far enough. That's what black America is about. Demand the money of white people, and always say it isn't enough.

[Ben_]

Complaining about giveaways not being enough should always lead to those giveaways being reduced to zero and a 5-year moratorium on any future giveaways.

It's toxic behavior.

[Sarcastr0]

Ben, maybe don't agree with the guy talking about Blacks all being low-IQ moochers. Especially when he's saying Blacks are all low-IQ moochers.

Someone might think you're racist. When you're not - you're just very bitter and partisan.

[IsaacDanielcm]

Don't put words in my mouth, asshole.

[Sarcastr0]

? You talk about low-IQ minorities all the time. And above, this is indeed calling African-American all moochers: That's what black America is about. Demand the money of white people, and always say it isn't enough.

[IsaacDanielcm]

No. I didn't call them "all" moochers. The average black has a much lower IQ than the average white or East Asian. This isn't up for debate. It's settled science.

[Sarcastr0]

1) You're wrong on the science. Lots and lots of debunkings out there. Both of the studies and of IQ itself.
2) black America sure sounds like all blacks to me.
3) You say don't put words in your mouth, and then say exactly what I said you say...

[IsaacDanielcm]

For the party of science, you people are truly delusional

Black America means "organized black America" meaning the NAACP, black "leaders," and so forth.

[Ben_]

Name-calling doesn’t work any more. If all you can express is hate, then I certainly don’t want your approval.

Complaining about receiving too small of a gift is extremely bad behavior and everyone knows it. It’s where avarice meets gracelessness.

[IsaacDanielcm]

There's a reason that Alexis de Toqueville wrote about democracy failing when people learned they could vote themselves free stuff.

[bernard11]

Except de Toqueville didn't say that. Some guy from Oklahoma did.

The following quotation has been attributed to Tytler, although it has also been occasionally attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

This text was popularized as part of a longer piece commenting on the 2000 U.S. presidential election, which began circulating on the Internet during or shortly after the election's controversial conclusion.

There is no reliable record of Alexander Tytler's having written any part of the text.[20] In fact, it actually comprises two parts which did not begin to appear together until the 1970s. The first paragraph's earliest known appearance[21] is in an op-ed piece by Elmer T. Peterson in the 9 December 1951 The Daily Oklahoman, which attributed it to Tytler:

Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy".

[Jimmy the Dane]

It was basically a higher ed bailout. Just there is no way that would have ever passed Congress. It will probably keep those bloated, outdated institutions afloat for another 24 months.

[IsaacDanielcm]

I hope the Republicans have the balls to challenge it in court, instead of just whining.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Na they will roll over and then be surprised when they lose an election. If I was under 30 and was dumb enough to go 80K into debt to get a worthless something studies degree, even if I was so inclined to vote Republican, why would I do so? Biden just essentially gave anyone under 30 who wasted money a 10K (not taxed) check for doing so. Chances are he will do it again in 2023 as well and promise to do more in 2025.

[IsaacDanielcm]

95% of those who will benefit are those inclined to vote Democrat.

[AmosArch]

You are dying of a rare extremely painful disease. Your condition has been treated by the finest doctors to no avail. But you have gained more and more fame as you continue to defy your expected death for longer and longer. Soon you transform from a local celebrity to a national celebrity to an international star over your journey becoming a beacon of inspiration to millions, especially other chronically ill people.

Your days are filled with interviews for documentaries with concerned celebrities. A blockbuster movie is being made about your life, even the President has weighed in about you. The only person that doesn't seem to be happy with this, aside from however you may feel, is whatever person you have loved the most in your life who has stuck by you through the ordeal but seems to be growing distant.

In the middle of one night a leprechaun wakes you up and offers a deal. He informs you that your loved one will turn against you and go public becoming your most prominent critic, believing that you are faking your illness for fame and fortune and there isn't anyway to convince them otherwise.

You have two options.

You can accept a magical elixir from the leprechaun which will instantaneously cure you to perfect health but also rewrite the memories of all the medical professionals who have ever treated you and destroy all records as if you never gotten the illness confirmed by anyone in the first place. Everything else stays the same. Until you get caught, which seems likely as a growing army of medical professionals and academics are interested in studying you. Then when it happens your loved one will be completely vindicated and a hero/heroine and whatever massive fallout there will be occurs in world community that has grown up around you.

You can otherwise refuse the cure and die a very painful death and also have your loved one treated in life and go down in history as one of the more famed treacherous crackpots.

Which do you choose?

[Sarcastr0]

What kind of resentment-filled ahole chooses death in return for making someone else look bad?

[OtisAH]

FTR, I’ll gladly suffer the embarrassment if he wants to be the other guy.

[Krayt]

So to live, I have to prove the lying "loved one" right by rewriting reality?

Why are they my loved one again?

[Krayt]

Is this a crypto court case, like the people who sue saying they lost their psychic powers, or the devil made them do it? "I was sick and dying, and miraculously am not anymore! I can't prove I was sick, gosh darn it, those papers from doctors are around here somewhere, anyway thanks for all the donations, please ignore my spouse who's saying I am a scammer."

[Davedave]

The real question is what kind of cunt has created that situation, and why I should tolerate them doing so when they evidently have the power to do otherwise.

Anyone who is actually a proper American, rather than a Trump-traitor who despises everything the US stands for, would know that when an evil bastard tries to oppress you the right response is to fight them, not to be a cowardly quisling.

[IsaacDanielcm]

It's communist anti-white Democrats who despise everything America stands for.

[Davedave]

Oh, is AmosArch a Democrat? I don't think he'll agree with you.

[Jerry B.]

"Which do you choose?"

I choose to stay as far away as possible from the type of person who'd even come up with such a question.

[apedad]

Here's a PSA for our colleagues who (legally) enjoy using weapons.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, August 24, 2022
Frame and Receiver Rule Goes into Effect

Today, the Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “Frame or Receiver” Final Rule goes into effect. The new rule modernizes the definition of a firearm and makes clear that parts kits that are readily convertible to functional weapons, or functional “frames” or “receivers” of weapons, are subject to the same regulations as traditional firearms. This rule will help curb the proliferation of “ghost guns,” which are often assembled from kits, do not contain serial numbers, and are sold without background checks, making them difficult to trace and easy to acquire by criminals.

The rule, which was posted in the Federal Register in April, will address the proliferation of these un-serialized firearms in several ways. These include:

1. To help keep guns from being sold to convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers, the rule makes clear that retailers must run background checks before selling kits that contain the parts necessary for someone to readily make a gun.
2. To help law enforcement trace guns used in a crime, the rule modernizes the definition of frame or receiver, clarifying which part of a weapon must be marked with a serial number – including in easy-to-build firearm kits.
3. To help reduce the number of unmarked and hard-to-trace “ghost guns,” the rule establishes requirements for federally licensed firearms dealers and gunsmiths to have a serial number added to 3D printed guns or other un-serialized firearms they take into inventory.
4. To better support tracing efforts, the rule requires federal firearms licensees, including gun retailers, to retain records for the length of time they are licensed, thereby expanding records retention beyond the prior requirement of 20 years. Over the past decade, ATF has been unable to trace thousands of firearms – many reportedly used in homicides or other violent crimes – because the records had already been destroyed. These records will continue to belong to, and be maintained by, federal firearms licensees while they are in business.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/frame-and-receiver-rule-goes-effect

[Kazinski]

The Soho forum in Manhattan had a Climate Change debate between two prominent scientists about 10 days ago. The Scientists are Andy Dessler of Texas AM arguing the pro side, and Steve Koonin Obama's former science advisor on the con side, the question was:
"Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions"

Koonin won the debate handily with 25% of the audience shifting to his view there is no climate emergency and we don't have to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

The pre debate survey had the pros at 24.6%, and the cons at 48.7, after the debate the pros were at 19.1 and the pros were at 74.7.

There are links here to the video and podcast:
https://www.thesohoforum.org/past-events

[Stephen Lathrop]

From the Soho Forum's web site:

The Soho Forum is a monthly debate series held in Soho/Noho, Manhattan. A project of the Reason Foundation, the series features topics of special interest to libertarians and aims to enhance social and professional ties within the NYC libertarian community.

It speaks well of Foundation attendees that they avoided a Stalinist-looking survey result.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe consider sample bias before trumpeting such examples like they're authorities.

[Krayt]

Both sides can be right, you know. Even real issues can be massively abused by the corruptios who seek power. Getting in the way to get paid to get back out of the way is the game, and says nothing about they why of it; this is the meme cover story for useful idiots, pawns doing a dance in front of the camera.

Proof: The entire world and all of human history.

The bank bailouts under Bush cost $700 billion (god such small and quaint number!) But by the time it was done it was over $800 billion, the additional money being pork to buy votes. This is what you get from corruptions "doing legitimate work".

Now multiply that by 10 or more.

[Sarcastr0]

What does this have to do with Kaz's crap source?

You think everyone in government is corrupt a priori, so that doesn't wash. Even if you cite 'all of human history.'

Iceland didn't bail out their banks. How did that go? And this buying votes nonsense is just a veiled attack on democracy. It's not buying votes, it's popular legislation. If the American People were so irresponsible, we'd have fallen long ago.

[Don Nico]

Of course it is buying votes.
What part of a politician come on CNN a few months before a critical election and announcing that your $10,000 debt has vanished is not influencing voters.
Biden has done this several times since he has been POTUS.

[Sarcastr0]

Any popular policy that spends money is buying votes, under that definition.

Seems too broad to be useful.

[Don Nico]

C'mon. It is essentially a direct cash payment.

[NOVA Lawyer]

How many direct cash payments were made to under Trump?

I seem to recall that he really, really wanted his name to be on the "stimulus" checks, given he was not as confident as Biden that people would properly credit him for buying their vote.

Did you complain when Trump did it with lots, lots more money, or do you only hate it when Democrats "buy" votes?

Under Trump: Stimulus, extra payments to farmers to offset Trump imposed tariffs, tariffs on Canadian goods as a national security emergency, etc., etc.

[Don Nico]

Yup, That is an attempt at vote buying also

[Sarcastr0]

No, debt forgiveness is not essentially a cash payment.

You have no argument other than that it's the government spending money on people, and an appeal to incredulity that this is done in good faith.

That's your worldview; it has no support.

[David Nieporent]

No, debt forgiveness is not essentially a cash payment.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. It's economically the exact same thing as a cash payment. (Indeed — except in this case, because of a special exception written into law last year by Schumer because of COVID — the IRS treats it identically. If a debt is forgiven, the former debtor gets issued a 1099 and must pay taxes exactly the same as if the debtor had received a check which he or she then used to pay off the debt.)

[Sarcastr0]

1) You assume everyone will pay off their loans on time. Which is very much not true.
2) You assume that debt acts like just negative cash. This is also not true; it has implications regarding borrowing power, etc.

This will not be experienced the same as just a cash payment by many of those who receive it.

More importantly, though, lots of government policies are about resource allocation. Grants, as noted above. You need more than just 'this looks like the government giving benefiting people' to claim it's some kind of corrupt vote buying.

[David Nieporent]

1) I do not assume everyone will pay off their loans on time; nothing I said turns on that.
2) I assume that debt in fact is negative cash. Have you ever seen a balance sheet?

Of course it's corrupt vote buying, but in the Kinsley sense: the real scandal in Washington isn't what's illegal; it's what's legal. (Though this may not in fact be! (But of course to the extent it's illegal, it's because it wasn't authorized by Congress; similar programs authorized by Congress would be legal.)) "Politicians routinely redistribute money to buy votes" is not, strictly speaking, a rebuttal to the accusation that this is a vote buying scheme. It's just that most aren't quite so brazen about it as this. Most purport to have some justification beyond, "People on twitter are whining."

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not so cynical - sometimes good and popular policies involve distributing money. Sometimes they do not.

Plenty of tax cuts have been not well received by the American People; I don't think our populace is so irresponsible civically as the vote buying folks would have you believe (and even they tend to think the irresponsible ones are 'those people.' You know the ones.)

[Don Nico]

Thank you, David.

[Don Nico]

" debt forgiveness is not essentially a cash payment. "
Of course it is. If I forgive your debt to me, the IRS considers that a taxable gift from me and income to you.
Stop the partisan apologetics.

[Sarcastr0]

The IRS considers lots of things that aren't cash payments to be income; that's not a good argument.

[Don Nico]

You mean you don't like it.
That is not a good argument.

[Sarcastr0]

The IRS considers lots of things that aren't cash payments to be income. 'Anything of value' in fact.

Therefore, saying the IRS considers it income is insufficient to establish it is basically a cash payment.

[bernard11]

What part of sending the road maintenance people out, a few months before the mayoral election, to fix a lot of previously ignored potholes is not influencing voters?

[Armchair Lawyer]

That needs to be done, and helps everyone.

This...helps a few select people, at the expense of everyone else. It's more akin to a protection racket.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Were you complaining when Trump was demanding his signature appear on the stimulus checks?

Were you complaining when "Trump Funnel[ed] Record Subsidies to Farmers Ahead of Election Day" (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/us/politics/trump-farmers-subsidies.html)

Were you complaining when Trump reimposed tariffs on Canadian aluminum imports in August 2020?

All these and more can be characterized with at least as much validity as a direct effort to "buy" votes. Did you complain then, or do you only complain when a Democrat does something you don't like?

I hated this sort of vote buying back when George W. Bush did it with his stunt of cutting checks for a "tax rebate". Everyone's gotten better with this sort of "vote buying" since then. I don't pretend Democrats aren't guilty of having done it, but you shouldn't pretend that Republicans have been doing it just as much for just as long.

[BrotherMovesOn]

+

[Don Nico]

Of course that influences voters, but no one see that as an individual taxable gift.

[Sarcastr0]

Policies just being about buying votes is too cynical about what the US population wants.
We are not a nation of spendthrifts. Compare us to Germany, for instance.

[Nige]

Both sides can't be right.

[Don Nico]

With that I agree, IF you mean 100% correct. However, that is seldom the circumstance.
However, having worked with Steve Koonin on this issue I'd expect that he his more correct than wrong.

[Nige]

There are things reasonable people can disagree over, I don't accept that the right is being reasonable about this.

[Don Nico]

I don't know about "the right."
I do know personally about Steve Koonin from working with him.

[Kazinski]

Crap source?

The Soho forum is associated with the Reason Foundation.

It had two prominent scientists debating:

"Andrew Emory Dessler is a climate scientist. He is Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and holder of the Reta A. Haynes Chair in Geoscience at Texas A&M University. He is also the Director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies."

Steven E. Koonin (born December 12, 1951)[1] is an American theoretical physicist and former director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. He is also a professor in the Department of Civil and Urban Engineering at NYU's Tandon School of Engineering.[2] From 2004 to 2009, Koonin was employed by BP as the oil and gas company’s Chief Scientist.[3] From 2009 to 2011, he was Under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy, in the Obama administration..

These are serious people having a debate in front of a serious audience, I link to the organization that put on the debate and you call it a crap source because you don't like the result.

[shawn_dude]

Let me summarize for you:

Right-wing think tank hosts debate.
Right-wing audience agrees with right-wing position on debate.
Right-wing blog commenter presents audience result as meaningful in general rather than just for right-wing persons.

[Kazinski]

Well watch the debate yourself, the video is at the link, but shows how politicized the science is when Obama's Undersecretary for Science is a right winger because he has a different opinion on the science.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one that appealed to the authority of the debate.

[Kazinski]

I appealed to nothing, I'm merely thought the debate and the audience reaction was interesting, and indicative that the whole the "debate is settled" meme isn't working.

And I suspect the 19-25% of the audience that thinks "Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions", is about the same as general public. Only 2% think climate change the most important issue facing the country according to Pew, unless you can point me to a poll that says different.

[VinniUSMC]

Woah, we all know that Sarcastr0 is the one true expert. If he says it's a crap source, then it must be. Just look at his source, himself!

[Sarcastr0]

I, and others, have explained the sample bias here. I did not appeal to my own authority, as you are claiming.

[wreckinball]

Except none of the changes they are proposing make rapid reductions in GHG emissions. So it's all BS if your goal is to reduce emissions. Is that actually the goal?

Here is an actual site that tracks CO2 emissions from power generation. Note that the loudest greenies (e.g. CA, Germany, Australia (hahaha))) aren't the lowest emitters.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map?utm_source=electricitymap.org&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=menu

But we do have low CO2 grids and its just not those blessed with large hydro resources. You get one guess what dominates their grids and its not wind and solar.

[Davedave]

We know that liars can persuade people of things that aren't true. Regardless of your 'debate', the science is pretty clear by now.

About 10-15 years ago it was entirely reasonable to question the hype and pseudo-science surrounding climate change. Early IPCC reports were just rounding up every sensationalist under the sun.

AR5 completely changed that, though. It debunked all the nutcases, and left us with what we actually know. I suggest you read it. The claims aren't outlandish, they're very reasonable and easy to accept. Basically, they said all the really alarming stuff isn't credible, and all the credible stuff isn't massively alarming, but we'd better start getting a grip on things and reducing emissions otherwise there will be quite a big problem in a few decades.

The great thing about learning what the scientific consensus actually says is that then you can point out to all the loony-greeny kill-em-all lot when they're rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's become the new left wing mantra in attacking free speech: Debate isn't guaranteed to go to the side that's right, so why should we permit it?

[wreckinball]

Here are some warm weather records from my area form the National Weather Service. Wouldn't you expect the records to be dominated by recent years? They're not.

https://www.weather.gov/pbz/twarm

[Sarcastr0]

I can only presume you've seen the many times people have pointed out that weather is not climate.

Sorry you can't read stuff you don't agree with; seems quite the handicap.

[Jerry B.]

Weather is not climate, except when it’s hot. Then it’s due to climate change.

[Nige]

So close. Almost there.

[wreckinball]

Dumb reply as usual. Go to the link. Season averages, monthly averages, yearly averages would show a climate trend. They don't.

It's Ok you don't have to be contrary just to be contrary.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and hey, how about all those hurricanes?

Oh wait even though, once again higher than normal was predicted, so far three months in and nada.

[Nige]

Oh my gosh if I look at this one set of data in isolation climate chnage disappears! Yay! Magic!!

[NOVA Lawyer]

wreckinball,

You really don't do your reputation any good repeating this stupid point. Averages for one location on the planet is not what anyone is talking about. The grownups are talking about average global temperature and that is unquestionably up significantly in the past 120 years with a steady upward, but accelerating trend. The same is true if you aggregate data for the 48 contiguous states. So what is happening in your hometown is meaningless.

Or more simply: Anecdote is not the singular of data. You basically keep repeating an anecdote and wondering why we don't all bow in amazement at your acumen.

The best thing you could do for our estimate of your intelligence is to stop bringing snowballs to the floor of Congress to prove climate change is false.

[Bob from Ohio]

"weather is not climate"

In fact weather over time is climate.

"cli·mate
/ˈklīmit/
noun
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period."

The WARMEST AVERAGES FOR EACH MONTH at his link show that there is no recent surge in temperature. You didn't even look at the link I'd bet because you are a climate hysteric.

[Nige]

I looked at it the last time he posted it, and the same counter-arguments apply now as it did then. Ignore the years long drought in the mid-west, the historically unprecedented heat wace in China and the Horn of Africa, the record temperatures and floods across Europe, India, the Middle East and the US, just look at this one tiny set of carefully selected data!

[Mr. Bumble]

All weather events that regularly happen within those areas.

[Nige]

Which are gtting worse.

[Don Nico]

And yet every night we hear the broadcasters announce that the latest bad weather is the result of "climate change."
Nice sidestep.

[Nige]

Well, yes, since 'bad weather' of ever-increasing frequency and intensity is one of the predicted outcomes of climate change. Why do you guys keep talking about this in a way that makes it clear you don't understand it?

[Don Nico]

Nige, rather than a snark, have a look a the time series of "bad" weather events. you will find a wide variation in frequencies.
As S_0 has told us, weather is not climate, no matter how much you snark.

[Nige]

I didn't say it was, I just described one of the predicted effects of climate change.

[Davedave]

"Well, yes, since 'bad weather' of ever-increasing frequency and intensity is one of the predicted outcomes of climate change."

Er... Not according to the scientific consensus at this stage. We regularly hear people who go much further than the science supports in this regard. It just feeds into the conspiracy theories not to acknowledge that.

[Nige]

As I undertand it, the hesitancy is in ascribing particular weather events to climate change, not in the prediction that weather events will worsen, but I don't suppose many climate scientists are hesitating over ascribing the Chinese heatwave to climate change.

[Davedave]

"the hesitancy is in ascribing particular weather events to climate change, not in the prediction that weather events will worsen"

The science says that at this point we don't expect to see an increase in extreme weather events.

It is not firmly established that we will see more extreme weather events with warming, although it's considered quite likely.

The world has not yet had any event extreme enough to say that it would have been overwhelmingly unlikely without climate change. We can only say that the probability of such things as the Chinese heatwave increases, not that it was certainly caused by, etc.

In any case, what happens this summer is news, not science yet.

[Nige]

I think people are slightly alarmed at the accelerated rate of what is happening. Maybe next hear and the years after will be gratifyingly mild. I wouldn't put money on it, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone drawing sure causality to a given weather event is also trumpeting bad science.

That doesn't make the above comment any less dumb, nor calling out that dumbness a sidestep.

[Kazinski]

Don't be ignorant, the definition of climate is 30 years of weather, he linked to the long term climate record for that location:

"PITTSBURGH WARM TEMPERATURES

Based on records since January 1871, updated monthly."

The climate is not getting warmer in Pittsburgh by that data, despite all the hype you read about extreme weather, which isn't climate.

[Sarcastr0]

the definition of climate is 30 years of weather

Really? Localized like that? I'm skeptical.

[Kazinski]

Oh come now, don't pile on your ignorance.

There are local climates and regional climates, but actually global climate isn't a thing, because averaging temperature precipitation and wind over too large a region it's meaningless.

climate
klī′mĭt
noun
The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you for that.

The claims of "climate change" in reference to the world as a whole are meaningless, since as you've pointed out the world dose not have a climate. If someone what's to make a claim of climate change, then please point out which climate you believe to be changing.

The same fallacy is also presented with claims of rising sea levels. Sea level is relative to the adjoining land mass. World wide it is almost impossible to quantify.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sorry for the typos.

[Sarcastr0]

Believe it or not, Kaz, climate change is not about microclimates.

FFS.

[Kazinski]

You shouldn't use words you don't know, microclimate doesn't refer to climates of an entire region, it refers to things like the north side of a mountain having distinct temperatures and varying rainfall from the south side of a mountain.

Pittsburgh has a regional climate and probably dozens of microclimates.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, asshole. Regional climate is not what anyone is talking about when they're talking about climate change.

Now pack up your pedantry and go home.

[Kazinski]

I have AR5, and when I read in the AR5 that “there is low confidence in detection and attribution of changes in (meteorological) drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century, owing to observational uncertainties and difficulties in distinguishing decadal-scale variability in drought from long-term trends."

Low confidence is a term of art that means "not more likely or less likely" to be true.

But every time I hear about a drought in the news they say its caused by climate change.

What does the AR5 say about climate change causing floods? Low confidence.

What does the AR5 say about climate change causing wildfires? Low confidence.

Here's the chapter from the IPPC's site.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone drawing sure causality to a given weather event is also trumpeting bad science.

That doesn't mean you can't tell frequency on average is going up.

Conflating the two is bad statistics.

[Mr. Bumble]

"That doesn't mean you can't tell frequency on average is going up."

Frequency of what?

[Nige]

D'urr.

[Mr. Bumble]

Frequency of droughts? See linked article on "hunger stones"

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/viral-hunger-stones-tweet-left-out-context-original-story-was-from-2018/

[Kazinski]

There is low confidence in whether droughts are increasing or decreasing in frequency. Either is just as likely.

So that specifically means "you can't tell frequency on average is going up."

I'm looking at the IPCC's own document, yet you are denying the science.

Making claims that we are in a climate emergency is every bit as much science denial as claiming there is no warming at all.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So now we know The Democrat White House was coordinating with and enabling the Democrat DOJ on their raid of President Trump.

Who is going to be held accountable for such criminality by the Democrats?

[apedad]

Where are you getting that?

Biden announced yesterday that he had no knowledge.

“Mr. President, how much advance notice did you have of the FBI’s plan to search Mar-a-Lago,” asked (Fox News White House correspondent Peter) Doocy .

“I didn’t have any advanced notice. None, zero,” replied Biden. “Not one single bit. Thank you.”

The Aug. 8 raid resulted in the FBI confiscating hundreds of documents allegedly classified that Trump allegedly took when he left office in January 2021. Attorney General Merrick Garland has said that he personally approved seeking the search warrant. The White House has denied being given a heads-up prior to the raid.

“The president was not briefed, was not aware of it,” said White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre on Aug. 9, adding that “no one at the White House was given a heads-up.”

https://www.mediaite.com/news/biden-breaks-silence-on-fbis-trump-raid-when-questioned-by-peter-doocy/

[Mr. Bumble]

"Biden announced yesterday that he had no knowledge."

Truer words were never spoken.

[Michael P]

FACT CHECK: Missing context. The DOJ claims to not have used the words "raid" or "serve a search warrant" in connection with Donald Trump within its communications with the White House.

However, they did get the White House to waive privilege that would allow a raid. So the White House not only knew what was coming, they had to approve it. But they weren't told the day and date, so they claim they were not "given a heads-up".

Because the missing context serves to mislead, the White House gets Three Pinocchios for these statements.

[Sarcastr0]

What did the DoJ get the White House to waive?

You should link to wherever you're getting this cryptic nonsense from.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Trump's executive privilege claims.

[Sarcastr0]

That wouldn't disallow a search that I can tell.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Link to your reasoning.

[Nige]

Because Trump doesn't have executive privelege.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not a link.

[Nige]

There is no link between Trump and Executive Privelege.

[Sarcastr0]

The thing Trump doesn't have can't protect Trump.

That's my reasoning.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You need to prove Trump doesn't have it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair,

That's not how it works. You have to prove he had any privilege claim. The way to disprove it is simply to say he there is no plausible executive privilege to be asserted by an ex-President over documents that belong to the federal government.

The fact that Trump isn't an executive of the United States is your first clue that he has not executive privilege to assert over these documents.

[Sarcastr0]

You need to prove Trump doesn't have it.

So under your burden shifting nonsense requirement, I need to prove that Trump, right now, doesn't have executive privilege?

Easy - he is not the executive.

You keep trying to pretend I need to prove something, when I don't. Just because you often make claims that require support (which you don't provide) doesn't mean I do.

[Michael P]

Do you think Democrats would work that hard to coordinate a waiver of something that doesn't exist?

[Nige]

Oh it exists, just not for Trump.

[Michael P]

They were only waiving it as to Trump. Please try to keep up.

[Nige]

Trump doesn't have Executive Privelege.

[shawn_dude]

Do I think people who were negotiating with Trump and his team to get those documents back since January would have taken the small step needed to undercut an unproven claim to privilege that Trump has been loudly making since he left the Whitehouse?

This simple step eliminated an entire avenue of delay Trump could have taken. Rather than fight that through the courts, just eliminate any question of it from the start by asking the one person who actually has the authority to preemptively withdraw it from Trump, real or imagined.

[David Nieporent]

Executive privilege may exist (though there's nothing in the constitution saying so!); it just isn't held by Donald Trump, since he's not the executive.

First, they did not "work that hard."

Second, and more importantly, and once again: that had nothing to do with these documents that were just seized. You're reciting talking points you don't understand. The "waiver" to which you refer is about documents that were held by the Archives. Not stolen documents that Trump was concealing.

Under the PRA, the archives holds all presidential documents. The archivist controls access to those documents. Documents that are potentially protected by executive privilege are limited access documents; the archive doesn't just pass them around willy nilly to anyone who wants to see them. In this case, Trump wanted to keep restrictions on documents held by the archives. But, the actual executive, Joe Biden, who actually possesses executive privilege, waived those limitations so that the archives could share them with DOJ and/or Congress.

None of that had anything to do with documents that Trump still retained. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

[bernard11]

DMN,

Gehe schlug sich kopf an wand.

[Michael P]

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/biden-white-house-facilitated-dojs-criminal-probe-against-trump

Your ignorance doesn't make something "cryptic nonsense', it just makes it yet another thing you don't know you don't know.

[Sarcastr0]

By May, Su conveyed to the Archives that President Joe Biden would not object to waiving his predecessor's claims to executive privilege

Truly, working hand in hand.

You clown.

[apedad]

Boy, that word, "facilitated" is doing a lot of heavy-duty work going from the NARA activity in April to the LEGAL search in August.

Actually, there is no link and you guys are simply whining because you're on the losing side.

[Michael P]

Yes, yes, you have no defense, only name-calling. We know.

[Michael P]

Meh. That was supposed to go to S_0.

I guess you missed the news that, in spite of the huge urgency to reclaim these documents, urgency that justified a raid, Merrick Garland dithered over whether to green-light it for weeks. Thus the delay.

[Nige]

In spite of the urgency, they showed exceptional deference and allowed exceptional latitude to the ex-president they are supposedly bannana-republic targeting.

[Davedave]

I love the banana republic stuff. Banana republics _don't_ prosecute criminals because they have held high office. Actual, functioning, modern democracies frequently do.

France, Germany, the UK, Japan, etc. All notable 'banana republics'...

Why, it's almost like the Trump-traitors despise everything America stands for, like, y'know, the rule of law, freedom, equality, and so-on.

[Nige]

What privelege got waived to allow a search?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why don't you read the memo the Biden Democrat admin officials wrote to the Democrat FBI/Democrat DOJ.

It's been reported on.

[Nige]

Oh, and which memo is that, pray tell?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The memo that's being reported on, you dunce.

[Nige]

You haven't reported on any memo.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think I'm a reporter?

Do you know what I don't think you are? A smart person.

[Nige]

No. A reporter reports. You lie.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol wtf r u fr rn?

[David Nieporent]

However, they did get the White House to waive privilege that would allow a raid.

Even if Trump had privilege, which he doesn't, waiving privilege was not necessary to allow a so-called "raid." The waiver of any hypothetical privilege was about NARA releasing documents to the FBI. Not about documents in Trump's possession.

[Bob from Ohio]

“I didn’t have any advanced notice. None, zero,” replied Biden. “Not one single bit. Thank you.”

"First rule in politics: never believe anything until it's officially denied." James Hacker

The more emphatic Joe is, the more sure you can be that he is lying. Joe has been a table pounding liar his whole life.

[Nige]

Well, that'll have to do absent any actual evidence he's lying.

[shawn_dude]

Trump denied his tan was fake.

OMG! you're RIGHT!!1!!

[not guilty]

"So now we know The Democrat White House was coordinating with and enabling the Democrat DOJ on their raid of President Trump."

What, pray tell, is your factual basis for that assertion?

[Brett Bellmore]

Unveiled memos raise questions about Biden’s role in Trump probe

"A newly revealed letter shows that President Biden authorized the National Archives and Records Administration to reject any executive privilege claims that former President Donald Trump might use to stop the Justice Department from accessing classified documents stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

A letter posted late Monday on the website of conservative journalist John Solomon — one of the few people authorized by Mr. Trump to review National Archives records — revealed that Mr. Biden ordered the National Archives to share all materials it had requested from Mr. Trump to be shared with the Justice Department and the FBI.

The letter, written by National Archivist Debra Wall to Trump attorney Evan Corcoran, says the president cleared the way for her to rule on Mr. Trump’s executive privilege claims. That opened the door for the National Archives to allow the FBI and the Justice Department to review the missing documents, which culminated in this month’s raid on Mr. Trump’s residence."

Basically, Biden got the ball rolling on the raid by kneecapping Trump's legal case for having custody of any documents.

[Nige]

'Basically, Biden got the ball rolling'

Wow, that's clearly a bare-faced lie.

'kneecapping Trump's legal case for having custody of any documents.'

What legal case?

Also, what co-ordination?

[apedad]

Nige, they make shit up when they got nothing.

[Nige]

And then they complain when it all falls apart in court.

[not guilty]

The nexus between President Biden waiving Executive Privilege prior to Debra Wall's May 10 letter to Evan Corcoran and the issuance on August 5 of the search warrant by the magistrate is missing. Donald Trump's retention (and concealment) in the meantime of the subject documents and records, despite the visit to Mar-a-lago of FBI agents and the issuance and service of a subpoena on Trump, is what gave rise to the search warrant application and execution.

[Don Nico]

Geez, guys. Why all of the back and forth bullshit.

NARA issued a legitimate subpoena for the documents. Mr. Trump via his mouthpieces did not comply. What then happened followed happened as the night follows day.
FInd something more useful to discuss.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You think that your explanation is any more convincing for the Trumpers around here?

[bernard11]

Tell it to Brett. And a few others.

[David Nieporent]

"A newly revealed letter shows that President Biden authorized the National Archives and Records Administration to reject any executive privilege claims that former President Donald Trump might use to stop the Justice Department from accessing classified documents stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Yeah, that's just wrong. The letter was not about "classified documents stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate." Indeed, at the time the letter was written they didn't know what was at his estate, and DOJ doesn't need NARA's authorization to execute a search warrant. This was about NARA releasing documents already in NARA's possession to DOJ.

[OtisAH]

Turnip was the Executive and granted “Executive Privilege” wrt some docs.

When Big Baby lost his re-election bid he was no longer the Executive and no longer had any Executive Privilege authority. That fell to his successor, Joe Biden.

Now Joe Biden is the Executive who enjoys Executive Privilege authority.

Joe Biden was asked “Do you wish to extend Executive Privilege to these docs?”

And Joe Biden, the Executive, said “No thank you.”

That is what was “waived.”

[Nige]

It wasn't even Biden who waived it. He delegated that authority to the head of the National Archives.

[apedad]

Trump World’s Mar-a-Lago Offensive Backfires

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/08/trump-worlds-mar-a-lago-offensive-backfires/

Here's an article that tries to paint Biden in a bad light but ultimately points the finger Trump.

BTW, National Review is an American semi-monthly conservative editorial magazine, focusing on news and commentary pieces on political, social, and cultural affairs. The magazine was founded by the author William F. Buckley Jr. in 1955. Its editor-in-chief is Rich Lowry, while the editor is Ramesh Ponnuru.

Since its founding, the magazine has played a significant role in the development of conservatism in the United States, helping to define its boundaries and promoting fusionism while establishing itself as a leading voice on the American right. (wiki)

[David Nieporent]

The things you think you "know" are vast. The things you actually know are not. You should probably try not getting your information from John Solomon. The thing he published about the communications between the WH and NARA had nothing to do with the so-called "raid."

[bernard11]

You mean Brett got it wrong?

[David Nieporent]

Shocker, I know. But I believe that was a response to BCD, who also got it wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Also, even if John Solomon weren't a lying Russian propagandist/incompetent analyst, that is not "criminality."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So know we see the Democrats at the CDC confess to their public health misdeeds and concurrently the Democrat White House release a report blaming President Trump for pressuring the Democrats at the FDA to authorize unsafe COVID therapeutics (now called vaccines).

Who is going to be held accountable for all the harm causes to people from COVID policy and from vaxx side effects?

[Moderation4ever]

The American people held President Trump responsible and replaced him in the November 2020 election. The former President had no COVID policy other than to hope it would go away. The former President failed to recognize the problem even though he was advised on the pandemic by his supporter Peter Navarro. He left the problem until it could not be ignored. Instead of providing leadership he flailed away, no plans, no consistent messaging and as you noted, pushed discredited therapies. By November 2020 the country wanted new leadership on the pandemic and chose President Biden to do that.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who will hold the Federals accountable for their incorrect advisement to the President?

Anyone? Is it even possible to hold a Federal Bureaucrat accountable for anything?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

P.S. the answer to both my questions is “Not the Federals who committed the acts”

[Moderation4ever]

As I noted above the head Fed, President Trump was replaced.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Was it President Trump who made all those mistakes the Federals at the CDC just copped to?

[David Nieporent]

The buck stops anywhere below the Oval Office!

Also, the CDC didn't say what you pretend it said.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Sure it did. Why do you lie? Is it your automatic bootlcking instinct to reflexively bootlick the elites whenever they might be criticized?

[David Nieporent]

No, it didn't. The CDC looked back on how it handled the pandemic and — like anyone who is honest and has integrity (those criteria exclude you) — found that it had made mistakes and could have done things better. No duh. There is no meaningful situation in history in which one can't look back and identify things one could've done better. That in no way means that the CDC admitted "misdeeds" or that it caused "harm" (let alone that there are "vaxx side effects;" LOL).

[BravoCharlieDelta]

None of the wrong actions taken by the CDC caused anyone harm?

r u fr rn?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I remain non-plussed that Donald Trump remains at liberty. Given what we know about the documents he had in his possession, what do commenters think would have happened in the case of any other person who did likewise?

I suggest an urgent need to assess potential damage to the national security, and to prevent further damage, would have routinely resulted in that hypothetical other person being taken into custody indefinitely, at least until authorities could satisfy themselves that all potential related threats were neutralized. Part of that assessment would have been a comprehensive search of every place that other person owned or controlled—if possible including places in foreign nations—to see what else might turn up amiss. Another part of that assessment would have been repeated, lengthy, comprehensive interrogations of that other person, while in custody.

I suspect the authority for those actions would not have come from an ordinary search warrant process, but instead from some procedure authorized by the FISA Court.

However, I have not studied these procedures, or previous cases. Perhaps that is a misestimate of the way the American system treats these kinds of occurrences. Does anyone know of some similar case where a perpetrator lied to authorities, hundreds of pages of stolen security records were recovered, the perpetrator was permitted to walk free, and his remaining premises went unsearched?

The comparison seems pertinent to the often-repeated assertions that the former President is not above the law.

I suppose it would be possible to imagine a case where a suspect at liberty was kept under intensive, continuing electronic surveillance, to see what he would do, and who else might be implicated in related security threats. Does anyone think that is happening in the case of Trump?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Given what we know about the documents he had in his possession, what do commenters think would have happened in the case of any other person who did likewise?"

-See Clinton, Hillary.

[Nige]

See a different case that was nothing like this one? Why? Oh, yeah, whataboutism.

[Michael P]

Right -- she never tried to follow the rules, her system was never authorized, and she isn't the one who writes the executive orders establishing the classification system. And she still got off scot-free!

[Moderation4ever]

Again, as noted by Nige, a different case. It was investigated and no charges were brought. How many investigations of Hillary Clinton turned up nothing, all of them.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It was a different case, about a high ranking official, who had classified documents in his/her home.

No charges were brought...yet. no charges have been brought against Trump in this case either..yet.

[Nige]

Trump is not a high-ranking official. Many other differences also apply. Attempts to conflate the two are utterly dishonest.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Apologies FORMER high-ranking official. Clinton was only Secretary of state till 2013, yet retained classified e-mails after that.

[Nige]

That poor, poor chicken.

[OtisAH]

It’s just a tiny pile of sticky feathers now.

[Nige]

You're relitigating an old case that has nothing to do with a current one, and you have to lie about both when you do it, usually, It's stupid.

[Sarcastr0]

Strong indication you have no defense, MP.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You mean...someone who had classified documents at their home?

But when the literal question is "in the case of any other person who did likewise"...it's hard to call it whataboutism...because it's asking literally "what about"

[Nige]

Except that the two cases are completely different. God knows Trump's legal team seem inept enough to introduce a Clinton Defence, but would not be able to prevent it getting laughed out of court.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Please explain what exactly the differences are.

The former Secretary of State had highly classified e-mails kept at her house after her tenure. In addition, she failed to turn over all the classified documents.

[Nige]

Trump stole a bunch of secret government documents and refused to give them back. Clinton didn't.

[shawn_dude]

You've omitted some important information.

Clinton's case: none of the material was marked as classified. The vast majority of what was classified was only classified AFTER it had traveled through her server.

Trump's case: these were paper documents marked with their level of classification. When the government came to Mar-a-Lago the first time to get them, he only gave them some and let them leave thinking they had them all. Then tried to stall them returning to take the rest when they discovered his deception. Then infamously claiming those classified documents were his personal property.

But sure, if intent, action, and scope is meaningless, then these two situations are totally the same.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"none of the material was marked as classified"
Incorrect. Some was marked as classified.

[shawn_dude]

Incorrect. A small number contained the "(C)" markings for "confidential" material, but these same emails lacked the header and footer blocks that are required for classified documents. The final findings were that the "(C)" was insufficient to denote the document as classified.

Having said that, anyone paying attention while reading the email should have noted the "(C)" marks and wondered if the document was mis-marked and looked into it. So Clinton and team get an "F" for paying attention to something they were responsible for. And there are legitimate questions as to why other people were sending such documents in the first place. But none of that changes the fact that none of the documents were marked as classified.

Trump and team, OTOH, had clearly marked documents that weren't even supposed to travel except by special government couriers.

How many hours of testimony did Clinton sit through over this? Let's see if Trump can handle even half of that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here is the FBI director saying the e-mails were marked as classified. Twenty two were marked as top secret.

https://thehill.com/homenews/286513-fbi-director-clinton-emails-were-marked-as-classified-at-the-time/

[David Nieporent]

Please explain what exactly the differences are.

Saying that they both "had" such documents at their home is utterly disingenuous. Some other people wrongfully emailed her a handful of such documents. Trump deliberately took these documents. She did not refuse to return them despite being asked and then being served with a subpoena. Trump did. She did not falsely swear that she had given them all back. Trump did. She did not try to claim they were hers and she could do whatever she wanted with them. Trump did.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Some other people wrongfully emailed her a handful of such documents"
Clinton then copied those e-mails, and gave them to other people.

"She did not refuse to return them despite being asked and then being served with a subpoena"
-Approximately 30,000 were deleted. Including some that were classified. (And recovered from other sources later).

"She did not falsely swear that she had given them all back. Trump did."

She did. Mrs. Clinton told the House Select Committee on Benghazi, for instance, that she had turned over all her “work-related” emails to the State Department . The FBI recovered many that she deleted that were work related. Some they did not.

I can go on...but you keep making false statements.

[David Nieporent]

Approximately 30,000 total emails were deleted. Not 30,000 classified documents. Not 30,000 government documents. 30,000 emails. She was legally entitled to delete every personal email.

There's no evidence she deliberately deleted a single work email, or that she lied about any of it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Incorrect. The FBI recovered some of the e-mails she deleted. They were work related. I've told you this before.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/23/442797133/fbi-investigators-recover-clinton-emails-thought-to-have-been-deleted

[Armchair Lawyer]

In addition, Hillary told a judge she turned over all work related e-mails.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-email-certified-court

Since the FBI recovered e-mails that she deleted that were work related (as above), she clearly lied here.

[darkknight9]

"what do commenters think would have happened in the case of any other person who did likewise?"

"-See Clinton, Hillary."

What do you think would have happened to any other?
Cites precedent.
Non lawyers or law career minded folks who attach no importance to the concept of 'precedent' snarkily attempt to dunk, crying "whataboutism!!!"

Just another day in dunk or be dunked US discourse. (smile emoticon)

[Armchair Lawyer]

I do enjoy the calls of "whataboutism" after responding to a question that asks what about other cases.

[Nige]

One other case, ad nauseum, which is nothing like the current one. What other actual cases are there pertaining to people who took official secret documents home when they weren't supposed to? Surely you can think of one or two?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Trump was entitled to take the documents at the time he took them.

Technically Clinton was not entitled to take the documents at the time she took them.

[Nige]

Trump was the outgoing president when he took them, he knew what he was doing when he took them. Clinton didn't 'take' any documents anywhere.

[Nige]

Also I can't help but notice your reluctance to identify other cases of people taking official government documents they shouldn't have.

[David Nieporent]

Obviously there's Petraeus. There's Sandy Berger.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump was not entitled to take Sensitive Compartmented Information to Mar-A-Lago. Nor was he entitled to see it anywhere after the left the White House. Nor did Clinton have any such information on her server. Although perhaps Clinton should have been prosecuted anyway. If you think so, you can hardly object to stern measures—whichever ones are appropriate—for Trump.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Trump was not entitled to take Sensitive Compartmented Information to Mar-A-Lago."
As President...he was. All Presidents are entitled to take Sensitive Information where they wish. And they typically do.

Clinton did have classified information on her server. Which she then copied and gave to other people.

These are facts.

[Nige]

Trump deliberately took documents away and kept them and concealed them. He comes off worse in every comparison you try to make.

[shawn_dude]

Also fact: none of the emails were marked as classified. Some of the information was marked classified *after* it went through her email server.

You keep trying to equate incompetent handling of classified material with intentional mishandling, making false statements about having the material when requested to return it, and then making crazy claims of ownership when confronted with having some of the highest level of classified documents in your possession. They aren't even close to equivalent. By that logic, a banking error and a bank robbery are the same thing.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Shawn,

As linked to before, this is incorrect.

Several of the e-mails were marked as classified, according to the director of the FBI.

"A very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information,” Comey said."

https://thehill.com/homenews/286513-fbi-director-clinton-emails-were-marked-as-classified-at-the-time/

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Fuck off with your Hillary bullshit.

She didn't illegally remove more than 100 classified documents (700+ pages)- including TS/SCI and TS/SAP and refuse to give them back when it was demanded of her.

You're a pathetic, idiotic, partisan piece of shit.

[Davedave]

"I remain non-plussed that Donald Trump remains at liberty."

He isn't going anywhere*, his crimes aren't ongoing, and it's vital to get every single box ticked, t crossed, and i dotted in order to successfully prosecute him for treason.

*Except the chair, eventually. Unless he dies of natural causes first.

The simple reality is that while we _know_ Trump committed treason, we have to prove it beyond any doubt at all in a court of law, and that's hard given the anti-law bent of his supporters.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Davedave — I suppose Trump's crimes might not be ongoing. Why would anyone professionally charged with defending national security assume that?

[Davedave]

It's pretty clear he isn't currently attempting to stage a coup, or directing a very ineffective civil war/insurrection. And those are the things he's going to face the death penalty for.

[not guilty]

I yield to no one in my disapproval of Donald Trump's criminal conduct, but a charge of treason -- a wartime offense -- is factually unsupportable. Charge him instead with attempt to obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) and concealment of records/documents under § 1519. Each offense carries a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment. Deny him bail pending appeal upon conviction.

[Davedave]

This is nonsense. Treason is not solely 'a wartime offence'. Trump 'levied war against the United States', without question. That, in and of itself, is treason.

[not guilty]

I don't wish to beat a dead horse, but that trivializes "war". What Trump has done is heinous, but it is not levying war against the United States. What with multiple slam dunks available for other criminal offenses, DOJ's pleadings should not write checks that its proof can't cash.

[Davedave]

It was obviously levying war. There's nothing that says such things have to be effective.

It was a really crap army he put together, but that it was an army, of which he was general, not a doubt.

There was a dreadfully poorly planned coup, and a very short civil war, when his supporters tried to seize the Capitol by force and take over the USA. It's only in the US itself where the ongoing insurrection continues to generate enough noise to fool people into thinking otherwise. The rest of the world knows what happened.

[Paladin_44]

Well put, Dd.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The immediate goal on January 6 was not to take seize control of the government, as it would be in a coup. It was to prevent Congress from certifying the election results.

What you call an army was incapable of conducting sustained combat operations by design. It was composed of people who were in Washingon, D.C. for one day to disrupt the certification of the election. They were supposed to stop the certification and then go home.

As “not guilty” says above, “Charge him instead with attempt to obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).”

[David Nieporent]

The immediate goal on January 6 was not to take seize control of the government, as it would be in a coup. It was to prevent Congress from certifying the election results.

Look up "autocoup" (sometimes "self coup" or "autogolpe") in the dictionary. The immediate goal wasn't to seize control of the government because Trump already was in control of the government. The immediate goal was to forcibly keep that control.

[Ben_]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684

"A former president’s rights under the Presidential Records Act trump the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid."

[not guilty]

The linked article is behind a paywall. What is the factual/legal basis for any claim that the search warrant in question, issued by a magistrate judge on findings of probable cause to believe that evidence of crimes would be found on the premises to be searched, was without a legal basis?

[Ben_]

That the Presidential Records Act is a specific act, and specific laws trump general ones when there's an apparent conflict.

The magistrate judge didn't do such an analysis. Judges issue search warrants more-or-less automatically when the paperwork is formatted correctly. Judges almost never put effort toward protecting the 4th Amendment rights of people when they issue search warrants.

[not guilty]

There is no conflict here, apparent or actual. The Presidential Records Act does not create criminal offenses, and it does not create exemptions from criminal liability based on other statutes. The statutes which the magistrate judge found to be supported by probable cause -- 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 1519 and 2071 -- define and punish discrete criminal offenses, separate and apart from the Presidential Records Act.

[Ben_]

Laws aren't "separate and apart".

[Kazinski]

You can't have one law specifically authorizing records retention by presidents and former presidents and their staff, and then apply another criminal law that covers everyone else.

When statutes collide the DOJ doesn't get to pick the most restrictive one and apply it, ignoring the more specific statute that authorizes the conduct.

But they can probably get a warrant based on it with a compliment magistrate, so I'll have to give you that.

[OtisAH]

The law doesn’t protect the president’s right to retain records, you dolts. It requires the president to preserve records.

[Ben_]

If you want anyone to listen to you, you might want to start being less dishonest.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Cite the provision that allows former Presidents to keep documents. Because what the Presidential Records Act actually says is that "that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office." So what part of that is helpful for Trump?

[Sarcastr0]

You just went on a tear last night posting that people you disagree with are liars and leaving it at that.

You doing OK?

[OtisAH]

See now this? This is the content that entertains me. Hilarious. Good one, Ben.

[Kazinski]

A magistrate judge will give a search warrant on a ham sandwich.

Please don't cite a magistrate judge giving a search warrant as any sort of legal ruling about the basis of the search warrant.

Trump is in absolutely no legal jeopardy over the possession of the documents they siezed, it was a fishing expedition looking for evidence they could use for the Jan. 6th investigation, and of course to fire up the base.

But it fired up the wrong base.

[Nige]

Why would they need to fish for documents they knew he had, and which he doesn't really deny having? Why would they need to fish for Jan 6th realted stuff, which they either already have or could supoena for? What 'base' does Merrick Garland have and how would this fire it up?

[not guilty]

A search conducted pursuant to a warrant is presumed to be valid and reasonable, and the burden of showing the invalidity thereof is on the party challenging the search. That is hornbook law.

"Trump is in absolutely no legal jeopardy over the possession of the documents they siezed [sic], it was a fishing expedition looking for evidence they could use for the Jan. 6th investigation, and of course to fire up the base."

I am curious. Have you parsed the statutes referenced in Attachment B to the search warrant? The presence of the subject documents and records at Mar-a-lago on August 8 -- after ongoing efforts (including a subpoena) to secure the return thereof to the National Archives -- is highly incriminating.

[David Nieporent]

A search conducted pursuant to a warrant is presumed to be valid and reasonable, and the burden of showing the invalidity thereof is on the party challenging the search. That is hornbook law.

More to the point, the dumb argument that the PRA authorized Trump to steal documents has nothing to do with the validity of the search. It would be a substantive argument for dismissing an indictment brought under one of the other statutes, not an argument that the search itself was invalid.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Trump is in absolutely no legal jeopardy over the possession of the documents they siezed, it was a fishing expedition looking for evidence they could use for the Jan. 6th investigation, and of course to fire up the base."

None of the facts of this case support your bullshit.

[bernard11]

Trump is in absolutely no legal jeopardy over the possession of the documents they siezed, it was a fishing expedition looking for evidence they could use for the Jan. 6th investigation, and of course to fire up the base.

You know this how? Have you seen the documents?

[wreckinball]

Based on the guy who preceded him nothing happened.

[Don Nico]

"I suggest an urgent need to assess potential damage to the national security, and to prevent further damage,"
There was no damage done by documents in the boxes.
Of course there could have been had these documents been distributed.
I reject your hypothetical as mental masturbatiion.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No, Nico, suspension of judgment awaiting proof of truth or falsity is not mental masturbation. Do you think it impossible that Trump would intend to use such documents for some private purpose other than writing his memoirs? What possibilities have you considered and rejected? On what basis?

I have suggested that normal national security procedures in the case of an unauthorized person found with a trove of Sensitive Compartmented Information would include taking the person into custody. I suspect that would last as long as it took to disprove possession of any other such documents, and to rule out the possibility that their contents had been communicated anywhere.

If anything about the facts suggested any but an innocent motive, I doubt that bail would ever be authorized. Perhaps you know more than I do. Do you know of examples to show otherwise?

[David Nieporent]

I have suggested that normal national security procedures in the case of an unauthorized person found with a trove of Sensitive Compartmented Information would include taking the person into custody. I suspect that would last as long as it took to disprove possession of any other such documents, and to rule out the possibility that their contents had been communicated anywhere.

That's not a thing. Any of it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, you may be mistaken. I do not pretend to legal expertise, nor to national security expertise. But look into the cases of Chelsey Manning, John Walker, and Jerry Whitworth. A brief internet search shows all were arrested and denied bail. Perhaps you will wish to quibble about particulars. If so, "That's not a thing. Any of it," is perhaps off the mark.

[David Nieporent]

Millions of people are arrested and denied bail. They're arrested and denied bail at the time the government is ready to prosecute them — not as an investigative technique, as you suggest. For example:

https://news.usni.org/2014/09/02/john-walker-spy-ring-u-s-navys-biggest-betrayal

The pieces then quickly fell into place. Laura Walker Snyder was interviewed about her father’s attempt to recruit her and added details to her mother’s account, though both Laura and Barbara were recognized as having personal problems that would make them not fully credible witnesses. In early March, headquarters authorized a full field investigation, code-named Windflyer, involving its foreign counterintelligence unit. The Naval Investigative Service also came into play since Michael Walker, a suspect by then, was an active-duty Sailor. Laura Snyder telephoned her father at the behest of the FBI, which recorded the conversation in which he evinced interest in her rejoining the military or perhaps the CIA. The FBI tapped Walker’s phones, and the NIS interviewed hundreds of persons who had known him and obtained a confession from Michael on board the Nimitz .
The end for John Walker finally came on 20 May when the FBI arrested him after confiscating 127 classified documents from the Nimitz that he had left at a dead drop.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, do you deny that national security arrestees may in fact be prosecutable, but not immediately prosecuted? My impression has been that often national security suspects get encouraged not to seek release, but instead remain in custody—while to encourage ongoing cooperation prosecutors dangle prospects of lesser charges later, depending on what turns up.

Is there any other category of crime where prosecutors value cooperation from suspects as highly as they do in national security cases?

Do you deny that sometimes the question is not optional whether a prosecutable national security suspect may obtain release during subsequent investigation of the implications and national security compromises produced by their crimes? What accounts for Chelsea Manning's lengthy and controversial pre-trial incarceration?

[David Nieporent]

I don't have any idea what you're trying to say. What I am saying is that they do not arrest first and investigate afterwards. There are two types of cases, one that involves mere mishandling of classified material — Petraeus, Clinton, Saucier — and ones where there's a suspicion of what a layman would call espionage — Walker, Ames, Hansen, Snowden, Manning (although as an active duty military, that's very different) etc.

They do not rush to arrest someone first and then figure out which group they're in second.

[bernard11]

Don,

There was no damage done by documents in the boxes.

So I shoot into a crowd, but don't hit anyone. No harm, no foul?

Of course there could have been had these documents been distributed.

We don't know - I sure don't and I doubt you do - who may have seen some of the documents, or learned of their contents in conversation with Trump. He's not exactly scrupulous about security, you know.

[Don Nico]

Sure Bernard.
Just as there could have been if I had walked out of the SCIF with s TS SCI document in my briefcase and handed it to my local spy.
I did not do that, and there is no evidence that the Orange Clown did either.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You don't have access to a SCIF. it appears lots of people had access to the Mar-a-Lago basement. A padlocked door is not the equivalent of a SCIF. Part of the point of making it criminal to take classified documents to unsecured places like this is that it is impossible to be sure someone didn't access or create a duplicate (copy, picture, etc.).

There won't necessarily be evidence anyone accessed unsecured documents unless or until our intelligence intercepts communications such as that a foreign government has info that could only have come from the documents.

You'll probably understand it if I put it like this: There is no evidence anyone obtained unauthorized access to any of the classified (post hoc) emails on Hillary's server. So why was anyone upset? Explain that, and you'll have explained to yourself why Trump having top secret documents in his golf resort's basement is a problem.

[Don Nico]

NOVA,
My comment applied to the period to when I worked in a SCIF. I have had ample security training.

Neither you nor I know what areas of Mar-a-Lago were certified by the secret service as qualified for what level of secure conversation and/or storage. We should presume nothing without firm evidence.

I don't need your explanation about Hilary. Everyone with classified access is trained to know that sending classified material over an unsecured network is a security violation. I dare say that I know much more than you about security rules; I don't need to be talked down to concerning a matter about which you do not have definitive information.

I have been clear that Mr. Trump refused to comply with a subpoena to return the documents from the competent authority. No one denies that. That failure to comply is clearly a serious security and regulatory violation.

[Harvey Mosley]

"...what do commenters think would have happened in the case of any other person who did likewise?"

She would become the Democratic nominee for President?

[Nige]

Would this 'she' be subjected to two FBI investigations just before the election and a DOJ investigation after it?

[David Nieporent]

You're embarrassing yourself. It's like you get your information from Hollywood movies. You do not "take people into custody" to assess whether there's a threat. There will not be any "interrogations" of Trump, because he has a lawyer.

FISA has no relation to this situation; it's not some special National Security Court that deals with criminal conduct related to classified documents. It applies only to (suspected) agents of foreign powers.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, now I see where you are coming from. For some reason, you are ready to exonerate Trump of all suspicion that he might have acted as an agent of a foreign power. I think the FBI would be remiss to conclude that on your say-so.

I have no doubt at all that where national security issues are involved, even judges sometimes separate the presumption of innocence from the need to discover whether or how much national security damage may have occurred. I mentioned some cases in a comment above.

Admittedly, because Trump is a former President, he may benefit from favorable presumptions others would not receive. Maybe that is what you are trying to tell me. If so, you at least agree with me that Trump is not getting the same treatment some others would get for the same conduct.

By the way, do you really believe that on the basis of the history of Trump's case, a judge would be remiss to give the FBI warrants to search all of Trump's other premises? Would it really happen after a bank robbery that the FBI could get probable cause to recover loot from one location, but after that search turned up only part of it, still lack probable cause to search for the rest of it in some other place owned and controlled by the same suspect?

[David Nieporent]

It has nothing to do with "presumptions." It has to do with evidence. You don't get a warrant on a "Well, we haven't ruled out the possibility that it's true." You need to present affirmative evidence that Trump is the agent of a foreign power.

As for your "other premises," is there evidence that GSA shipped boxes of documents to those other locations?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, once the documents are in Trump's unsupervised custody at Mar-A-Lago, what the hell does the GSA have to do with it anymore? He can do what he pleases with them.

Without evidence to show otherwise, how is it even reasonable not to assume Trump—who has shown intent to conceal documents and lie about it—would have moved some documents, or unauthorized copies, to other locations he controls? Once the result of a search on probable cause has proved Trump's intent to steal and hold documents, and also proved Trump's intent to evade attempts to recover the documents, why is that not probable cause to conclude Trump would do what anyone with that motivation would seek to do, and stash backups (or originals) in other locations where he could always get at them?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I was disappointed not to hear your answer to these questions:

By the way, do you really believe that on the basis of the history of Trump's case, a judge would be remiss to give the FBI warrants to search all of Trump's other premises? Would it really happen after a bank robbery that the FBI could get probable cause to recover loot from one location, but after that search turned up only part of it, still lack probable cause to search for the rest of it in some other place owned and controlled by the same suspect?

[Kazinski]

The Presidential records act allows the former President to possess his records, even though they are the property of the National Archives:

"(3) the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President's designated representative."

So Trump and his designated aides are in no criminal jeopardy for the possession of the documents, as long as none of them were destroyed (Bergerized is the technical term).

So the answer is you or I or Hillary would probably have to go to jail by the letter of the law, but not Trump or his designated representatives.

Which also brings the search warrant into doubt, a search warrant requires probable cause a crime was committed, which is very doubtful. Even if Trump didn't comply with the previous subpoena, that's a civil matter, not criminal, the fact they cited the wrong law in asserting probable cause is either incompetence or mendacity.

[David Nieporent]

The Presidential records act allows the former President to possess his records, even though they are the property of the National Archives:

No, it does not allow the former president to possess "his" records. It allows him to see the documents held by the archives.

[Kazinski]

It says they're "available", I didn't see "see" or "view" in that section, although it appears lots of other places in other contexts, which of course means that's not what they meant there.

If you said you were making your wife available to me does that mean I can only view her under controlled conditions in the National Archives?

Trump lives at Mar-ga-lo, there is nothing in the act that says they can't be available there. And its absurd to think Congress meant every time he wanted to view a presidential record he had to go to the National Archives to view it. Did Bill Clinton write his memoir from the National Archives? If that's what they meant they didn't say it well enough to make it a criminal matter.

[David Nieporent]

Trump lives at Mar-ga-lo, there is nothing in the act that says they can't be available there.

I mean, you're utterly wrong, both in reading the PRA and in failing to understand that statutes should be read in pari materia with related statutes, where possible.

The PRA says that the government shall "retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records."

It says that "the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President."

It says that "The Archivist shall deposit all such Presidential records in a Presidential archival depository or another archival facility operated by the United States."

And its absurd to think Congress meant every time he wanted to view a presidential record he had to go to the National Archives to view it.

No, it's not in the least bit absurd. But of course that's not right anyway, since the statute says that president is allowed to designate representatives to see the material, so he does not need to travel there himself. Moreover, to the extent that the records are not classified, or national defense information, or privileged, he or his representative can make copies of the documents if he wants to view them from his home.

If that's what they meant they didn't say it well enough to make it a criminal matter.

The PRA doesn’t make it a criminal matter. Other statutes, which are quite clear, do.

[Stephen Lathrop]

And its absurd to think Congress meant every time he wanted to view a presidential record he had to go to the National Archives to view it.

Not absurd at all, for secret records. That is exactly what Dwight Eisenhower did when he was writing his memoirs. He lived in Gettysburg. There was a national archives facility over the line in Maryland. He arranged with the Archives to move there the records he needed to consult, and did so from time-to-time.

More generally, Kazinski, I think you are making the same mistake Trump made with regard to archives and archivists. You seem to suppose they are some sort of public library, and the people who run them are librarians. Archival practice, wherever it occurs, always involves administration of legal requirements, and expert control of access to privileged information.

Good archivists of course try to help researchers get their work done, but their first responsibility is to the integrity of their collections, and to the rigor with which secrecy and privacy requirements are administered. In that respect, the law makes the Archivist of the United States more an adversary of U.S. Presidents than a subordinate of them.

[Ben_]

The wall are closing in on Trump for sure.

[VinniUSMC]

Given what we know about the documents he had in his possession

Almost nothing?

what do commenters think would have happened in the case of any other person who did likewise?

Depends on their political affiliation. But, hypotheticals about a non-former President have no connection to what's happening to a former President. No matter how much he makes you non-plussed.

[Commenter_XY]

Serious question (not political). Does POTUS Biden even have the executive authority to forgive student loans? Or will this act go the way of the CDC eviction moratorium (tossed by SCOTUS)?

Is it a major question? (student loan forgiveness)

[Sarcastr0]

Orin Kerr is skeptical, and I tend to think he's both quite smart and a straight shooter:

The power of the Secretary of Education is not my area, to put it lightly. And I have no view on the policy question. But when I read OLC's position, I can imagine a federal court disagreeing with it more readily than I can imagine a federal court agreeing with it.
https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1562558991250534400?s=20&t=KjLSvF4oZN0PpqzYFJXBIQ

We'll see how this goes.

[Krayt]

The President presumably has the power to enforce student loan mechanisms, including dealing with government fulfilling student loan guarantees, to loan banks, when former students are down on their luck.

I would think his leeway was small and constrained by laws passed by Congress, as he has no authority to spend to fulfill loan guarantees outside those rules, i.e. spend money without authorization by Congress.

A politician does something for the brownie points, knowing it will get slapped down in court? Holy flag burning laws, Batman!

[Sarcastr0]

Your first paragraph is a unitary executive argument, and I don't think it's evident at all since I disagree with the premise.

But I also don't think you can jump straight to the cynical "they know the courts will strike this down." It's far from a certain question either way.

[Ridgeway]

If this does not smack of a political stunt, I don't know what does. On its face, it is an unserious proposal, because it does not require any demonstration of hardship. Just an arbitrary income level. It is a transparent give-away shortly before an election in which the Dems are expecting to get walloped.

The part they didn't quite think through is that it is a give-away to people that were going to vote for them anyway. I would bet that the category "college graduate with outstanding student loans" is D+35 or more.

[Sarcastr0]

On its face, it is an unserious proposal, because it does not require any demonstration of hardship.

Actually, policymakers often find that the burden of requiring a demonstration of hardship outweighs the benefits of tailoring the program. All but the lightest means testing has been out of vogue for like 20 years at this point.
That does not make this unserious.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah: Once you start requiring a demonstration of hardship, the political benefits decline dramatically.

[Sarcastr0]

Or, maybe my explanation of the policy reasons is right, and your tin foil is, as usual, unsupported.

[Krayt]

He's either doing what the law says he can do, or he's making it up for brownie points.

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, do you read this blog? The law is rarely so cut and dried, especially when it comes to executive power.

As with lots of executive action, it's pushing the boundary in an area that's untested. I'm not optimistic, but saying it's a clear case of the President knowing it's legal or illegal is utterly misunderstanding how this works.

[Don Nico]

" I tend to think he's both quite smart and a straight shooter:"
That is certainly agree with

[David Nieporent]

Orin Kerr is skeptical, and I tend to think he's both quite smart and a straight shooter:

Agreed. However, I am not clear who has standing to challenge this policy.

[Commenter_XY]

Could you make a case that any of the people below have standing?

Any taxpayer who did not go to college?
People who already paid off their loans?
People who tried to discharge the student debt in bankruptcy?
People who did not get Pell grants, but other loans (why 20K and the other 10K)?

[David Nieporent]

No, I can't.

Just like dairy farmers can't challenge a proposal to subsidize ethanol. Every government program benefits some subset of the population. People who aren't in that subset can't challenge the spending by mere dint of the fact that they aren't in that subset, unless we're talking about a suspect classification. (E.g., if the proposal was to give relief to white loan recipients, then non-whites would have standing.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

No. He doesn't have the authority

Even Nancy Pelosi said so last year.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-lacks-authority-student-debt-handout-pelosi-warned-last-year

The bigger question is...who can or will sue to stop this.

It should be Congress...the President is usurping Congress's authority, essentially spending money that hasn't been authorized to be spent. Can you imagine if Trump did this? Just decided "I'm gonna give $10,000 to a broad swath of Americans, most of who tend to vote for me. I don't need Congress"

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord way to overplay your hand.

Yes, there is good reason to be skeptical. But you accelerate way past that to unreasoned certainty. Based on...appealing to the authority of someone whose expertise I don't really think you give much credit to.

I am coming to realize how much damage unearned certainty causes in our policy.

[Michael P]

People who distrust Pelosi aren't the audience for that appeal to her authority.

[Sarcastr0]

Do tell - who trusts Pelosi as a legal expert?

[Michael P]

Are you saying she is guilty of making claims full of unearned certainty?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm saying she's a politician, and political statements are not really comparable to some rando on an Internet blog saying they know the truth.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Do tell, why exactly did Nancy Pelosi make this statement, saying that it wasn't legal. If indeed it was legal.

We'd love to know.

[Sarcastr0]

To defend Biden who wasn't forgiving debt at the time.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So she thought Presidents really do have the authority to spend $300B dollars without Congress, but lied about it to protect Biden's political polling?

[Michael P]

How very Red Queenish of you, that very contingent definition of "unearned".

[Sarcastr0]

AL just goes in with 'No; this is illegal. Pelosi said so.'
AL is not a politician, so his certainty comes from a different, dumber place. Sorry this is hard for you.

Yes, quoting politicians making political points is a bad source for legal analysis.
This is not some insult to politicians - we all know what their job is. Except maybe you.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Legal arguments are lost on you. If your own team says its illegal, it's a good sign it's not right though.

[Sarcastr0]

Legal arguments are lost on you.
Ohhh, AL. You don't even know what a legal argument is!

If your own team says its illegal, it's a good sign it's not right though.
So no we're down to 'it's a good sign.' Awesome argument. Very legal. Phenomenal analysis.

[Jmaie]

So the argument is, yes she's Speaker and 18 term member of the house of representatives, but not a lawyer so what does she know? I mean, I'd trust Orin more on the legal niceties but I have to think she knows at least a little bit about what the relevant legislation allows or forbids...

[Sarcastr0]

It's like you don't know her job at all. No, it's not on her to explain the correct legal specifics.

[Jmaie]

Silly me for presuming to think that legislators are involved in crafting legislation or at least thinking they understand what they've voting for.

You must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed today. Not used to seeing you so rampantly indulge in profanity and personal insult.

[Sarcastr0]

Silly you for confusing showhorses for workhorses.

The expertise of our elected officials is getting elected. For some of the better ones (Frank, Waxman), it is also navigating the rules and norms of their institution.

[Armchair Lawyer]

When your own party says you don't have the legal authority...it cuts the partisan reasoning out.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, what other motive could there have been in saying Biden didn't have the authority last year, other than to just lay out the truth of the matter?

AL, have some fucking humility and consider maybe your political blogs don't give you amazing insight into the untrammeled truth.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Do tell. What other motive could NANCY PELOSI have had?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You don't think for a minute his mindmasters told him about Nancy's comments, do you?

[Sarcastr0]

For giving an explanation in 2021 why Biden wasn't forgiving student debt?

It is a mystery, but I'm sure you can solve it if you think real hard!

[Don Nico]

Sure, no critical election in 2021

[Sarcastr0]

Which makes politicians suddenly legal experts and straight-shooters who don't spin!

[Don Nico]

I don't get your point.
I answered by Biden had not ulterior motive for debt forgiveness in 2021

[Sarcastr0]

I thought you were talking about Pelosi.

As for Biden, everyone would be saying he was vote buying last year as well.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Can you imagine if Trump did this?"

Yes I can. He quite literally did exactly this, one of the (very few) decent things he did. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/21/trump-announces-automatic-student-loan-forgiveness-for-disabled-vets.html

[Armchair Lawyer]

That was authorized by law, if you read your link. This is not.

[Sarcastr0]

Question begging.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If the President is speaking on the phone to, say, a foreign Prime Minister and shares some Top Secret intelligence on a common adversary, did he break the law?

[Davedave]

Yes, obviously. And every rule set by common sense. That would be a resign-and-don't-come-back offence at the very least.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No one who knows anything about this topic agrees with you.

Just an FYI.

[Davedave]

Nope. You're just flat-out lying, as usual. And the only 'heads-up' you are capable of involves your backside.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Whose permission do you think the President has to get to share a classified secret on the phone with an ally?

[Davedave]

There is no-one whose permission he could get. It is not his job. It would be an extraordinary error of judgement at the very least, conceivably a catastrophic, deadly, one, and potentially a crime.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, you're embarrassing yourself as badly as Trump defenders are. It is in fact his job, as the president is both commander and chief and responsible for foreign policy.

I do not subscribe to the plenary power notions of some Trumpkins that the president has unrestrained power to do what he wants in those areas, but even assuming Congress could restrict a president from doing what we're discussing, it has not done so.

[David Nieporent]

Being really strident ("he committed treason!!!" or "He has to resign!!!") does not legal analysis make. What statute do you think was violated by what BCD described?

[SRG]

He has de jure declassified the intelligence so he has not broken the law. It may be unwise but it's not illegal.

Ramp it up a notch. Suppose he shares such intelligence with a non-friendly foreign leader. That still doesn't break the law concerning classified info, But it might be treason, and may also warrant impeachment.

Or what if after the president has left office, he shares the intelligence with a foreign PM and then says, "I declassified this info while I was president"? Then he can be charged with the appropriate crime and then it would be up to a jury to decide whether to believe his story - particularly if there were no other evidence for this claimed declassification.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If the President takes classified material to an unsecured setting, does that break the law?

Or is that material also become declassified?

[not guilty]

None of the statutes referenced in Attachment B of the Mar-a-lago search warrant distinguishes between classified and unclassified materials. The claim of a phantom declassification order is a red herring.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you think so many Democrats keep bringing up Trump and classified material at Mar-a-Lago? Even in this thread, you see it.

Is it because they are stupid and know-nothing, unlike you?

[not guilty]

I don't know whether other Trump critics have parsed the particular statutes or not. There is no substitute for primary source materials. That having been said, even where classification status is not elemental, mishandling of material marked as classified helps to establish a culpable mental state.

Attachment B to the search warrant twice expressly references documents with classification markings, so such markings brings such material more clearly within the ambit of things authorized to be seized (even though it is not elemental to the various statutes).

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"mishandling of material marked as classified helps to establish a culpable mental state."

Explain. "Marked as classified" matters how if it's declassified?

[David Nieporent]

There is no such thing as secret declassification.

[David Nieporent]

(Though there is, of course, such a thing as the declassification of secrets!)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"I DECLARE THIS UNCLASSIFIED"

- Michael J Trump.

[David Nieporent]

Why do you think so many Democrats keep bringing up Trump and classified material at Mar-a-Lago? Even in this thread, you see it.

Because (a) that's an aggravating factor in how serious the situation is, even if it's not an element of the offense; and (b) Trump. Isn't. The. President.

[David Nieporent]

If the President takes classified material to an unsecured setting, does that break the law?

Or is that material also become declassified?

Does it break the law? No. But bringing classified material to an unclassified setting most certainly does not constitute declassifying that information.

[Bob from Ohio]

"shares some Top Secret intelligence on a common adversary"

Done all the time, by every president.

[Don Nico]

Sharing is a prerogative of POTUS acting as commander-in-chief.
One hopes that the sharing is done with prudence

[bernard11]

Except Trump is not President, and hasn't been for quite some time. It's not his business to share intelligence with foreign leaders. In fact, it's a felony.

[Voize of Reazon]

I believe the potentially relevant statutes criminalize only transmission of sensitive information to someone who is not authorized to receive it, and the President has the power to authorize them, so no.

A possible exception might happen under some information sharing treaties if the intelligence originated in another country, those treaties often require that country's approval before sharing the information with a third country.

[Nige]

Presumably, though, if the president was prone to just sort of blurting out secrets here and there, people who were HUGELY CONCERNED about national security and such would, at the very least, not vote for the guy again.

[David Nieporent]

If the President is speaking on the phone to, say, a foreign Prime Minister and shares some Top Secret intelligence on a common adversary, did he break the law?

Probably not, given the facts you posit. Maybe additional information — an impure motive — could make it illegal, but sharing intelligence about an enemy with an ally? No, that's not illegal.

[Sarcastr0]

“Where is she? Where is the pink-haired freak? Where is the pedophile librarian?”

When a Mich. library refused to remove an LGBTQ memoir, people harassed two librarians out of their jobs.

Then they voted to defund the town's only public library:

Could those who thought cancel culture was turning us fascist please stop being okay with the abuse being heaped on librarians by conservatives for wedge-issue jollies in red areas?

Seems every day I read something about a librarian being hounded out of a job.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Meanwhile the LGBTQ activists are trying to get the police to kill the politicians they disagree with.

https://nypost.com/2022/08/24/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-says-her-home-was-swatted/

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like you're OK with it.

OK enough to try and deflect from a widespread bunch of assholes with a single Internet troll (who is also an asshole).

Do you have an ounce of moral compass that hasn't been corrupted by partisanship??!

[Michael P]

On the one hand, you don't like the outcome of our democratic processes.

In the other, you don't think criminal acts by your side are relevant to the discussion of acceptable tactics.

Good grief.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I believe I can disagree with stuff legislatures passes. And also criticize harassments of random librarians.

And I know whattaboutism by single anecdote versus a larger trend is double bullshit.

Notably, you haven't really distanced yourself from this tactic, as I did with the whattaboutist anecdote. Are you willing to condemn harassing librarians and defunding libraries for culture war reasons?

[Michael P]

You haven't linked to any substantiation of the wild-eyed, one-sided claims you make. Yes, I disavow yellow journalism and Twits who post scurrilous complaints. You haven't shown anything else.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/24/michigan-library-defunded-gender-queer/

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/05/michigan-library-book-bans-lgbtq-authors

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/northwest/idaho/article264781169.html

[Ben_]

Public libraries are subject to input from the public. Don't be undemocratic.

If you want private libraries, pay for them privately.

[Sarcastr0]

Next time you cry about Biden I'll call you undemocratic.

[Ben_]

I'm not a Marxist, so I get called undemocratic all the time. Everyone right of Bernie gets accused of everything under the sun all the time. Do your worst. It's just the regular noise.

[Sarcastr0]

Well then, it's okay for you to indulge in the same bullshit?

Way to have embrace the bottom of the barrel.

This is not the first time I've called you on some egregious nonsense and you've pointed to imaginary leftists to absolve yourself. You keep on and soon you'll have no morality left at all, just bitterness.

That's no way to live.

[Ben_]

Name calling lost its impact long ago is all. Go ahead.

When everyone is the devil, no one is.

[Sarcastr0]

When you see the devil in everyone, you're the one with a problem.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/wyoming-librarians-under-fire-books-about-sex-lgbtq-issues-n1280704

[Michael P]

So, in short, public employees decided to be insubordinate, and their polity decided to defund there organization, and they quit in response. One single quote is given to support the claims of harassment.

That's pretty weak tea compared to the physical attacks, worse language, and much broader defunding of police in 2020.

[OtisAH]

So, in short, your bullshit got called, support was provided (at your request), and you tucked your tail and mewled about “public employees” and some whatabouttery as you slinked away.

[Michael P]

Yawn. You can't engage with the actual point, so you post a bullshit personal attack instead. How very OtisAH-ish of you.

[Sarcastr0]

No - he pointed out that I answered you call and you pivoted to a new and already discussed argument.

[Michael P]

You get zero credit for belatedly providing citations that you should have provided in the first place. Especially when they're yellow journalism, one-sided blurbs, and the like. Triply so when I already warned about yellow journalism and one-sided reporting.

You pasted links to propaganda, not reporting.

[Sarcastr0]

You get zero credit for belatedly providing citations that you should have provided in the first place.

Oh shit the arbiter of Internet credit is here!

You asked for sources; I provided. Now you're calling them 'yellow journalists' and discarding their claims as propaganda (and therefore lies I guess?)
Because to you, the truth does not matter. Which is pretty sad. Reality should matter.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Everything is a new whatabout goalpost for you.

You ask for evidence and it's given, and then to nobody's surprise, suddenly the evidence isn't good enough and you've moved on to a new definition or comparison because you're a dishonest piece of shit.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Are you willing to condemn

1. harassing librarians [Yes, of course people shouldn't be harassed]

2. defunding libraries for culture war reasons? {no, of course not, the people get to decide how their tax money is spent, library workers are not the final say]

[Sarcastr0]

Bob once again confuses 'it it legal' with 'is it good.'

Funny how often conservatives find themselves hiding like that.

[Bob from Ohio]

In this case legal is good.

The people should withdraw funding from un-responsive institutions. Why do you hate democracy?

[Sarcastr0]

Un-responsive to their calls to censor books that are actually fine, and they haven't read but still hate.

Yeah, that's somethign I'm going to criticize.

And you're going to defend because principles are for suckers to you.

[Michael P]

S_0, brave defender of grooming children with porno graphic novels, valiantly defending as "actually fine" books that might have ... I forget, is this book the one with rape-rape or just a middle-aged dude getting intimate with a teenage boy? Or are those the same book?

It's pretty telling that you think criticizing that kind of book is beyond the pale.

[Sarcastr0]

grooming children with porno graphic novels

A great example of the 'haven't read but still hate' point I was making. You've read other people - people with agendas - telling you what the books are and what you should think.

And you're lazy enough to accept that and go from there.

[Krayt]

'member the good old days when library workers interfered with government monitoring people surfing on library computers?

I wonder if they want to monitor now for un-woke behaviors.

Let's inject that into the various echo chambers. Movers and shakers and lazy talking heads looking for stuff to yabber about tonight read this blog.

"Librarians should monitor Internet surfers for unwoke behaviors and words are violence behaviors."

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, if you make stuff up you can always get angry at the people you make stuff up about.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Seems like you're OK with attempting to get politicians you disagree with killed.

[Sarcastr0]

No, fucko - learn to read:

with a single Internet troll (who is also an asshole).

Does that sound like I'm OK with it?

You, on the other hand, haven't managed to condemn anyone on your side. Are you willing to?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sounds like you disregard it without condemning it.

Meanwhile, I've called plenty of Republicans assholes in the past. Including Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Calling someone an asshole is condemning them, asshole.

I've never seen you call Trump an asshole, except maybe to defend his actions as not illegal, just assholish. You defend him at nearly every turn.

What about in this case? You calling those harassing librarians and working to close libraries assholes? Because you know that's what we're talking about and yet have not yet managed to do so.

Based on your track record, I'm not optimistic - but I'm always happy to be surprised!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Seems you've been misleading with your description of the "book" Sarcastro...This book is a graphic (visual) novel by the way (ie, all pictures). What could be troubling, that people object to?

This section of the review comes to mind.

"Early-on, Maia notes that ei’s masturbatory fantasies often involve more imagination and less interaction with eir genitals. To illustrate this, there is a panel that shows Maia having “an elaborate fantasy based on Plato’s symposium”. The illustration is of a naked man kneeling down and cupping the genitals of a standing naked boy. Okay, it’s taken me over a WEEK to unpack that drawing. So first, a bit more context: in Plato’s symposium, one of the philosophers argues that the highest form of love is between a man and a boy in which the boy sexually gratifies the man in exchange for wisdom and virtue. Whether you know the context of Plato’s symposium or not, it’s tough to identify the picture as anything other than pedophilia. "

So...to review...the "book" has pictures of pedophilia where a naked man bends down and fondles the balls of a little boy.

Maybe those people who object to the book being in libraries have a point? That pictures depicting pedophilia shouldn't be in a library, any more than Penthouse or hentai should.

But tell me Sarcastro...do you support pictures of pedophilia being in libraries? Perhaps school libraries too?

[Sarcastr0]

You haven't read it. Or even looked at images. You're wrong, and dumb, and enjoying being part of a puritan mob. No, it's not a picture of pedophilia. You can Google Image Search if you want to actually get a glint of what you're yelling about.

Go burn some witches, you ignorant ass.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, what EXACTLY is wrong about that description?

Perhaps you just don't view pedophilia as pedophilia....

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, it's correct strictly factually.
But if you'd care to do even a moment of research you would see it is not prurient at all.

Do you think Michelangelo's David is pornographic? I could describe it in the same way as above and it would seem so.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You can describe the statue David as a grown man fondling the balls of an underage male? I doubt it, since there's only one person in the statue.

You defend pedophilia. And think people who object to it being in libraries are wrong. That's clear.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Seems like you're OK with it."

OK with people exercising their first amendment rights?

This is America, Sarcastro.

[Sarcastr0]

Mixing up something you have a right to do and something that's free from criticism?

Well aren't you a snowflake.

[David Nieporent]

"Anonymous person" = "the LGBTQ activists"!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Good, groomers get what they deserve.

[Nige]

Republican hatred of teachers transfers easily to librarians, I see.

[Sarcastr0]

Buuuuutt Seeeeexx

[Michael P]

Way to show that you have no defense, S_0.

[Sarcastr0]

Just giving BCD what he craves.

[Michael P]

Why are you in such a rush to discard all vestiges of both credibility and maturity, boss?

[Davedave]

He's not losing any credibility by describing the local cock-craving neo-Nazi pervert as a bit of a gayer. Couldn't be more obvious that it's true if BCD was tonguing strangers' anuses in public.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I really appreciate how you try to insult me by emphasizing the abject disgusting depravity of the disease-ridden male homosexual.

They really do eat each other's shit, often on purpose.

[Davedave]

And there we go, once again BCD reveals himself to know _way_ too much about the details for any casual interest.

You know what we call men who spend all their time imagining men having sex with other men in graphic detail, don't you BCD?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"Couldn't be more obvious that it's true if BCD was tonguing strangers' anuses in public."

Those are your words you fucking retard.

[Nige]

No defense? We're supposed to take BCT's groundless accusations against people he doesn't like seriously? I mean, he represents a serious growing threat of right-wingers emptying libraries and schools and bookshops of books they don't like, but the accusations themselves are clearly vile slanders.

[Ed Grinberg]

a serious growing threat of right-wingers emptying libraries and schools and bookshops of books they don't like

Let's start with bookshops. This one's easy. You're lying -- no one (except "liberals" & "progressives") is talking about banning books.

With regard to schools: Private schools are free to stock whatever books they want (and no one is trying to change that). As to public schools: Isn't it appropriate for the state or local government to establish public-school curriculum, as well the list of textbooks public schools should use, and the books that a public-school library should stock? I think so.

Finally, public libraries. If the taxpayers are funding the library, shouldn't they have a say in what books it stocks? I think so.

[Nige]

So, yes, in short, you are in favour of banning books, you could have just said that without the apologia.

[bernard11]

If the taxpayers are funding the library, shouldn't they have a say in what books it stocks? I think so.

I don't, except in the broadest terms.

First, the legislature, or the governor, is not "the taxpayers." The taxpayers may well want a broad cross-section of material in the library.

In any case, they shouldn't be allowed to stock the libraries with ideological works, and ban opposing ideologies. It's a recipe for tyranny.

Yes, someone has to decide, and it's fine for there to be broad principles, but banning certain ideas outright is ridiculous.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bernard...

Should libraries stock pornography as well? Penthouse, hentai, etc? Should they stock books that have illustrations of pedophilia? Illustrations of what would be considered child pornography?

Or should libraries perhaps not have those things?

And if this book in question graphically illustrated, in pictures, pedophilia, where a grown man fondles the testicles of an underage boy, is it appropriate for a library?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Let's start with bookshops. This one's easy. You're lying -- no one (except "liberals" & "progressives") is talking about banning books.

You are mistaken. See, e.g., https://www.virginiamercury.com/2022/05/19/va-republicans-try-to-restrict-minors-access-to-two-books-after-judges-obscenity-finding/

[Armchair Lawyer]

Restricting access to minors is not banning. Anymore than alcohol, tobacco, or pornography is banned.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what? I've interacted with librarians, I even used to work at a library for a while, while in HS.

They're not saints, and they're not entitled to get the public's money and ignore what the public wants, any more than anybody else is.

Work for the government, do what the people want. Is that complicated?

[Sarcastr0]

They're not saints

You're defending their harassments with the same language used to ignore when an unarmed black kid gets shot.

Attacking the victim is a sure dick move.

And your appeal to popularity is just using a fallacy to avoid making your own moral judgement. You don't think all laws that are passed are cool and good, so don't pretend you do.

[Ben_]

Every crybully complains about "harassment" when they don't get absolutely every last thing they want. Why should anyone believe they were harassed? You certainly didn't witness it.

[Nige]

You know who also cries about harassment? People being harassed.

[Sarcastr0]

So your plan is to call all these librarians liars just off the break?

Great show, Ben. Amazing work.

[Ben_]

Do these people even exist at all?

Anyone can say anything, and Dems seem to think lying is a virtue, so there's no reason for us to believe any part of this story, let alone the self-serving librarians' narrative.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Exactly how much it a fucking moron are you?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/24/michigan-library-defunded-gender-queer/

[Ben_]

Apparently I'm clever enough to get you to provide a citation, even if it is from a partisan propaganda source.

It doesn't substantiate harassment at all.

[Sarcastr0]

I provided four sources above. You really are curating your own reality, aren't you?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Always read the sources from the other angle. And figure out why this particular book is problematic.

[Sarcastr0]

Why do you bother to post here if you think everyone is a liar (except you I presume)?

[Ben_]

Why do you bother to post here when you know that everyone has to sort though each of your posts to separate out the dishonest parts?

Why not just leave out the dishonesty to begin with?

[Sarcastr0]

You said you have no idea whether these people exist - that Dems could have made them up and we have no way of knowing.

Don't put your crisis of epistemology on me.

[Harvey Mosley]

I don't like banning books from libraries. I think it is a bad idea. Harassing librarians is also bad. But what is worse is comparing harassing librarians with shooting (any) unarmed kid.

[Nige]

The linguistic congruency is notable, though.

[Nige]

They don't have to be saints, and the interests of the people are not represented by small but vocal mobs of hateful bullies.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seems to me that, if they were capable of democratically getting the library defunded, they weren't such a small mob.

Look, at one time books were so expensive only the wealthy could afford them. Libraries were an institution for dealing with scarcity, they let the public have access to books they couldn't afford.

But books have been coming down in cost for literally centuries. They're no longer a luxury good. The rationale for having public libraries is going away, and as that happens, they get cut less slack for offending the public.

That's all that's going on here, a dying institution that's slow about adjusting to new realities.

[Nige]

Republicans prove time and time again a small mob is all they ever need to sabotage and destroy things that are good for the public. Libraries, of course, do more than loan out books, but even if books were free lying around on streets, that would be enough to justify their existence.

[OtisAH]

“Librarians aren’t saints you know.”

Brett Bellmore, ladies and gentlemen. He’s here three shows daily, folks, give him a round of applause. Don’t forget to tip the veal.

[SRG]

they're not entitled to get the public's money and ignore what the public wants,

But if some of the public wants books A B and C retained in the library and others of the public want those books removed, a "tyranny of the majority" argument would go to retaining those books given that the books are already there and that if an intolerant and bigoted member of the public doesn't want to read the book, no-one is forcing them to.

[Ed Grinberg]

WTF?!
So, does that also work with other things? For example, let's say most residents in Jurisdiction X want shoplifters prosecuted. But a small minority don't. Under your "tyranny of the majority" argument, do we decriminalize shoplifting? But wouldn't that be "tyranny of the minority"? How is that better?!

[SRG]

Do you understand the difference between crime and literature?

[Nige]

That may, in fact, be the problem.

[David Nieporent]

The Art of the Deal.

[bernard11]

Exactly.

Some members of the public would like books A and B in the library, others want C.

Fortunately, guess what? There's room for all three.

What Brett and Grinberg want is for the majority - as long as it's their guys - to control everything in the library. That's ridiculous.

[Brett Bellmore]

In my experience, librarians have strong opinions both about what books should be in 'their' libraries, AND what books shouldn't. Try donating a book they don't want in 'their' collection, they'll get rid of it fast enough.

Are only librarians entitled to do negative curation, even when somebody else owns the library? And even though librarians often have a very different ideology from that of the people paying for the library?

Again, you people are reasoning about this as though books were still a scarce resource, as if the decision to not stock a book in a public library meant nobody but the wealthy could read it. That's not the case anymore.

[Nige]

'Are only librarians entitled to do negative curation?'

Yes, it is their actual job, and you're not actually their boss. Libraries have request forms for borrowers who want to borrow specific books not currently on their shelves, and there is access to inter-library loans. Republicans going ideologically anti-library is unsurprising, really.

[bernard11]

No Brett. You are reasoning as if shelf space was an al-or-nothing proposition.

The point is that there is room fro multiple points of view in the library's collection, but you only want to allow the books you agree with in there.

In my experience, librarians have strong opinions both about what books should be in 'their' libraries, AND what books shouldn't. Try donating a book they don't want in 'their' collection, they'll get rid of it fast enough.

Are you saying politicians don't have strong opinions? Given a choice, I'd rather let librarians make the decisions, rather than some guy who is trying to pander to his base.

And WTF are you talking about with books being so damn cheap we don't need libraries? That's ridiculous.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bernard...

Do books depicting (illustrating) pedophilia belong in public libraries? Child pornography? Snuff films?

[Sarcastr0]

When either of those are actually in libraries, we can talk.

In the meantime, be more critical in where you get your takes from - you've got someone lying to you.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This book is represent pedophilia. Pictures of a grown man fondling the balls of an underage child.

You defend images of pedophilia.

[Ben_]

Government workers refused to serve the public. The public decided they didn't need to employ such people.

Libraries are for entertainment. Government is supposed to be for necessary services. Taxing your neighbors to buy yourself entertainment is wrong.

[OtisAH]

Banning books as “public service”?

Sure. Why not?

[Ben_]

It's not banned.

[Sarcastr0]

'Ban this book or we close the library.'

You are playing obtuse in service of some awful stuff, Ben.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not banned. "Banned" means you can't get it yourself. It doesn't mean the government not providing something on a subsidized basis.

[Nige]

Banned means it's deliberately removed from one or more specific settings, such as libraries and schools.

[OtisAH]

“Nuh-uh, ‘banned’ in the ancient Sumerian meant it was wrapped in three brass bands, walked 33 cubits outside the city and buried a 333 cubits deep in the ground. Name all the books that were wrapped in three brass bands, walked 33 cubits outside the city, and buried 333 cubits below ground? I’ll wait.”

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Banned means it's deliberately removed from one or more specific settings, such as libraries and schools."

That's not what banned means.

[Nige]

Of course not. Banned means something that doesn't involve books being deliberately removed from schools and libraries.

[EscherEnigma]

A week or two back Volokh did (almost) back-to-back articles.

In one, the argument you just used was featured: a library didn't ban books by pulling them off the shelf since students could still get them elsewhere.

In the other, the opposite was used: a university banned flyers by not providing space for them to be hosted on university property.

So it seems that, at least half the time, Volokh agrees with your definition of "banned". The other half, he thinks that a government entity "not providing something on a subsidized basis" is>/i> banning that something.

So I have to beg pardon, but please bring up your disagreement with Volokh. But you'll have to catch him at the right time.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"In one, the argument you just used was featured: a library didn't ban books by pulling them off the shelf since students could still get them elsewhere.

In the other, the opposite was used: a university banned flyers by not providing space for them to be hosted on university property."

Depending on the circumstances, these may not be comparable. If a public university provides a forum where people can express themselves by handing out flyers, they can't discriminate based on the viewpoint of the flyers. But a public library isn't a public forum, it's a space where the public can borrow books that the public chooses to make available for that purpose.

[EscherEnigma]

Since you lost the plot, the point of contention here is what it means to "ban" something.

[Ben_]

Why are Democrats always reflexively dishonest like this?

[Nige]

Why are Republicans trying to ban so many books like this?

[Nige]

Gone from burning books to burning libraries.

[Ed Grinberg]

Again, you're lying.
As far as I'm concerned, you're free to publish, sell, buy any book you want. But I do have definite opinions regarding the books I want my kids to have access to. And, if I'm funding my local public library with my taxes, I ought to have a say in what books it stocks. And if I and a majority of my fellow-residents no longer wish to fund a library, we'll shut it down. Seems perfectly fair to me.

[Nige]

No, you don't get to micromanage the stocking of the local library you trumped-up fascist, and if you want to shut down libraries, you get to be called book-burners.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, without burning a single book, or preventing anybody who wants it from buying a copy.

[Nige]

That just means you approve of the means and motives of this particular form of book burning.

[Davedave]

Brett demonstrates once again that he can't tell the difference between literal, metaphorical, and imaginary.

[bernard11]

I ought to have a say in what books it stocks.

And what about the people who disagree with you? Do they get a say also?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes. It's called the political process. You should check it out.

[Bwaaah]

Your "LGBTQ memoir" was a graphic novel with an illustration of a person giving a "blow job" to another person with a "strap-on." It also had "an image of a young person fondling an adult. a naked man kneeling down and cupping the genitals of a standing naked boy."

Here is what appears to be a balanced review of the book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2BMKZSQZXSPTN

If you had characterized the book accurately, one could imagine that the elected officials demanding removal of the book are exercising discretionary judgement well within the range that is traditionally exercised (such as to avoid public funding of materials that may be considered pornographic by a substantial portion of the general public).

But then, if you had characterized the book accurately, you wouldn't be Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I've even seen the screenshots! It's hardly prurient material.

And also hardly the only book at issue here.

And even if it were, hardly an excuse for this kind of harassment of librarians.

[darkknight9]

What I don't get, and I probably never will, is why the statement (in all its various forms): "...I do have definite opinions regarding the books I want my kids to have access to."
Isn't ever simply countered with: "Then don't let them go to the library alone, dickhead."

[Nige]

You can even have a word with the librarian to make sure they don't borrow books you don't think are approporiate for them!

[bernard11]

Parental responsibility is a one-way street with the likes of Bellmore and Grinberg.

[bernard11]

Right.

It's like saying certain things shouldn't be on the Internet because I don't want my kids looking at them.

[Life of Brian]

It's like saying certain things shouldn't be on the Internet because I don't want my kids looking at them.

That's actually a better analogy than you think. I'll give you three guesses what happens when you walk up to an Internet terminal at a public library and try to watch porn.

Under your theory, the filters should be removed (because SOMEBODY out there paying tax dollars surely wants to be able to watch porn in the library!) and the parents who don't want their kids watching porn must constantly hover over them and make sure they can only ever see the screens of people watching Loony Tunes reruns and posting on Volokh.

Strangely enough, I don't see many people taking that sort of outrageous position. But suddenly when it's a book on a shelf, filtering content inappropriate for children becomes "muh CENSORSHIP," and instead of being able to let their children explore in an age-appropriate literary playground parents must escort them through the stacks to make sure they don't start reading comicbook smut.

[Nige]

You try to watch porn in libraries?

[bernard11]

Except we're not talking about porn.

And it makes perfect sense to have some books children can't take out. That doesn't mean they can't be in the library.

[Life of Brian]

Except we're not talking about porn.

Not by that name, no, but in a discussion about lurid sexual material I'd have hoped you'd have had an argument beyond semantics.

And it makes perfect sense to have some books children can't take out. That doesn't mean they can't be in the library.

If by "can't take out" you just mean "can't check out but can otherwise read when in the library," that doesn't solve the problem.

If you mean they're stored somewhere children can't physically access them, I guess we could propose that and see if that mollifies the activists. I suspect not.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Except we're not talking about porn."

Except...we are really.

[Nige]

No, you're scaremongering and sensationalising to justify book banning.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Do you support pictures of grown men fondling the balls of underage children in public libraries?

Yes or no?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And even if it were, hardly an excuse for this kind of harassment of librarians."

How is this different that students shouting down speakers in a public forum?

This is just more of the leftist, "When they do it it's harassment, when we do it it's protest." or "Our violence is speech, your speech is violence."

This is America, Sarcastro. People have a fundamental right to criticize public officials.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you see me cheering on hecklers vetoing speakers? Then maybe quit your whattaboutism and deal with the issue at hand.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Do you see me cheering on hecklers vetoing speakers?"

Well, you don't call them hecklers vetoing speakers, you call them protestors exercising their first amendment rights, but other than that, yes.

But suddenly people exercising their first amendment rights by criticizing librarians are harassers.

[Davedave]

Criticism may indeed be harassment. Evidently this was. You're perfectly entitled to criticise people, not to abuse them.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think heckler's veto is subtle? It is not. Just as harassment is not a hard line to draw.
And I've never supported either - don't tell lies about me. Says a lot about you that you gotta.

On the other hand, it looks like maybe you think criticism is censorship. Which is increasingly becoming a cry on the right - criticism is infringing on their rights.

Weak.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Just as harassment is not a hard line to draw."

Let me guess, "Orange-haired clown" is criticism, "Pink-haired freak" is harassment?

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hay strawmanning again?

You're being extra simplistic this week - don't make it a habit!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, what's your argument? You're just making an unsupported characterization that a view that you don't like is harassment, implying that it's not a protected expression. Talk about simplistic!

[TwelveInchPianist]

" Just as harassment is not a hard line to draw."

Obviously...

Great argument.

[Nige]

Man, wait till you guys find out about Fifty Shades Of Gray.

[Michael P]

Man, wait till you find out our culture treats children differently than adults.

[Nige]

They're ON THE SHELVES KIDS COULD SEE THE SPINES AND GET GROOMED.

[EscherEnigma]

You can find worse in the romance section of any given library. And that's actually intended to arouse.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Where is she? Where is the pink-haired freak? Where is the pedophile librarian?”

Doesn't seem any different than students shouting down speakers, that you defend.

[Ben_]

It's a political protest. It was mostly peaceful. Those are supposed to be sacred, right?

Protestors have carte blanche to be as absolutely vulgar and nasty as they want to you and me. No double standard for librarians.

[Nige]

Is harassment peaceful? Only according to the harassers.

[Ben_]

All protesters are harassers

[Nige]

Interesting admission.

[Ben_]

More of an observation.

[Nige]

Not a useful one.

[Ben_]

It's interesting to consider why Democrats want to give young children exposure to sexual content.

I don't actually think most Democrats personally intend to prepare the children in order to rape them in the future. So why do it?

I think it's:

A. Because Democrats have animosity toward regular people who might want to protect their children. They want to make life harder for Americans out of spite. "Haha. They created an extra problem for you Americans!"
B. Because Dems always go along the the cool kids. And the leaders are all in.
C. Because the feelings of the special people must always be catered to, even when some of the special people want to hurt kids.

What do you guys think is the motive?

[Davedave]

It's interesting that you construe entirely normal things in a way involving paedophilia, where no normal person would have ever considered such a thing for a second.

It's almost like you're... you know... spending a lot of time thinking about being a paedophile. Now why would you do that?

If you haven't started offending yet, there are programs out there to help people like you resist your urges.

[Ben_]

That doesn’t address why Dems want to expose others' young children to sexual content.

Why do you think Dems want to expose other people's young children to sexual content?

[Sarcastr0]

That's not what's happening. What's happening is you're an idiot who wants to believe because you have no bottom in the craving you have to hate the Dems juuuust a bit more.

[Ben_]

Does not explain Dems' motives.

[Sarcastr0]

The Dems motives are made up by your own motivated reasoning.

[Nige]

The Dem's motives are to stop Republicans banning books they don't like.

[DaveM]

You're completely not answering his question. A Drag Queen Story Hour isn't the product of some right-winger's motivated reasoning. Explain it, if you can. We await your response.

[Ben_]

Whatever the purpose of drag queen story hour, it’s obviously not for the benefit of the children. The adults are using the children. Children aren’t for adults to use.

The idea that other people aren’t there for you to use for your benefit may be hard for some of you to understand.

[Nige]

Dressing up and telling stories to kids requires explaining now? Are you from Mars or something?

[Sarcastr0]

Drag queens are fun; some people want to bring their kids to see them. No one is being forced to see them.

No one is talking about them in this thread either.

[Davedave]

I don't think 'Dems' want to do any such thing. I can't imagine how anyone could come up with that notion unless they are in fact a paedophile.

It's pretty clear you're 'transferring' your own (hopefully) repressed urges onto those who are stopping you acting on them. Get help (hopefully) before you actually touch any children.

[Ben_]

Whatever Democrats deny doing, what they clearly are doing is trying to push the boundaries of what they can get away with doing to children.

That’s threatening.

[Sarcastr0]

These books have been in libraries for a while with no issue. The ones pushing boundaries are these culture warrior aholes.

[Ben_]

And then someone found out about the books' content.

[Sarcastr0]

You have things backwards. You want to pretend you're defending the status quo, but you're just being a reactionary.

First, you have already demonstrated you don't know the content of any of these books - you're relying on partisan second-hand sources.

Second, if these books were around for a while with no issue, that should be a clue your response is overdramatic.

Third, these right-wing aholes are the one whose actions are pushing for change.

[Ben_]

Yeah, great argument.

"Please show my kid pornography then!" is the response from no one.

[Sarcastr0]

To repeat, because you failed to read:

First, you have already demonstrated you don't know the content of any of these books - you're relying on partisan second-hand sources.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think a lot of it is just a way to distinguish the politically reliable from those who have values that might trump political loyalty. Which is a continual necessity within revolutionary movements, and today's left, which has largely taken over the institutional Democratic party, IS a revolutionary movement.

Think back to 1984; Was it really important to the Party that people saw five fingers, instead of four? No, that didn't mean a thing to them. The important thing was that people would do whatever the Party said without thinking about it.

Reasoned agreement is problematic, it only holds up until somebody reasons themselves into disagreeing with you on some point. If you can get somebody to agree with you when you're being utterly unreasonable, you know they're reliable; Nothing is going to come up where they'll suddenly part ways with you.

But to test for unreasoning agreement, you have to be unreasonable. If you pick something reasonable, even something debatable, your loyalty test will have false positives: You'll think somebody is loyal when they just agree with you on a given point.

So, you need to pick something perfectly unreasonable, something no reasoning person would agree with.

The left doesn't really care about transgenders, or exposing little children to pornography, one way or the other. What they care is that it's so unreasonable that nobody who has any higher standard than political loyalty will go along with them on it, so it makes a perfect test for whether somebody is politically reliable.

[Nige]

All this to rationalise the lie that 'the left' want to expose kids to pornography. You're fooling nobody but yourself.

[Ben_]

Why do you want to expose others' young children to sexual content?

It’s not a hard question.

[Sarcastr0]

He doesn't.

[Nige]

I don't want other's repressive and deceptive attitudes to sex and sexuality to determine the contents of libary booskshelves.

[DaveM]

There you go, Nige, yours is the first honest answer to the question: "I don't want the public libraries to be responsive to other people's attitudes about sex. I want them to be responsive to mine."

See, that wasn't hard now, was it?

[Nige]

Well, yeah, did that need stating? I know you guys love to invent elaborate straw men of your opponents - see Brett's ridiculous comment above - but really, I support libraries having lots of books, you support libraries having less books using sex as a bogeyman, that's it.

[IsaacDanielcm]

Very well said, sir.

[IsaacDanielcm]

I do want to note, however, there are many "ordinary Democrats" that don't agree with the unreasonable and revolutionary ideas of the modern left, but are too stupid or blind to see what's right in front of their faces.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey Brett - neither the Dems nor the Republicans support pedopheilia.

Fuck all the way off with that shit.

That's the kind of dehumanizing rationale that fuck politics and leads to purges.

I know you want to hang judges you disagree with, though, so this is part and parcel of the path you've been slowly moving down.

Once again: Fuck off.

[Ben_]

No objection to what Brett actually said then.

[Sarcastr0]

He said it in response to your rot, so yeah I get what he's saying. And so do you.

[Ben_]

As a strategy to cultivate absolute loyalty, it’s a rational strategy.

It only makes sense politically if you think the loyal can always trick or bully the masses into going along.

[Ben_]

"The left doesn't really care about transgenders…"

I think they actually do care. Not about the people, but about not sinning against intersectionalism. Anyone getting caught in such sins is ostracized (or worse). So they have to evoke piety all the time, or they might slip up. And they like to congratulate themselves for such piety and imagine themselves as hero protagonists.

It’s white knighting, but it’s entirely self-focused. The more alien the cause they’re championing, the more credit they give themselves.

As for the actual people involved, the less thought the better. Their role is to shut up and be needy. And then quietly go away when the champions are done with them.

[Bwaaah]

I think you got something there. The unreasoned agreements act as shibboleths...by affirming them, people signal their "loyalty" to The Overarching Cause even though they often have material disagreements of facts and policies. The group, in its shared affirmations ("WE SUPPORT LGBTQ+!!!") thusly projects a sense of unanimity (where there is, in fact, little). The unreasoned affirmations also serve to distinguish them (read: "us") from The Evil Other. (It's only two teams in this league.)

I think I've been using the word "orthodoxy" to describe those unreasoned declarations. You very astutely describe how sensible is the function of that nonsense.

[Nige]

You're just wildly exaggerating and satanic-panicking the sexual content for kids you absolute pack of melts.

[Ben_]

No actual argument about what Brett said then.

[Nige]

Brett said a lot, but it was all bullshit.

[Ben_]

But you have no arguments to offer on any of it, only barking.

[Nige]

It's a straw man, you believe it because it suits you, but it remains straw.

[David Nieporent]

That doesn’t address why Dems want to expose others' young children to sexual content.

That's because the question is phrased tendentiously and in bad faith. "Dems" do not "want to expose others' young children to sexual content." Having a book in a library does not equate to "exposing" its content to people. It makes it available; it doesn't force anyone to read it.

And, I mean, do you think there are lots of seven year olds who are interested in sexual content? Do you remember what being seven years old was like?

[Ben_]

That doesn’t explain the drag shows for kids and all the rest of what Libs of TikTok got famous for showing everyone.

And the same book has been ordered and shelved by librarians for school libraries. If they don’t intend to expose kids to it, what’s the alternate explanation?

Why do Dems want to "make" sexual content "available" to other peoples' young children?

I still think it’s the reasons I posted above. Can’t protect kids and fully cater to every feeling of every one of the special people….

[David Nieporent]

Drag shows are not my cup of tea, to say the least, but you understand that "drag shows" != "sexual content," right?

Also, have you ever been in a school library? Or a school? Do you think that most of the books in them are ever checked out, let alone that the librarians go around shoving each of those books in the faces of individual students?

As for motivations, after stripping away the tendentious aspects of your question, yes, I certainly think part of the explanation for the actions you question is about the feelings of what you call "special people," but of course the people doing these things don't view it as an issue of "protecting" kids at all, because they don't view, e.g., the existence of drag queens as something that threatens kids in the first place.

[Ben_]

Not sexual content?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/07/26/exclusive-ron-desantis-florida-files-complaint-against-bar-that-held-lewd-drag-show-for-kids/

And if parents think you are, in fact, "threatening" their children, do you really think it's wise to continue? Disagreeing that you've put their children in danger won't keep you safe or preserve a peaceful society when parents decide to protect their children.

[Sarcastr0]

Melodramatic partisans being wrong is not something you kowtow to.

Was anyone forced into that bar?

Also: first-hand observations such as a performer in a suggestive outfit allegedly dancing “mere steps” from a child during a drag show.
This is weak as hell. No, these people don't get to cry 'Think of my Children' and get any credence whatsoever.

preserve a peaceful society when parents decide to protect their children
Some asshole decides to shoot up a drag brunch, that's on the asshole. Don't make policy to try and kowtow to violent partisan idiots. You will fail, and they will just make more demands.

[Ben_]

You want to fault parents for protecting their children as you push the boundaries of what you can get away with doing to their children.

You must be The Good Guys.

[Sarcastr0]

You're talking about killings, Ben.

Yes, I will fault murderers. That is what good people do.

[Ben_]

You think parents protecting their children is a rhetorical matter for some reason.

Parents protecting their children are dangerous. That’s not rhetorical.

[Sarcastr0]

Parents protecting their children are dangerous. That’s not rhetorical.

Quit defending murder. A concerned parent could just not let their kid go to the library. If they start getting violent, that's not about protecting children, that's about politics.

We have a name for violence in service of politics.

Quite defending terrorism, you psycho.

[Ben_]

Quit defending sexual fun with other peoples' kids.

[Ben_]

That’s "fun" as in Sarcast0's post above: "drag queens are fun".

[Sarcastr0]

Sudden shift in subject! I guess Ben doesn't like how he's suddenly found himself defending *murder* triggered by some books he's uncritically accepted are child porn.

But, this is not better...Ben, do you think Drag Queens are being forced on kids without their parents' consent? Because that's also wrong. Anyone shooting up a drag brunch is similarly a murder without justification.

You can yell and accuse me of pedophilia all you want, but the bottom line is you're condoning murder. I don't care how bad you think these books are, that's massively fucked up, dude.

[Ben_]

The subject was: What's the motive?

The motives of people protecting their children are clear.

The motives of people who want to push boundaries on what they can get away with doing to others' children ...? Besides the obvious, evil child exploitation motives, what are the other possible motives?

[David Nieporent]

But you didn’t show anyone doing anything to anyone's children.

[David Nieporent]

Would I be upset as a parent if someone took one of my kids to something I think is inappropriate like a drag show or some weird cult exhibition that teaches people that a guy getting nailed to a tree was a good thing that justifies drinking his blood now? Yes.

Would I start killing people over it? No.

Is anyone taking someone else's kids to these sorts of things? Well, maybe the latter, but not the former.

[Nige]

'The motives of people protecting their children are clear.'

Yes, they're anti-LGTBQ.

[Ben_]

Sarcastr0 is the guy talking about killing people.

I thought it was a crazy thing for him to say. But the whole idea of sexual boundary-pushing with children is also beyond crazy, yet Dems keep complaining whenever someone has an objection to it.

[Nige]

'Dems' complain when you lie about it. Anyone with respect for the truth complains when you lie about it.

[Sarcastr0]

“ Disagreeing that you've put their children in danger won't keep you safe or preserve a peaceful society when parents decide to protect their children.”

This you, Ben? Talking about killing people?

[Ben_]

No. No mention of that topic in that post.

You used your imagination and decided that parents would go to that extreme to protect their children.

Pushing parents in that direction seems very unwise though. Hence the original question about why Dems are headed that way.

[Nige]

None of this is anything kids need to be protected from, no matter how much you exaggerate and sensationalise. But really, all this book banning isn't about protecting kids, it's most definitely aimed at the 'special people' isn't it?

[apedad]

United States Enters into Agreement with Nigeria to Repatriate Over $23 Million in Assets Stolen by Former Nigerian Dictator General Sani Abacha

The United States, through the Department of Justice and FBI, forfeited approximately $23 million traceable to the corruption and money laundering of former Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha and his co-conspirators. This money will be returned to the Nigerian people through an agreement between the Governments of the United States and the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Nigeria) signed today in Abuja, Nigeria, by U.S. Ambassador Mary Beth Leonard. This repatriation will bring the total amount forfeited and returned by the Department of Justice in this case to approximately $334.7 million.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-enters-agreement-nigeria-repatriate-over-23-million-assets-stolen-former

I highlighted this case only to bring up the corrupt nature of various African nations.

I spent considerable time in places like Windhoek, Abidjan, Brazzaville, etc., on official business and want to note that it's easy to create corrupt governments when there are not strong and well-established governmental structures.

For example, the LEGAL search of Trump's property is a result of our legal system and procedures and is NOT an example of a banana republic like some on the right have described it.

[Krayt]

Even the most corrupt of nations uses reasonable surface stories, when directing government resources against political enemies.

During the first impeachment, it came out on this blog that yes, it was ok to use impeachment as a purely political tool, deliberately, against a political enemy, and leave the downsides to reaction from the voters.

Dot dot dot they cackled with glee.

I wait for the results. Either something big was found, and he was passing data along, which is terrible for this nation. Or nothing big will be found, and it's terrible for this nation they are pursuing a political enemy using the power of government.

Is there a serious crime here? Or are people screaming nobody is above the law over a moving violation?

You don't know, nor do I. That is the problem.

[David Nieporent]

During the first impeachment, it came out on this blog that yes, it was ok to use impeachment as a purely political tool, deliberately, against a political enemy, and leave the downsides to reaction from the voters.

Um, it was opponents of impeachment making the argument that it was okay to use the government as a purely political tool, deliberately, against a political enemy. Remember how Trump illegally withheld mandated aid to Ukraine in an attempt to extort them into making up stuff about Joe Biden? And remember how all the Trumpkins said that was okay, because Biden deserved it, and Trump was the president so he could do whatever he wanted, and that nobody had the right to question the president's foreign policy actions?

[Brett Bellmore]

Have enough laws that you technically have an excuse to do whatever you want, and then just don't use them against the people you're not out to get. That way you've always got a legal basis for screwing with your enemies, and when people point out that you're not enforcing these laws against your friends, you just cry, "prosecutorial discretion". After all, "3 felonies a day", the government always has an excuse to go after you if they really want to.

Every previous President had the use of executive privilege to argue for legal possession of some of their Presidential papers, and got to negotiate with the National Archives in a peaceful manner. For Trump, Biden revokes any executive privilege claims, so that the National Archives could sic armed feds on Trump in the middle of negotiations.

Yeah, another norm bites the dust, and we become more of a banana republic.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not that anyone will bother to read it, but:

"U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president."......

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact

[not guilty]

he National Archives here has done nothing other than to (repeatedly) request the return of records and documents and to refer the matter to the Department of Justice when their requests went unheeded.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A rather ironic comment, since you clearly didn't bother to read the actual opinion.

[Life of Brian]

I read it a few days ago. The take-home point relevant to this thread is that the PRA doesn't give NARA authority to override the President's designation of records as personal:

The only reference in the entire statute to the designation of records as personal versus Presidential also calls for the decision to be made by the executive, and to be made during, and not after, the presidency. It provides: “materials produced or received by the President, [and other Executive Office employees], shall, to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” Id. § 2203(b). The PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President “categorized” and “filed separately” as personal records. At the conclusion of the President’s term, the Archivist only “assume[s] responsibility for . . . the Presidential records.”

[not guilty]

Here is a link to the opinion in question: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

A dismissal of that APA lawsuit for lack of standing (non-redressability) is not germane to whether Donald Trump violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 1519 or 2071 or whether a search warrant authorizing federal law enforcement officials (not the National Archives) to seize governmental documents and records should or should not have been issued.

[Life of Brian]

A dismissal of that APA lawsuit for lack of standing (non-redressability) is not germane . . .

Look, a squirrel!

Certainly the opinion is relevant as to the point I quoted. As you admitted upthread, this circus show all arose from NARA running crying to the DOJ when they thought they weren't getting all the docs they had declared to be presidential records. If, as held, NARA has no authority to override the President's determination as to what is personal and what is not, that flatly knocks the legs out from under this most recent piece of breathless choreography.

[Nige]

'If, as held,'

Who is holding this? Where is this argument being made?

[wreckinball]

I think its 3 felonies a minute with Hunter but priorities!

We haven't yet tracked down the last mee maw who walked around the Capitol on J6

[bernard11]

Every previous President had the use of executive privilege to argue for legal possession of some of their Presidential papers, and got to negotiate with the National Archives in a peaceful manner. For Trump, Biden revokes any executive privilege claims, so that the National Archives could sic armed feds on Trump in the middle of negotiations.

Oh STFU with the lies.

"The middle of the negotiations." No. Trump had been dragging his feet for 18 months and showed every sign of continuing to do so. His lawyers even signed a false statement saying that all classified material had been turned over.

Plus, Trump has no executive privilege. Period. WTF do you refuse to understand that?

Plus, The documents are not his. I suppose, if he asked politely, he could be allowed to keep some for personal use. But there is no norm that an ex-president gets to keep classified material.

Nor should there be. Why the hell should a private citizen be allowed to keep the President from seeing government documents? No reason, but you are so besotted with Trump you won't think straight.

Next, I suppose we'll hear from you about the 33 million documents Obama still has, or whatever. You are deranged.

[OtisAH]

Today Big Baby blared out a “truth” that read: PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT!!!

There was no context or follow up so this is pure speculation, regardless of how accurate it likely is, but I’m pretty sure he thinks it’s called that because he thinks the records belong to the president.

[David Nieporent]

Plus, Trump has no executive privilege. Period. WTF do you refuse to understand that?

Plus, The documents are not his.

Indeed, these two things are contradictory. "Executive privilege" only applies to government documents. By citing that defense, rather than the "Actually, these are personal documents," defense, he's admitting that these belong to the NARA.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Brett, I ask the following in all seriousness:

Have you gone out of your way to remain ignorant on the facts of this situation?

You're comments suggest a resounding reply of "obviously!"

Are you even aware of the fucking timeline involved here? Shut the fuck up for a little while and go educate yourself.

[Bob from Ohio]

"money will be returned to the Nigerian people"

LOL

No it won't, it will go to the current corrupt government officials.

The US government might as well burned the cash.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm liking the Sandman show. It's one of 2 comics I really like (that and Transmetropolitan).

It seems to be doing justice to the material, and sanding off some of the edgelordyness of the OG version.

Gender-flipping Constantine made for an interesting take.

[Nige]

I'm glad it seems to be such a great creative and commercial success, and I don't want to go telling anyone else what to do with their lives, but I really wish Gaiman'd stop fecking about with television and write more books instead.

[Sarcastr0]

That is a decent question/point - spending your creative time refining your old stuff in a new medium versus generating new content.

Though I do think Sandman is the pinnacle (I'm the dick who thinks American Gods drags a fair amount in the middle) so I'm OK with it.

[Nige]

If he's going to revisit Sandman I'd prefer more like Overture, Jesus, the art in that. I'm being cranky because TV currently has me jaded, and the way creatives are being treated and the effects of streaming and consolidation all point to an implosion of some sort. The only visual entertainment I'm currently looking forward to is the Dune sequel, everything else can go hang. Give me more books instead. I'm currently listening to Gibson and Sterling's Difference Engine, which I last read in college. The industrial/environmental catastrophe criplping London and heralding what is essentially the end of humanity resonates.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm listening to "Forging Hephaestus" which is fun and really light. Binti is next on my list.

Also looking forward to the podcast "Hot Money" about the funding of the porn industry after the 2009 digital streaming boom upended it.

Re: your jadedness, this may interest you - Matt Damon explains how the lack of DVD sales have changed what movies studios will greenlight

[Nige]

Yeah, I saw that, sums up quite a lot with admirable clarity.

Next I have lined up Mary Renault's Last Of The Wine. Current favourite podcasts - both audio drama - are Old Gods Of Appalachia and Red Valley, though there's a host of others. Feck tv, there's lots of great audio drama out there.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I've enjoyed quite a few audio drama podcasts, but my favorite by far is Limetown. You might put that one in the cue. I think it's finished, there haven't been new episodes in years.

[Nige]

Yeah, I liked Limetown, tv adaptation wasn't totally awful, either.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I avoided it for the same reason I'm now avoiding the Sandman adaptation. Too much admiration for the original. Looking forward to listening to the two podcasts you mentioned, though. As soon as I finish the new installment of Andrew Hickey's brilliant 'A History of Rock and Roll In 500 Songs.'

[Nige]

The Sandman audios are superb, though. Two seasons so far, absolutely top notch.

[Sarcastr0]

That's fair.

Am enjoying the Hickey's podcast so much (on 80ish now), though even for my liberal ears his social justice throat clearing can be a bit much.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes, I agree completely.

[SRG]

FWIW I have a dual autographed copy of "Difference Engine".

[Nige]

Noice.

[OtisAH]

The only difference between Johanna and John is the gender, though. Otherwise she’s pure Constantine. And yes, to Hell with Alan Moore. I’ll never pronounce it “tyne” except maybe in mixed company.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's Alan Moore been doing lately to end up damned? I rather enjoyed MiracleMan.

[OtisAH]

For inspiring the putting of the originally-intended “Constan-tyne” pronunciation out into the universe.

[Sarcastr0]

She seems a lot less schlubby than ole Johnny C to me.

[OtisAH]

So she has a little style. And having her parade around in a forty year old trench coat wouldn’t feel right I think.

[Sarcastr0]

Yep, I'm being pedantic. She even has the seminal nightclub trauma.

[Nige]

You know what I'm planning on maybe checking out is Paper Girls, based on the comic by Brian Vaughan and Cliff Chang, which I love, art is sublime story is wild characters lovable, and there's good buzz about the adaptation. I think it's on Apple?

[David Nieporent]

It's on Amazon Prime. I watched it, with my having no background in the source material. It was a bit uneven at times, but ultimately quite good. I'm hoping that we're getting another season.

[Nige]

Good, thanks for that.

[dwb68]

The answer to the Democrats mid term disaster is always more inflationary spending by executive fiat, am I rite?

Let's hear from the government spending is not the cause of inflation crowd! [or that canceling debt is not spending smh] For bonus points be sure to comment that the Inflation Reduction Act will reduce inflation... by spending a lot of money lmao.

[Sarcastr0]

Inflation is down, though. Does that mean Biden deserves praise? https://www.bls.gov/cpi/

You really seem to think of inflation as a cudgel to use against government spending, and that's it.

You don't even seem to understand why people say the IRA reduces inflation. Or don't care to engage with that, just pretending it's a spending bill.

[Armchair Lawyer]

8.5% inflation is not "down". It's higher than it's been in the last 30 years.

It's a cudgel against government spending, because excessive government spending (without corresponding taxation) causes inflation. It's "printing money"

The IRA is a massive spending bill that doesn't bring in the matching tax revenue. As such, it will cause more inflation.

[Sarcastr0]

Look a bit into those numbers. Core CPI is down. Energy and food are what's up.

Do you think that's but-for caused by government spending?

The IRA is a massive spending bill that doesn't bring in the matching tax revenue.
So do you have no idea what it does to the national debt, or are you just ignoring that? I think that sop to Manchin is a bit silly, but you don't seem to understand it exists at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you can make it look like you've solved inflation, for a couple months, by really front loading the inflation, and then backing off suddenly. Can they keep that up until the election, while all the fundamentals are inflationary? I think not.

[Sarcastr0]

How do you front load inflation?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sounds like you should read your own bill and the analysis. It describes how it increases inflation in the first few years.

[Sarcastr0]

So the IRA has a current deflationary effect? Better tell dwb68!

[Armchair Lawyer]

I see you didn't read.

[Michael P]

He has a powerful reality distortion field. It prevents him from accurately seeing anything that is contrary to leftist dogma.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, for instance, undertake actions that cause the price of some commodity that figures into calculating inflation to spike; (Gas, maybe.) You get a really high inflation number. The next month you relent, and the commodity drops in price.

And you brag that you brought inflation down to zero, while everything else is still going up in price.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett, there is no secret plot to manipulate gas prices to make inflation numbers look good.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, right, we're emptying out the strategic petroleum reserves in order to NOT manipulate the price of gasoline right before an election. You're really phoning it in these days, you know?

[bernard11]

Brett, take the tinfoil hat off. You are really in wild conspiracy mode, again.

Biden doesn't release oil, "Why won't he do anything?"

Biden releases oil, "He's manipulating the inflation numbers."

The fact is the oil released had a negligible effect on inflation.

[Don Nico]

"Energy and food are what's up. "
And that is what people of color spend most of their income on.
By the way, rents have not gone down.
You know the old one about damned lies and statistics.

[bernard11]

And you know what, Don, if energy and food were down, but core inflation were up, the same people yelling about energy and food now would be yelling about core inflation instead.

These are not lies. There is no conspiracy to hide the "true" rate of inflation.

There are a number of measures, useful for different purposes. Don't join the demagoguery.

[Don Nico]

no demogogery, bernard.
People don't care about the statistics; they care about how hard they feel the pinch. That is what matters come November.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird spending by the Biden admin that's only inflationary for food and energy.

Or, maybe, there is some stuff going on that effects those things extra.

[Nige]

Weird how everyone forgets high profits are inflationary.

[Don Nico]

really. Where did you study economics?

[Nige]

The economic school of hard knocks.

[Don Nico]

What I expected, nowhere.

[Nige]

And yet.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Actual inflation, the kind that people feel, or Federal Inflation, the kind they measure and report?

[Krayt]

The kind that will make my nest egg be 30% smaller by the time all this is over.

[Commenter_XY]

That is the real danger, Krayt.

[Kazinski]

Inflation is not down, it may be a little noisy but its not down, monthly year over year inflation for the whole of Biden's term, he did pretty good his first month, I'll give him that:
Jul '22 8.5%
Jun '22 9.1%
May '22 8.6%
Apr '22 8.3%
Mar '22 8.5%
Feb '22 7.9%
Jan '22 7.5%
Dec '21 7%
Nov '21 6.8%
Oct '21 6.2%
Sep '21 5.4%
Aug '21 5.3%
Jul '21 5.4%
Jun '21 5.4%
May '21 5%
Apr '21 4.2%
Mar '21 2.6
Feb '21 1.7%

[SRG]

I don't know.

The US government had been running annual deficits, sometimes very large deficits, for years without inflation.

It's absurd to suppose that there can only be one cause for inflation.

It's very easy to have an explanation for why cancelling some part of student debt will cause inflation. You can also come up with an explanation for why it might not be - perhaps many indebted post--students were working one full-time and one part-time job and now can afford to stop the part time job.

The same argument for why the cancellation is inflationary applies to cutting taxes, yet I must have missed the complaints for the right that tax-cutting will be inflationary.

Perhaps inflationary fears will cause some industries to move their prices up in anticipation in a classic self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bottom line: there are too many uncertainties, feedback loops, etc. I simply don't know. I'll wait for the results and then the next time someone suggests cancelling some student debt I will have a more confident basis for a response.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The US government had been running annual deficits, sometimes very large deficits, for years without inflation."

It hasn't, you know. We've had inflation all along, and fairly substantial inflation. You can tell that by just looking at the price of a particular commodity, rather than the CPI.

Beef, for example. Look at the 25 year graph. Inflation all along, but starting about 2019, it really started picking up. That earlier rise in beef prices wasn't being translated into "inflation", even though anyone could see it when they went grocery shopping.

How did that happen? Simple: They were continually changing the CPI "market basket" to understate inflation. Something they started doing back in the '80's. What happened recently is that it go so high, so fast, that they couldn't rig the numbers fast enough to hide it anymore. But the actual cost of living people have been experiencing has been going up 2-3 times faster than the official inflation numbers have said.

Why did things get so bad in 2019 forward? A lot of the government borrowing was previously going to political cronies, and frankly, being banked. It wasn't immediately being spent. That reduced the inflationary impact a lot, because the money wasn't actually in circulation.

Come covid, they started cutting checks directly to people who'd spend it. That was very inflationary.

[SRG]

You can't cherry pick items to arrive at an inflation rate. Now each person experiences their own inflation rate and yes, there are substitution effects (and other issues - like tech improvements. If TV prices have risen 5% but the new TVs are larger and have better features...?)

A sounder measure, albeit more technical, is GDP deflator.

See row 28
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=11#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=11

[Brett Bellmore]

"You can't cherry pick items to arrive at an inflation rate."

But they do anyway. Change the "market basket" in the right way, and you can get an arbitrarily low inflation rate even if all prices are uniformly rising at a higher rate. At least you can until you're assuming that everybody is eating nothing but road kill tamales.

[SRG]

Change the "market basket" in the right way, and you can get an arbitrarily low inflation rate even if all prices are uniformly rising at a higher rate

Simple arithmetic says you can't. And have you any evidence for this capricious adjusting of the basket? I don't mean, reasonable adjustment to reflect secular changes of spending habits, but changing the basked on a whim for political purposes?

Meanwhile, any comments on the GDP deflator?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Simple arithmetic says you can't."

You don't understand? Say that at point A, people are eating 75% beef, at $4 a pound, and 25% chicken, at $1 a pound. Total is $3.25 for your mini "basket".

At point B you've had 25% actual inflation. Beef now costs $5 a pound, and chicken $1.25 a pound. $4.06 basket total.

So you change the market basket to half beef, half chicken, observing that, after all, people ARE eating less beef. (Because they can't afford it anymore!) Your mini-basket now costs $3.13, it's gone DOWN 4% despite 25% inflation!

You can easily turn inflation into deflation by manipulating the market basket, just by substituting less expensive products for more expensive products, even though everything went up by the same percentage.

Of course, they don't do anything that gross, they'd use up all their capacity for manipulation. But until 1980 they used a fixed "market basket" that accurately tracked inflation. Since then they've used a variable basket that understates it.

Saves them a lot of money on anything that's adjusted for inflation, such as SS. But it also builds in continual wage decline by causing inflation adjustments all through the economy to trail real inflation.

What happened recently is that inflation got too bad for such subtle manipulations to hide.

[Sarcastr0]

They have an algorithm that sets the variable basket based on current consumption choices. It's not political - it's so they don't have CD Players in there still.

[Life of Brian]

They have an algorithm that sets the variable basket based on current consumption choices.

Which current consumption choices are in no small part directed by inflation: people with generally inelastic incomes finding ways to stretch their dollars further in the face of rising prices. That sort of circular logic is too clever by half and by definition will minimize the appearance of inflation.

[bernard11]

No, LoB.

Look, prices don't all increase by the same percentage. Relative prices - the cost of chicken relative to beef, say - change as well. In fact,they change all the time, inflation or not.

And those changes affect the consumption basket. If beef gets relatively expensive than chicken consumption will shift towards beef, and vice versa.

[Life of Brian]

No, LoB.

This is a weird opening for a post that is completely consistent with what I said.

Look, prices don't all increase by the same percentage.

Of course. And that's the entire point of this discussion: If inflation was consistent across all goods and services in the economy, you wouldn't be able to report different inflation rates by choosing different mixes of those goods and services.

And those changes affect the consumption basket. If beef gets relatively expensive than chicken consumption will shift towards beef, and vice versa.

Again, of course. But as you say, that consumption doesn't shift because people woke up one morning and decided they wanted to eat chicken instead of beef. It shifts because they can't afford [as much] beef anymore and so buy chicken instead. And a CPI basket that blindly follows that shift in purchasing habits will by definition underreport the increase in the cost of living that consumers actually wanted and previously had, not what they're now settling for.

[bernard11]

Which is a totally bogus explanation.

Whatever site you get your inflation information from is dumb as shit.

Oh, and no, you can't tell the rate of inflation by looking at one item. That's insane. It's like saying Aaron Judge is a lousy hitter because you once saw a game where he went 0 for 4.

[bernard11]

So you change the market basket to half beef, half chicken, observing that, after all, people ARE eating less beef. (Because they can't afford it anymore!) Your mini-basket now costs $3.13, it's gone DOWN 4% despite 25% inflation!

This is not remotely what happens.

[SRG]

I'm wrong. Your numerical example is a nice form of Simpson's paradox and I wrote unthinkingly. But that's simply not how it's done in practice.

[bernard11]

Brett,

How many times does it need to be explained to you that your theory of price indexes and rigged baskets is complete bullshit. It's utter fucking nonsense, and if you bothered to acquaint yourself with the most basic ideas of how and why baskets change you would know that.

Instead you continually repeat your idiotic lies.

A lot of the government borrowing was previously going to political cronies, and frankly, being banked. It wasn't immediately being spent. That reduced the inflationary impact a lot, because the money wasn't actually in circulation.

This is equally idiotic. No to mention meaningless.

[Don Nico]

SRG,
Don't worry, be happy. The Fed will raise the prime rate another 50 basis points in September.

[Davedave]

Arguing with idiots leads you into a fog of unjustified confusion. We have a very simple economic case here, of a $10k grant to many people. It's obvious it will, on the margin, be inflationary. Will it be noticeably so, though? Obviously not, it's an utterly insignificant sum in total, given the size of the US economy.

US GDP is $21 billion. The amount the great student loan payoff costs is a rounding error there.

End of.

[Davedave]

Ack. $21 _trillion_, of course.

[Commenter_XY]

It is ~1.5% = your rounding error

Tell you what, will you give me 1.5% of your lifetime earnings, just because...?

This might be hard to believe, but there are a lot of people on the margins where 1.5% makes a difference. That aside, isn't the bailout an implicit admission of policy failure?

[Davedave]

"It is ~1.5% = your rounding error"

You've dropped some zeros there. It's ~0.015%.

I think we both agree that <0.015% is a rounding error, don't we?

[VinniUSMC]

Remedial math.

300,000,000,000 (300 billion)
----------------------------------------
21,000,000,000,000 (21 trillion)
= 0.01428 * 100 = 1.428%

This concludes today's lesson.

[dwb68]

First of all: The causes of inflation have been known since antiquity. For a fun history lesson, google the inflation rates of the US colonies during the revolution. There is a reason that the Constitution decided leave money minting to the Feds. The inflation rate in some states was horrendous because they kept spending money and paying for it with debt that depreciated fast.

So why aren't deficits inflationary? The reason is that the federal reserve hikes rates to choke off demand. In other words: govt spending crowds out private spending.

Tax cuts are inflationary; One difference is that tax cuts tend to incentivize production and labor, so the same dollar of tax cuts is less inflationary than the same dollar of demand-side spending, because companies can make more widgets.

Right now, at 8.5% inflation, the Federal reserve should have rates around 9%+ to choke off enough demand to stop inflation. Because Biden is spending billions at a time when rates are too low and supply is tight, its inflationary. All those people not spending money on debt are going to spend it on other stuff and boost demand at a time when supply is short.

Unfortunately the Democrats have been in economic denialism for 18 months.

Govt spending = inflation when supplies are tight and interest rates are low. There is no uncertainty in this. This has been the cause of inflation for millennia.

[Bwaaah]

For me, everything you said, except "lmao."

[FivebySixThree]

Democrats, the party of the people effectively have shown they are the party of the rich people only. Back to back wealth transfers to the wealthy through new EV credits and forgiveness of student loans for those making 125k or 250k married.

There was no mention of helping the homelessness issue in this country. No issue of helping children in need. No, it was all about buying votes leading into an election from those who are already well off.

[Sarcastr0]

forgiveness of student loans for those making 125k or 250k married.

Um, dude, it's 125K or under. Do you think most people make exactly 125K?

And did you have the same objections to Trump's tax cut, most of which *actually* went to rich people?

There was no mention of helping the homelessness issue in this country. No issue of helping children in need.
Not buying that you care a jot about any of these groups. Especially since the party blocking aid to them ain't the Dems.

[Nige]

I think you'll find the Dems are the ones who blocked the Republican's perfectly sensible legislation empowering homeless people to be paid the minimum wage for letting rich people hunt them for sport.

[dwb68]

The politically correct term is euthanasia.

[Nige]

But with guns.

[Jerry B.]

Pick that nit!!!

[Don Nico]

"objections to Trump's tax cut"
argument by whataboutism

[bernard11]

Given the number of times the cultists scream "Hillary," or "Hunter" I'd say it's a pretty common argument around here.

[Don Nico]

You're correct about that, bernard.

[Sarcastr0]

I had 1 argument, 1 questioning of consistency, and 1 accusation of bad faith. In that order.

I hope this helps!

[Harvey Mosley]

Sarcastr0, "That's whataboutism!"

Also Sarcastr0, "Whatabout...!"

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/25/thursday-open-thread-98/?comments=true#comment-9669283

[OtisAH]

I see lots of people intentionally misstating this just like you. It is not relief for people making $150K/$250K. It’s for people who make less than those amounts. But the good news is you still get to pretend it’s only for people making $124,999/$249,999.

[Ben_]

The median income for a family is about $80k.

[dwb68]

I drove through a Black Lives Matter demonstration over the weekend, there were no black people. It was also more than three-quarter female over 50. I felt like joining with a sign "honk to validate my virtue signalling".

[dwb68]

Keep in mind, I live in Maryland, which is diverse. On any given day at the gun range I see over half non-whites shooting.

[Ben_]

They also gave wealthy student loan borrowers another 4 months of interest-free, payment-free time to not pay off their loans.

Because of the elec… um, I mean the Covid emergency. So, so emergent as it is.

[not guilty]

On this past Monday, Donald Trump filed a garbage lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of Florida kvetching about the search of his Mar-a-lago premises pursuant to a search warrant issued by a federal magistrate judge. https://ordinary-times.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/gov.uscourts.flsd_.618763.1.0.pdf The prolix, 27 page complaint is long on political rhetoric and remarkably short on any cognizable legal theory.

[not guilty]

On Tuesday, the district court to whom Trump's lawsuit is assigned (a Trump appointee confirmed by the Senate during the lame duck session after Trump had lost the election) issued a sua sponte order stating:

PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 1 Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief. To facilitate appropriate resolution, on or before August 26, 2022, Plaintiff shall file a supplement to the Motion further elaborating on the following: (1) the asserted basis for the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction, whether legal, equitable/anomalous, or both; (2) the framework applicable to the exercise of such jurisdiction; (3) the precise relief sought, including any request for injunctive relief pending resolution of the Motion; (4) the effect, if any, of the proceeding before Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart; and (5) the status of Plaintiff's efforts to perfect service on Defendant. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 8/23/2022. (AMC) (Entered: 08/23/2022)

This is judicial politesse for exclaiming "WTF!?" Trump is fortunate to have avoided a sua sponte dismissal.

[Nige]

Trump is 'fortunate' in the way a rich Republican ex-president with a rabid following who is being treated with extreme preference, discretion, kid gloves and latitude is 'fortunate,' which is to say the way he's always been 'fortunate.'

[Mr. Bumble]

"is long on political rhetoric and remarkably short on any cognizable legal theory."

Like the justification for student loan forgiveness?

[not guilty]

The Trump lawsuit purports to ask for appointment of a Special Master pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 53. The pleading, however, conspicuously fails to discuss the criteria of Rule 53(a)(1):

(a) Appointment.

(1) Scope. Unless a statute provides otherwise, a court may appoint a master only to:

(A) perform duties consented to by the parties;

(B) hold trial proceedings and make or recommend findings of fact on issues to be decided without a jury if appointment is warranted by:

(i) some exceptional condition; or

(ii) the need to perform an accounting or resolve a difficult computation of damages; or

(C) address pretrial and posttrial matters that cannot be effectively and timely addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge of the district.

This omission speaks loudly.

[not guilty]

The ostensible basis for Trump's request for a Special Master is to review materials to see whether Executive Privilege applies to documents taken during the search. There is no averment, however, that the holder of such privilege -- President Biden -- has asserted any claim of privilege.

In fact, correspondence from the Acting Archivist of the United States to one of Trump's lawyers indicates that President Biden has disclaimed any assertion of Executive Privilege. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/national-archives-letter-trump-fbi/1a5fa3f08cdb0f7d/full.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

It's not a lawsuit, it's a PR release in a novel form.

Notably, it makes factual claims that a lawyer signing off on may create ethical issues. But this is pro-se so it's all good.

[not guilty]

Trump's pleading is not pro se. It is signed by attorneys Lindsey Halligan (local counsel), James M. Trusty and M. Evan Corcoran.

Mr. Corcoran's participation may be ethically problematic, as he is a prospective witness against Trump based on his participation in resisting National Archives requests and preparing an attestation during June (signed by Christina Bobb) falsely representing that all documents had been returned.

[John F. Carr]

At this point I would think that the conflict of interest is waivable by the client.

[David Nieporent]

A lawyer who is a witness to his client's crime — and possibly a participant in that crime! — cannot represent that client. That's not a waivable conflict.

[OtisAH]

Not pro se. That was just a placeholder while the two TV Appearance Law Specialists got admitted. Now he has Firstly and Corcoran (who I thought might have his own legal difficulties).

[Estragon]

Honestly when I read through this “lawsuit” the first time I thought it had been written by Jimmy the Dane

[Jimmy the Dane]

Unfortunately I had no hand in that pleading, but appreciate the compliment.

[not guilty]

Given the pleading at issue, that was no compliment.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Oh but it was!

[Sarcastr0]

Fair enough, though have they avvered to the statement of facts? Which contains stuff like 'The FBI said "thanks for letting us see the safe even though you didn't need to. We understand everything now, and you have cleared everything up."'

No attorney would sign off on that.

[OtisAH]

That’s why maybe Corcoran is okay after all. He had one of the TV Appearance Law specialists sign it. The one from OAN I think. Or maybe that was the sign off on the false “all clear” document? Either way.

And I was really pulling for Turnip to prove once and for all how much more brillianter he is than any shyster, but knew it couldn’t possibly happen.

[Davedave]

"No attorney would sign off on that."

Did you miss the whole Kraken thing? And the comical birther with a law license, Orly Taitz?

These types end up getting sanctioned and disbarred, but that just launches them into the far more lucrative Ickeian phase of their careers.

[Don Nico]

"a garbage lawsuit"
not until the judge rules it as such

[Sarcastr0]

No, it can be a garbage lawsuit AND a judge can be a partisan tool.

Professionals can rate the work of their colleagues just fine.

[not guilty]

"not until the judge rules it as such"

The district judge here came close to doing that. See Docket Entry 10. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/trump-v-united-states/

It is a pity that Trump's lawyers disregarded Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts voters will decide the fate of a law allowing euphemisms to have driver's licenses. https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/08/24/see-you-in-november-license-law-opponents-celebrate-signature-threshold/

In my opinion licenses should be handed out to anybody capable of driving regardless of debt, immigration paperwork, school grades, and so forth. Requiring proof of immigration status for a license is one of the reasons traffic enforcement has a disparate impact on minorities.

[ThePublius]

Giving licenses to people here illegally helps them to stay here illegally, and may also enable them to vote. Isn't the law important to you?

[John F. Carr]

Traffic law? No. Burn it down. Overrule _Whren_ in the process.

[Michael P]

Democrats are now nutpicking their own candidates: https://news.yahoo.com/rebekah-jones-wins-democratic-primary-010117334.html

In the general election, she is going to face the guy whose family was the target of an extortion attempt over his office. (That extortionist was just sentenced to 63 months in prison.)

[Michael P]

The City of Cleveland (Ohio) cannot possibly comment on a lawsuit accusing it of arresting a guy on charges of illegally carrying a firearm... after police told him that he was allowed to carry there. The guy lost his job as a result, and caught COVID while in jail. https://www.cleveland19.com/2022/08/23/civil-rights-activist-sues-city-cleveland-unlawful-arrest-while-carrying-gun/

[Michael P]

Google conditions scholarship applications on universities discriminating in violation of Title VI (and other laws). https://freebeacon.com/campus/google-partners-with-top-universities-for-this-prestigious-fellowship-lawyers-say-the-racial-and-gender-quotas-its-imposing-are-illegal/

[Michael P]

It's a good thing for a lot of media that defamation of the dead is not a legally recognized tort. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-08-23/column-did-john-wayne-try-to-assault-sacheen-littlefeather-at-the-1973-oscars-debunking-a-hollywood-myth

[SRG]

We knew that, ever since Repo Man lol

[Armchair Lawyer]

For those of us who missed it.

FBI Whistleblowers have revealed that they were deliberately ordered by senior FBI officials to not investigate Hunter Biden's laptop.

https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/fbi-whistleblowers-say-senior-officials-ordered-bureau-not-investigate

You've got to wonder what's going on when you've got a trove of evidence of potential crimes dropped in your lap...and your senior officials directly tell you not to investigate it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Current FBI almost makes you long for the days when J. Edgar was in charge.

[Don Nico]

It does not for me. I am very happy that he is dead and gone

[wreckinball]

And unfortunately there is absolutely nothing that will happen. The TDS cheerleaders are OK with absolutely anything that they perceive that hurts Trump which includes covering up anything Hunter.

And the courts are also corrupted so you can't say we'll take them to court. Doesn't matter

[Davedave]

Yes, FBI agents who attempted to act outside their official capacity for partisan political reasons were prevented from breaking the law. Not exactly news that Trump-traitors are criminals and insurrectionists who hate the rule of law and want to turn the US into a 3rd world totalitarian hellhole.

[SRG]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator)

[OtisAH]

That’s great. Let us know when they’re swearing to that under oath.

[apedad]

So not only is the headline wrong but apparently you didn't read the article.

"After the FBI obtained the Hunter Biden laptop from the Wilmington, Del. computer shop, these whistleblowers stated that local FBI leadership told employees, 'you will not look at that Hunter Biden laptop' and that the FBI is 'not going to change the outcome of the election again,"' the letter, which the Daily Mail obtained, reads.

LOCAL FBI LEADERSHIP, i.e. the office Special Agent in Charge (SAC), and NOT senior Bureau leadership.

[Bob from Ohio]

"LOCAL FBI LEADERSHIP, i.e. the office Special Agent in Charge (SAC), and NOT senior Bureau leadership."

That agent told them. Did anyone tell him?

Its hair splitting though, what does "senior" mean? A SAC in a major city like Chicago is pretty senior.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that's what 'senior FBI officials' implies - municipality level!

Good lord you're a shambles sometimes.

[David Nieporent]

I wish people would stop labeling any anonymous crank a "whistleblower." Until it's established that the person is telling the truth (and revealing wrongdoing), he's not a whistleblower. He's just an accuser.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Those among you who were pissed back when Trump contrived an emergency to illegitimately spend money on his wall and are happy that Biden contrived an emergency to illegitimately wipe out this debt are….hell, you know what you are and you just don’t care.

Same is true in reverse as well. Wanna know why our government is so fucked up? This is why our government is so fucked up. You people are the enablers.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Federals socialismed student loans back in 2010, why didn’t that solve the problem of student loan debt?

[wreckinball]

Regarding the student loans is this a one time deal. So next year's freshman class do they get a 10K grant?

So if this becomes habit forming I wonder what effect it will have on tuition? A $10K increase?

[Ben_]

Yes, tuition will go up.

And Democrats will keep looting the treasury little-by-little in this way and 1000 other ways until the end. The collapse will be devastating.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, tuition will go up.

More unearned certainty.

The collapse will be devastating.
I mean, our entitlements system is still well below Europe, which has it's issues but is far from collapsing.

But if you really think a collapse is coming, I'd guess you should flee for a country without a viable liberal party in it. Maybe Hungary or Russia?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Yes, tuition will go up.

More unearned certainty."

Tuition has gone up every year for decades. Usually at a higher than inflation rate. Why are you trying to deny realty?

[apedad]

So tuitions rising are not dependent on loan forgiveness.

Thanks for verifying that Bob!

[Sarcastr0]

...Did you mean to say this?

[Don Nico]

Of course it will go up, regardless of the Biden giveaway. Anyone familiar with any aspect of university administration and management knows that.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you not read the OP? There is a causal inference there that it appears you disagree with.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
They will go up. The direct pressures internally drive them that way except in the cases of major universities with very large endowments when returns on investments are high. In those cases the administrations and the Boards limit or delay any increases.

[Davedave]

Of course tuition going up isn't 'unearned certainty' - it's standard economics. Stopped clocks, etc.

It's amusing he can get that bit of economics right while believing marxist* nonsense about the US economy being in trouble.

*No, literally marxist. That's the basis for the idea. It's funny what the loons fixate on.

[Sarcastr0]

I read it as agreeing with wreckinball's causal inference. Which is pretty silly.

[Davedave]

It probably was. But still, that particular bit was about as unobjectionable as 'it's usually dark at midnight' 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Bleargh. Ya got me; I'll take the L.

[Ed Grinberg]

Look at Venezuela. Look at Argentina. Look at Puerto Rico.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-02/-i-had-to-choose-for-my-family-thousands-fleeing-puerto-rico
There won't be anywhere for us to flee.

Don't they (Democrats) care?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apr%C3%A8s_moi,_le_d%C3%A9luge

[OtisAH]

Sarc just gave you two of what I expect are very attractive locations for you to flee to. And trust me, Dems have no interest in standing in your way. So flee, Ed Grimberg, flee.

[Nige]

Could always cut a few trillion from the obscenely bloated military budget.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yes, the idiots at the Pentagon need less money that is for sure. Look at their track record. They are pathetic and will probably never win another war.

We should also cut the Federal Law Enforcement budgets too.

[Nige]

Federal AND local.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yes local too especially in Democrat shitholes. I love when I hear stories about some Diverse bricking some old white Democrat in the back of the head and getting away with it.

[Nige]

You love listening to the voices in your head, which is fine, it's believing them that causes you to go awry.

[VinniUSMC]

How do you propose to cut trillions of dollars from a budget of $750 million(ish)?

Though, if you suggest we start with closing down and selling the vast majority of our international bases, I would happily agree with you.

[VinniUSMC]

*Ahem* from a budget of $750 billion(ish) dollars.

Numbers are hard.

[Don Nico]

You exaggerate. The military budget is not that large.
But specifically what do you recommend cutting. I am sure that there has to be plenty of room to do so.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure, just like Ford price increase on EV wiped out $7500 tax break.

[Nige]

Ideally the whole student loan system would be scrapped and replaced with grants, if not fully funded third level education.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Guaranteed third-party payor systems have always worked out to make markets efficient and keep costs down, quality up, and demand met!

Just look at our healthcare system!

[Nige]

Almost like there's parasitic middleman creaming money for just getting in the way.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Right, government programs will only work if they do everything until the entire supply chain otherwise they are doomed for failure!

Meanwhile have you seen what happens when governments provide everything in the entire supply chain?

[wreckinball]

Let's just say we are finally after 30 years of "the sky is falling" predictions at some tipping point would you want the same folks who F'd up the CA electrical grid doing it nationally?

Is rolling blackouts or .5C warmer the bigger threat?

[apedad]

". . . would you want the same folks who F'd up the TX electrical grid doing it nationally?"

FTFY

[bevis the lumberjack]

Horrible comparison. The Texas grid failed under the strain of a once-a-generation cold snap.

This summer under the burden of an extremely hot summer the Texas grid has done fine. Meanwhile California is having daily rolling brownouts this summer like they always do. California is your green future nirvana. Germany too.

I’d take comfort that you’re gonna get what’s coming to you, but unfortunately you panicky fools are screwing it up for the rest of us.

[Nige]

'once-a-generation'

Brace yourself.

[VinniUSMC]

Damn, global cooling again?!

[Sarcastr0]

You're better educated than that - pump heat into a complex system at equilibrium, and it doesn't uniformly increase the temperature.

[Don Nico]

Heat pumps work poorly in cold climates

[John F. Carr]

Not quite rolling blackouts. We'll have smart meters that give you power in inverse relation to your privilege.

[NonLawyerDan]

The following is actually a request for a reference, not a snide jab at certain judicial philosophies. I'm actually quite a fan of our Constitution.
Where might I find a discussion of the irony of insisting upon adherence to the words of the Constitution given that the Founders did not adhere to the words of their constitution, the Articles of Confederation? I know some argue that the Constitution is not valid because the Founders ignored the AoC; that argument is not what I'm looking for.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If I remember correctly, there is some discussion of this in Jack Rakove's book 'Original Meanings.' But it's an excellent book at any rate, and well worth the time to read.

[NonLawyerDan]

Thanks.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRARY

This white, male, right-wing
blog has operated for

FIFTEEN (15) DAYS

without using its
favorite vile racial slur
and has operated for

THREE (3) YEARS

without imposing (new) hypocritical,
viewpoint-driven, partisan censorship.

[apedad]

I haven't been censured by Prof. Bernstein in years but that's prolly because he doesn't post blogs often anymore (and when he does it's usually about quotas which I'm not much interested in), so less chance for me to respond.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"without using its favorite vile racial slur"

What's that, breakfast taco?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Anyone who spends a few weeks at this blog becomes familiar with the racial slur this blog uses regularly.

Carry on, clingers.

[Bob from Ohio]

Liz Cheney helped Trump candidates win in Wyoming!

"Did opposition to Liz Cheney boost far-right candidates in Wyoming?"
Casper Star Tribune by Victoria Eavis Aug 21, 2022 Updated Aug 22, 2022

Sorry, I have not been able to post links here for a while. Don't know why.

[apedad]

https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/did-opposition-to-liz-cheney-boost-far-right-candidates-in-wyoming/article_ef1ae988-1f0c-11ed-8b29-2f205a8e1d08.html

WY has ONE representative so . . . meh. . . .

[Bob from Ohio]

The article is about the secretary of state and state legislative races. I'm aware she is the only rep.

[apedad]

Right but it describes how the turnout was affected by their desire to overturn Cheney.

The turnout would prolly have been lower if the Cheney thing wasn't an issue.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Which just shows how screwed up the Republican Party is right now. Biden keeps doing his dead level best to give them a historic win in the midterms and the Republicans keep declining to take it.

[ReaderY]

On the recent case on Idaho’s abortion law -

If the opinion that the law violates Medicaid regulations is valid, could state medically assisted suicide laws be struck down on the grounds? What about state laws permitting withdrawal of treatment? There too, the physician isn’t doing everything that could be done to save the patient’s life, and is not doing so because of state law.

What makes the cases different?

Finding a plaintiff with standing might be an issue, but let’s assume that can be done.

[apedad]

EMTALA mainly addresses emergency treatment so I don't think issues about assisted suicide or withdrawal of treatment are pertinent.

"In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented."

https://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidance/legislation/emtala#:~:text=Emergency%20Medical%20Treatment%20%26%20Labor%20Act%20%28EMTALA%29%20Hospitals,patient%20requests%2C%20an%20appropriate%20transfer%20should%20be%20implemented.

[SRG]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/business/dealbook/desantis-florida-esg-investing.html

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida yesterday advanced his campaign against environmental, social and governance investing. The State Board of Administration, on which he sits, adopted his proposal to ban the consideration of “social, political or ideological interests” when making investment decisions for the state’s pension fund.

The resolution itself says: "The board may not subordinate the interests of the participants and beneficiaries to other objectives and may not sacrifice investment return or take on additional investment risk to promote any non-pecuniary factors."

I agree with the general principle underlying that proposal. I faced a related issue many years ago when I ran a small Taft-Hartley pension fund. For social reasons, the fund used a custodian who I would never have used in a million years and there was a small but measurable loss of performance as a result owing to loss of revenue from stock loan. (I am still NDA'd so no further details.)

It is simply irresponsible to take pensioners' money and invest it purely according to such considerations.

However, as the great Matt Levine* noted in yesterday's column

But I suspect that Ron DeSantis suspects that lots of ESG investors are not purists, that they have hybrid motives, that they are not only concerned with financial risk but also have substantive environmental and social goals. And so he confuses the issue too. “Governor Ron DeSantis Eliminates ESG Considerations from State Pension Investments,” is the headline on his press release. Did he? Is that what happened? If you are an investment manager for Florida and you are convinced that climate change is a material risk factor for some companies, can’t you still consider that risk? As a pecuniary factor, not an ideological one?

He quotes Larry Fink of BlackRock:
with the impact of sustainability on investment returns increasing, we believe that sustainable investing is the strongest foundation for client portfolios going forward.

This is sensible. If you as an investment manager genuinely believe that going forward, fossil fuel companies will increasingly be less profitable owing to climate change and measures taken to forestall it, or that the future risk is high enough that it is appropriate to reduce risk today by divesting - or that because other managers will blindly divest which means that such companies will underperform going forward, then you have a pecuniary incentive and fiduciary duty to (dis)invest accordingly, ESG be damned.

More amusingly, according to the resolution, Florida is not permitted to let its pension funds be managed by a company which says that it will continue to invest in fossil fuel companies on anti-ESG grounds. If WhiteHill says to DeSantis, "we invest in oil and coal companies to stick it to the libs" (or words to that effect), he is not permitted to use them.

* If you read only one column on financial markets, it should be his. He is brilliant, knowledgeable and witty.

[John F. Carr]

Stock values should already account for climate risk. If you divest from Big Oil on climate grounds you are either (1) one of those ESG types who trades money for satisfaction, or (2) expecting the downside to be greater than other investors.

[SRG]

You're assuming a degree of market efficiency that does not, in practice, prevail.

[Davedave]

The idea of divesting from oil stocks on climate grounds is nonsense. The economics of that are that it would achieve the opposite of what is proposed.

The reality is that if you own shares in oil companies, and are environmentally concerned, then accepting the market value of the shares is no better than owning them.

[apedad]

". . . and invest it purely according to such considerations."

Who said anything about "purely?"

They're simply considerations and should be weighed with other considerations (and I'd even agree that social, political or ideological interests should have a lesser "weight factor" than investment return).

[SRG]

I was wrong to say "purely". But I stick to the general point about not using pension funds for social/political/environmental purposes where unjustified by pecuniary or fiduciary rationales. However, the intelligent ESG argument as pointed out by Levine is that there can indeed be such rationales - a company which does not hire or promote diversely is at higher risk of being sued for discrimination, or of losing revenue owing to client/consumer boycotts, for example. It's easy enough - as DeSantis knows and probably fears - to devise such rationales and for them to be genuine.

A conservative fund manager may well say, I don't accept the benefit of diversity hiring, I don't accept GW, I don't accept polluter-pays principles, I don't see why companies cannot bribe politicians in shithole countries (after all they can do so here legally) or set up business in countries whose idea of human rights is to have the trial before the execution. But I am aware of how the world works and companies which do all those things will have greater risk factors and lower returns so those commie pinko liberal sumbitches will force me to adopt ESG on pecuniary grounds. (He probably complains about assaults on his her'tij as well, but not on conference calls.)

[Jimmy the Dane]

I would agree that people that complain about heritage are annoying. I mean slavery was so over almost 200 years ago. It is pretty lame to keep on going on and on about it.

Oh wait.....

You don't mean that kind of "heritage" you mean other kinds of people and their idea of shared history. That is what you are getting at here. Got it.

[apedad]

Data hack reveals right-wing Liberty Counsel pushed Trump in apparent violation of IRS rules

(Note: Liberty Counsel not Liberty University so calm down Rev!)

A data hack reveals the right-wing Liberty Counsel may have violated IRS rules against political activity.

Liberty Counsel, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, controls a number of smaller groups that all share the same hacked database, and only the related 501(c)(4) Liberty Counsel Action has an IRS status allowing it to endorse or oppose political candidates, although churches may take stands on issues, including abortion and same-sex marriage.

But a review of email newsletters and blog posts in the Liberty Counsel data showed communications where Liberty Counsel-controlled 501(c)(3) groups Faith & Liberty and Christians in Defense of Israel encouraged supporters to vote for Trump in 2020, and chairman Mat Staver sent out an email the day after the Jan. 6 insurrection echoing Trump's election lies.

“We know God can intervene and turn what looks like a hopeless cause into a miraculous victory!” Staver wrote.

https://www.rawstory.com/liberty-counsel-trump/

Yes God, please fly (float? waft? I dunno...not a God expert) down and intervene with these nuts.

Cmon! Do it!!!!!

I dare you. . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEmScsUkbo4

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Staver is my kind of right-wing dumbass.

Mostly because I want right-wing dumbasses to continue to lose in America's culture war.

[Jimmy the Dane]

501c3 orgs can engage in limited partisan activity. It is an urban legend that they are not permitted to do so while retaining their tax exempt status. Sometimes they should take a special election to do so in order to make the test more obvious, but they are permitted to engage in partisan activity.

[apedad]

Nope!

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations

[Jimmy the Dane]

You are dumb.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/measuring-lobbying-activity-expenditure-test

[David Nieporent]

Why are you citing something about lobbying when the topic was partisan activity?

[SRG]

And now Texas is piling onto the anti-ESG train:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-24/blackrock-ubs-among-firms-named-energy-boycotters-by-texas

Texas is taking steps that could cost BlackRock Inc., UBS Group AG and eight other finance firms business with the state after finding them to be hostile to the energy industry.

Glenn Hegar, the Republican state comptroller, on Wednesday named the firms he considers to “boycott” the fossil fuel sector. The move ends roughly six months of suspense that led Texas municipal-bond issuers to avoid banks whose status was unclear amid the office’s probe into companies’ energy policies. Governmental entities should use the list as a “filtration system” when entering contracts, Hegar said in an interview.

Thus Levine:
The basic issue here is that if you are an investment firm, and you decide not to invest in some particular oil company, Texas will send you a threatening letter saying “we won’t do business with people who boycott fossil fuels.” And you will say “no, no boycott, we didn’t invest in that company because we thought that the climate-related risks to its business were very high, so as a pure valuation matter we thought it was a bad investment.” And Texas will say “no we think it’s because you don’t like oil companies.” And you will send them a bunch of data and investing memos and policy statements and legal analyses about how really you are only considering climate change as a financial matter, and they won’t believe you.

As no pension funds are involved, the fiduciary issue doesn't arise, but it does seem as if Texas has decided that pecuniary considerations take second place to bubbanomics.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Agree this is stupid, although personally I avoid ESG managers with my own assets because they by definition are reducing my most likely future returns. And I’m concerned that their decision making might be influenced by politics, which is absolutely disqualifying in my book. But that’s my money, my choice.

Texas and DeSantis are in the process of jumping the shark on their anti-woke campaigns. Just like they are with the school stuff.

But on the other hand, what did those on the left think would hapoen when they decided to sexualize and indoctrinate children and introduce controversial political influence into money management? One side starts, the other escalates, and off we go into a self reinforcing swirl through the bottom of the bowl.

[EscherEnigma]

[...] what did those on the left think would hapoen when they decided to sexualize and indoctrinate children [...]

Mostly I wonder why conservatives decided now was the time to resurrect Anita Bryant.

Which is to say, your premise is bullshit.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re projecting yourself onto me and concluding that I’m a conservative, and laughably doing in in response to a post in which I blame both sides for this garbage.

Reading and comprehension is something you should work on.

The bullshit you see is there because your head is up your ass. Pull it out and read what I wrote again. Particularly the sentence that contains “jumping the shark”.

[Nige]

'when they decided to sexualize and indoctrinate children'

Except this is, in fact, bullshit.

[EscherEnigma]

If you feel attacked by me talking about conservatives, then that's you concluding that you are conservative, not me concluding anything.

And yes, "gay people are pedophiles" is as much bullshit today with "groomers" as it was when Anitra Bryant first started pushing that slander. So your premise, that the left is sexualizing and indoctrinating childrne, is 100% pure grade-A bullshit.

[SRG]

by definition are reducing my most likely future returns.

Not "by definition" at all. There are two basically opposing arguments. One argument is that by reducing the pool of investable assets, you must be reducing your opportunities. The other is that you're excluding assets which have identifiable higher risk factors and hence you're reducing the overall risk of your pool of investable assets. It is not definitionally true that assets that do not qualify for ESG consideration do not have those higher risk factors. It may turn out that the actual outcomes aren't as adverse as risk measures predicted, or the returns more than compensate for the realised adverse outcomes, but none of this is by definition.

Meanwhile, suppose there's a rise in the number of companies being successfully sued or tried for pollutants - perhaps more Democratic AGs are being elected on a platform of going after polluters (and choosing to enforce existing laws that GOP AGs in their discretion had not enforced...) Would you rather have your funds invested with an IM who refuses to accept that the risk factor for such companies have gone up, because they're anti-ESG or with an IM that is utterly uninterested in the social and political dimensions of ESG but whose internal analysis suggests that such companies are riskier and that increased risk is consistent with their overall analysis preferring ESG investment on pecuniary grounds?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Suppose this suppose that. I understand what you’re saying, but respectfully disagree.

You’re trying to pick the best companies to invest in. By company, not by industry. There will undoubtedly be a time when at least one company in an unfavored industry will be cheap relative to a company in a favored industry. In fact, that’s the usual case - industries in favor are expensive in the market and those out of favor are cheap.

I have a value guy managing about a third of my assets. He’s been managing money successfully since Nixon was president. Right now he doesn’t think inflation action isn’t going away any time soon and that at current valuations the e&p companies are the best investment going. Your ESG guys would deny me that opportunity in favor of expensive popular green companies. No thanks.

[SRG]

Let's wait and see!

[bevis the lumberjack]

You can reduce the exposure risk to the companies you are worried about without announcing anything. Simply don’t buy ‘em. That way you leave open the opportunity to buy them if the risk goes away. Shutting off potential investments obviously reduces opportunities which refuses potential returns.

[SRG]

On the other hand, announcing that your investment models take account of ESG risk factors while trad firms' models don't may not be a bad way to get more AUM and would be effectively ESG.

Marketing...

[bevis the lumberjack]

Exactly. I had the same thought but decided not to say it. But that’s not necessary good for their clients.

[DaveM]

I, for one, think it's perfectly fine to transfer half a trillion dollars of student loan debt onto the backs of everyone else. I especially think it's just swell that your household can be making up to $250,000 a year and still benefit from this most excellent loan "forgiveness". When the President's Press Secretary explained that, even two years after the COVID-induced economic crisis, that people making 250 big ones a year may still be experiencing some difficulty, my heart just went out to those people. Those poor, poor, white people! Being able to help heal suffering like that just makes me proud to be an American. I feel exactly the same as former First Lady Michelle Obama when she said that she finally -- finally! -- felt like she belonged in this country.

My country. So proud. More monies, please! This surely cannot be the last group of suffering, needy Americans who are desperately awaiting an economic salvation. And all done with the stroke of a single pen! How convenient! How efficient! Now, THAT'S how you run a country.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh. Children's National Hospital in Washington offers "Gender affirming hysterectomies" to children 0-21, scrubbed website when the BCH thing blew up last week.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Democrat DOJ got two people on “conspiracy to transport stolen property in interstate commerce” for Ashley Biden’s “President Dad Raped Me in the Shower when I was 8” diary.

Those dudes got more than a Democrat Antifa or Privileged Diverse would get for firebombing a federal courthouse.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When they finish pulling the rug out from under the Covid therapeutics, how many of you vaxxed Covidiots are going to act like you were never J&J Trust The Science Nazis for two years?

[Estragon]

Two guilty pleas in the project Veritas / Ashley biden’s diary affair today. Pretty scummy conduct if you ask me.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1528671/download

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Conspiracy to traffic stolen property in interstate commerce?

How could it be stolen if it was left behind to begin with?
This is just another example of the Democrat Gestapo doing what they do best. Protect elites and persecute political opponents.

[David Nieporent]

How could it be stolen if it was left behind to begin with?

How could you be this stupid?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It was left behind under a mattress at a halfway house.

Maybe you think I'm stupid because you're completely ignorant of the facts.

[David Nieporent]

It was a rhetorical question; as I've stated before, while I don't think you're smart, I think you're primarily a lying troll. Like, for instance, the claim that it was a "halfway house." Or the claim that it was "under a mattress." All of that is pure fiction. You made it up, or you plagiarized it from someone else who made it up.

Moreover, the material was stored, not "left behind." Once again, you're lying about the facts. (Also about the law, though that may be pure ignorance rather than lying. No, one doesn't forfeit ownership of property just because one "left it behind" when one moved.)

[Michael P]

He did not make that up. You are projecting. Stop being such a lying troll.

[David Nieporent]

Okay, so then you concede that he plagiarized it from someone else who made it up.

[Michael P]

No, that was your false dichotomy.

[Sarcastr0]

DMN laid out quite a few factual inaccuracies. You haven't addressed them, just called him a liar. Do you wish to elaborate or do you, as you often do, have nothing but still want to post?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It wasn't "stored" it was left behind under a mattress.

You are a liar, just as he is.

Now, on to bigger news. I left a toothbrush and a pair of dirty undies at the airBnB I stayed at. In some markets, those undies are worth a lot of monies.

Can you tell your FBI friends they need to start arresting the people who stole them from me?

[David Nieporent]

It wasn't "stored" it was left behind under a mattress.

Again, that's just a flat out lie. You're fabricating it. But it's also irrelevant. "Left behind under a mattress" is not "relinquished ownership in."

[Michael P]

Yeah, the DOJ is full of scum, so you get a lot of scummy conduct from them.

[David Nieporent]

What exactly is "scummy conduct" about prosecuting theft?

[TwelveInchPianist]

It might be interesting to compare this to other federal investigations involving reports of stolen diaries to see if this case got any special treatment.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What is worse -- that this blog attracts such a concentration of delusional and bigoted dumbasses, or that these conservative professors cultivate this shambling, ugly audience intentionally?

Carry on, clingers. Until replacement.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. Whatever you say, chief dumbass.

[David Nieporent]

It might be interesting to compare this to other federal investigations involving reports of stolen diaries to see if this case got any special treatment.

Sure. As long as you limit it to other stolen diaries worth $40,000 in order to make it a comparable situation.

[Michael P]

Or we could look at similar cases -- if someone lies on a job application for an agriculture business in order to get material for an investigative story, do they get prosecuted for wire or mail fraud? Do the producers get indicted on conspiracy charges?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They do if they're not part of the Privileged Class.

[Michael P]

Do school officials get indicted for conspiracy against rights when they conspire to violate parental right-to-know laws? https://www.foxnews.com/media/ex-fairfax-county-teacher-gender-transition-training-parent-rights-obstructed-left-right

[Michael P]

Does the Secret Service get indicted for misprision of felony and conspiracy when they conspire to make a drug addict's illegally possessed gun disappear, and then try to shake down the gun's seller to make the paperwork also disappear?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It was left behind under a mattress at a halfway house.

How is that theft?

[Nige]

They took something that didn't belong to them, that usually suffices for theft, like Trump took a load of documents that didn't belong to him, that also is theft.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I left a pair of dirty undies at the AirBNB I just stayed at.

Can you call the FBI and have the hosts arrested for stealing them from me?

[Nige]

Are you not able to do it yourself?

[Michael P]

Who was prosecuted for theft?

[John F. Carr]

The crime charged requires knowledge that an item was "stolen, converted or taken by fraud." It is similar to the crime of receiving stolen property, which is often used when the person in possession of property might or might not have stolen it, but knew that it had been stolen.

The information claims the items were stored rather than abandoned. I have no opinion on their legal status.

[Michael P]

Sure, and the DOJ also claimed that it's important to keep the Trump raid affidavit secret while leaking like a sieve about what it says. And they maintained for a long time that Carter Page was not a cooperative source for the CIA when the CIA told them the opposite. They have a fraught relationship with what most of us think of as "truth" and "integrity".

[Michael P]

I mean, even in this case, they characterize the halfway house in question as merely a "private residence" rather than give a clear picture of what it is and why so many people cycle through it. Maybe because that would seriously question the storyline of the property being stored there.

[David Nieporent]

It's unclear why you think that fabricated facts like it being a "halfway house" would call into question "the storyline of the property being stored there," given the fact that even if the material had been "left behind" rather than "stored there," the criminals here would have been guilty of the same crimes. Turns out that "finders keepers" is a rule for grammar school aged people, not the actual law. One can't legally find valuable things and say, "Well, I guess I'll just sell them for $40,000 rather than returning them to their owner."

I understand why you people feel the need to lie about this: because the actual facts of conviction here are humiliating to you people who pretended that Project Veritas were the victims of FBI abuses rather than criminal conspirators.

[Michael P]

You talk big, but have no facts or cites to back up your claims.

I don't understand why you feel the need to lie about this.

[David Nieporent]

I have the established facts of the criminal conviction. You have… something you heard on OAN.

I have Florida Statutes 705.101 et seq. You have… something you heard on OAN.

[Michael P]

There was no trial of facts here, only the full weight of the federal government crushing two schlubs.

I guess you didn't read the statutes you cite, because that chapter is about reclaiming and disposing of property that is lost or abandoned in public places, as the definitions in the section you cite suggest.

You lie like a rug.

[David Nieporent]

So you're abandoning your claim that it was a halfway house?

Okay, then we're back to just the common law. And it's just ordinary theft, which in Florida is 812.014.

I do LOL at your notion that it's more legal to steal something found on someone's private property than something one found on the street.

[Michael P]

To quote the statute you cited:

(5) “Public property” means lands and improvements owned by the Federal Government, the state, the county, or a municipality and includes sovereignty submerged lands located adjacent to the county or municipality, buildings, grounds, parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, parkways, rights-of-way, and other similar property.

For that to apply in this case, the DOJ would have to be outright lying about the residence being privately owned.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, the statute I quoted defines lost property as

“Lost property” means all tangible personal property which does not have an identifiable owner and which has been mislaid on public property, upon a public conveyance, on premises used at the time for business purposes, or in parks, places of amusement, public recreation areas, or other places open to the public in a substantially operable, functioning condition or which has an apparent intrinsic value to the rightful owner.

Is this tangible personal property? Yes.

Was it mislaid on premises used at the time for business purposes? That's a halfway house.

Did have "apparent intrinsic value to the rightful owner"? Yes.

[Michael P]

DN has been furiously moving goalposts and throwing out red herrings in a very verbose concession that the answer is "no one".

[Sarcastr0]

Reporting on stolen information: Fine; protected speech.

Asking someone to steal information that you will then report on: not fine, will get you in trouble.

This is my understanding of the law. Do you disagree with this formulation?

[dwb68]

Two quarters of negative growth, the media is calling it a "technical" recessional lmao. Its. A. Recession.

aka stagflation.

Jimmy carter 2.0

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Macroeconomic analysis from half-educated, science-disdaining, superstition-addled right-wingers is always a treat.

Any pandemic management tips for us, clinger?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Becuase leftist "economics" makes so much sense.

"You can tax a nation into prosperity!"

"The government can print unlimited sums on money and every will just get richer!"

"The free market is racist!"

I'm inclined not to believe these crazies or think they ought to be running anything these days.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Zuckerberg confessed on Rogan that the FBI asked Facebook to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the last election.

How is this tolerable? When are these Democrat FBI people going to see the justice they deserve?

[David Nieporent]

You're lying again. That's not what he said. He said that before there was any so-called "Hunter Biden laptop story" [sic], the FBI warned (not in the sense of threatened, but in the sense of alerted) Facebook to be on alert for Russian propaganda.

And I guess Zuckerberg is more patriotic than you are.

[Michael P]

Or he's more of a sucker for FBI disinformation. Suppressing inconvenient truths is not patriotic.

[David Nieporent]

Believing Russian lies is not "truths."

[Michael P]

Hunter's laptop was not a Russian lie.

[Nige]

Russians are better at lying than whoever came up with the laptop scam.

[Michael P]

Unfortunately, Twitter and Facebook fell for the scam. Twitter incorrectly called out "hacked materials" and Facebook fell for the "Russian lie" part of the scam.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They think the Russians had a Hunter body double smoking crack and banging all those Russian hookers and trafficked children.

[David Nieporent]

Hunter's laptop was not a Russian lie.

So far, all we have is an incredibly fishy story that doesn't hang together, and some circumstantial evidence that it in fact is a lie. Nobody has seen any evidence that it's "Hunter's laptop." Or that there even is a laptop! There's a copy of a hard drive image floating around where some of the material has been authenticated and some of it has been debunked. (Because the metadata shows it was changed after the fact.) Nothing on the supposed drive is even interesting, although some here claim to have pleasured themselves to child porn that they saw there.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You still believe the Hunter Biden laptop was "Russian propaganda"?

[apedad]

There was quite a discussion above about the IRS.

Here's a statement from the IRS chief from yesterday.

IRS sets the record straight: We’re going after tax evaders, not honest Americans: Op-Ed

The recent debate over providing badly needed funding to the IRS is filled with outright false suggestions about what the agency and our hard-working employees do — as well as how the additional resources will be handled.

The bottom line is this: These resources are absolutely not about increasing audit scrutiny on small business or middle-income Americans. The investment of these important resources is designed to support honest, compliant taxpayers. Our investment is designed around a Treasury directive that audit rates do not rise relative to recent years for households making under $400,000.

We all want a fair and impartial system where everyone contributes their fair share, no more and certainly no less. A robust, visible tax enforcement effort focused on high-end tax evaders and those supporting them is a priority. Underpayments by tax evaders shift the burden of operating our great country onto honest, hard-working Americans who follow the law.

With this new law, honest taxpayers will see badly needed, meaningful service improvements at the IRS. The IRS should be able to answer the phones and process information — including tax returns — in a timely manner. Enhanced IT systems and taxpayer services will mean that honest taxpayers will be better able to comply with the tax laws, ultimately resulting in a lower — yes, lower — likelihood of being audited and a reduced burden on them.

False Statement: The IRS is hiring 87,000 armed special agents to harass taxpayers.

Reality: Absolutely false. The majority of new hires the IRS makes will be those who answer the phones, work on processing individual tax returns or go after high-end taxpayers or corporations who are avoiding their taxes. Less than 1% of new hires will be in our IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) area, which currently has a total of about 2,100 special agents and is currently hiring about 300 more.

These CI special agents investigate criminal tax violations typically related to money laundering, Bank Secrecy, National Security and National Defense matters. They have been involved in dismantling terrorist financing efforts and criminal cartels as well as eliminating child exploitation operations in the Dark Net that led to the arrests of hundreds of people throughout the world. They do not perform civil tax administrative functions such as audits of tax returns. They are law enforcement officers, and every American should be extremely proud they are on our team.

(and more)

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/irs-sets-the-record-straight-130049197.html

[Brett Bellmore]

"The bottom line is this: These resources are absolutely not about increasing audit scrutiny on small business or middle-income Americans."

Watch: IRS Coaching College Students on How to Take Down Small Business Owners

“Notice the scenario in this IRS recruiting program is ‘taking down a landscape business owner who failed to properly report how he paid for his vehicles,’ not ‘taking down a billionaire who uses the corporate jet for private trips,'”

[BravoCharlieDelta]

But Brett the trustworthy and honest Federals at the IRS said they wouldn't do that!

I think since the IRS has a positive ROI we should invest $1T instead of $80B. That way the Federal government can reclaim $2-3T of the money that's properly theirs!

(Only from billionaires, though! *wink* *wink*)

[bevis the lumberjack]

“We’re going after tax evaders, not honest Americans…”

Horseshit. There are around 700 billionaires in the USA. They’re hiring 87,000 people. And the opposition to the bill tried to add a provision that would limit the audits to earners above 400k and the Democrats shot it down. They’re coming after you and me and our mothers.

They keep openly lying to you because they think you’re stupid and you keep proving them right.

[apedad]

Does everything Trump touch turn to shit?

Donald Trump Added The Patent Office To List Of Government Agencies He's Fighting: Not Just The FBI And White House

What Happened: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has refused a trademark application for the term “Truth Social.”

The USPTO refused to accept the trademark citing pre-existing trademarks that are similar in nature.

The filing from the USPTO cited existing trademarks for The Truth Network and Vero True Social. The filing also cited examples from Cisco Systems Inc, Meta Platforms Inc, and Salesforce.com Inc -owned Slack over uses of certain marks.

“Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression,” the filing reads.

Along with facing trouble over the name of its social media platform, Truth Social could be facing some financial trouble. Reports from Fox Business Network and Charles Gasparino claimed Truth Social partner RightForge said it stopped making payments for web-hosting services months ago and is $1.6 million behind.

https://www.benzinga.com/m-a/22/08/28642216/donald-trump-added-the-patent-office-to-list-of-government-agencies-hes-fighting-not-just-the-fbi-an

[Sarcastr0]

Reports from Fox Business Network and Charles Gasparino claimed Truth Social partner RightForge said it stopped making payments for web-hosting services months ago and is $1.6 million behind.

The liberals are behind this somehow!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The site sucked and was full of bots. I saw a few clever folks seed the first comment with nonsense unrelated phrases and you can just see the bots spit out endless trash.

That was not the Democrats fault. Just about everything else is.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Russian disinformation probably.

Also Ukraine is winning so hard they are about the take Moscow.

[Mr. Bumble]

Re Brett Bellmore's comments about the legality of magistrate justices issuing search warrants:

https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/26/can-magistrate-judges-constitutionally-issue-search-warrants-against-trump-or-anyone-else/

[SRG]

You'd never guess from that article that justices of the peace are magistrates, which undermines his comment in England, search warrants had to be issued by a judge or a justice of the peace, who enjoyed elements of a judge’s authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrate_(England_and_Wales)

If anything this tells you that magistrate judges can issue warrants because the Constitution doesn't specify who can issue them and at the time of the BoR, it would have been magistrates - as those FFs who were lawyers would know.

(And there's a minor factual error in the first sentence - the person whose papers were seized was not of high office.)

[Mr. Bumble]

The whole point of the article by a prominent and well respecte law professor is that magistrate judges are not competent to issued search warrants under the US Constitution and you claim to have refuted it by on quote and a link to wikipedia.

Quite a stretch.

[SRG]

It doesn't matter whether I quote Wikipedia or another source - and after all, Wikipedia provides links to sources so if you doubt it you can check.

It is factually correct that:
justices of the peace are magistrates;
the author of your linked article nowhere discloses that;
the Constitution nowhere states who can issue warrants
at the time of the BoR, magistrates issued warrants.

I expect a law professor very good at making a case. Evidently, he did so sufficiently well that you believe it. But the factual errors and omissions are significant.

Did you know that justices of the peace were magistrates? I'll bet you didn't. Does the prof know? I'll be he did. It's a key piece of information. Yet he doesn't mention it.

And should I assume that you agree with every legal point Volokh and Somin make because they're law professors? or that you defer to their point for lack of your own knowledge?

[David Nieporent]

Hamburger is a legitimate scholar and a smart guy, but this is not his field and this is not a scholarly piece. It's an op/ed. The only thing missing from it is anything resembling a citation to anything. Magistrate judges (under one label or another) have been issuing search warrants for centuries, and he can't manage to cite a single case or even other scholar suggesting that there's something wrong with that. The requirement in the constitution — as held by the Supreme Court — is that warrants be issued by neutral and detached magistrates. Not necessarily by Article III judges.

This article is ultimately yet another example of RepublicanTrumpLaw: the notion that practices that have never been an issue when applied to poor, black people suddenly become illicit when applied to Trump and his circle.

[Ben_]

Another Clinton enemy commits "suicide".

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2021/06/13/former-phoenix-reporter-who-broke-clinton-lynch-tarmac-story-dies/7679503002/

[David Nieporent]

You're confused. Only Trump thinks that reporters are enemies.

[apedad]

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
5d
Why do Republicans Senators allow a broken down hack politician, Mitch McConnell, to openly disparage hard working Republican candidates for the United States Senate. This is such an affront to honor and to leadership. He should spend more time (and money!) helping them get elected, and less time helping his crazy wife and family get rich on China!

~~~~~~

The hits just keep coming!

[Ben_]

Another indication that the Democrat party and the news media are criminal organizations at heart:

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2022/08/26/you-dont-say-looks-like-the-irs-is-leaking-personal-info-about-conservative-donors-to-media-again-and-its-politicos-turn-to-shine/

Private tax documents leaked to Politico, in violation of state and federal laws.

[DaivdBehar]

Yes, stop staring. Bring that BBC over here. Thank you, Queenie, for teaching me that term. Love you, bruh.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I find it funny those who pretend to be advanced thinking feminists work off the assumption that women have no idea what they are doing when they select clothing and accessories knowing that they are going to a night club type of environment and that the fact that this creates the attention that is desired (although not necessarily all of that attention is desired, but overall the intention is to create that desire and then select wanted attention) the proper response is to yell at men.

[Randal]

My Halloween costume is "Kitty wearing Lingerie for Some Reason" but don't you dare look!