Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
9.1.2022 3:00 AM
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
NEXT: To Indict Or Not To Indict? That Is the Question.
Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA. Naturally, his posts here (like the opinions of the other bloggers) are his own, and not endorsed by any educational institution.
Hide Comments (618)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and
on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post
them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any
comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Ahhh. A pristine slate. And now, shortly, the first of Bumble’s 30-40 calorie -free posts. Enjoy.
Democrat cheaters win another election in Alaska.
Are you keeping count?
Isn’t it Behar, rather than Bumble, who often posts multiple comments (often replying to himself) at the beginning of threads?
Too bad about the Artemis. Good luck next time.
Well it’s easy to see what went wrong with Artemis. If you do a search on Artemis mission and the top paragraph of the top result is this NASA page. They need to keep there eye on the ball and not on the demographics of their first manned crew in a few years: “With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon… ”
My daughter was actually in Florida for the Artemis launch as the guest of her uncle who is a top NASA executive in the Artemis program. I’ll probably talk to her tomorrow about it.
Two thousand years ago, the Brits painted their faces blue. They were truly persons of color
And that’s why their space rockets didn’t work.
So NASA should send Blue Man Group to the moon?
You’re an actual neo-Nazi, and the thing about Nazis is, their rocket scientists end up working for NASA. So if there’s anything wrong, it’s your chums to blame.
That’s not my department, says Werner Von Braun.
Auto Tom Lehrer thumbs up.
Not sure why you think race has any relevance here.
Pretty wild to bring up, really.
The space race?
Why did NASA bring it up?
They didn’t – not with respect to the launch issues.
The manned mission is a separate thing you dragged over to be angry at blacks and women doing stuff.
Dunno if you’re aware or not, but this first mission is unmanned. So seems pretty unlikely that the crew has anything to do with whether it’s going to take off or not.
But racists gotta racist, I guess…
Even so, I liked the Babylon Bee’s take on it: “NASA officials were forced to postpone the eagerly anticipated Artemis launch after discovering a female astronaut had failed to refuel the rocket following its last mission.”
Be funnier if they said it was because a male astronaut forgot to put the toilet seat down.
Strong, Independent Woman Needs Man To Leave Toilet Seat Down Or She Will Literally Fall In
Naah – a toilet seat wouldn’t prevent a launch.
If you want a jibe at men, it would be something like:
“Launch postponed because male astronaut insisted on changing oil himself, and spilled all over launch pad.”
“Rocket misses target because male astronaut refused to ask for directions.”
Got a good chuckle.
The factual background set forth in the DOJ filing in response to Donald Trump’s federal lawsuit in Floridan indicates that Trump is in deep trouble. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/doj-response-to-trump-request-for-special-master/1b30feb331082a68/full.pdf An indictment regarding Trump’s handling of government documents should be forthcoming; I suspect it will be shortly after the mid-term elections in November.
I remain puzzled, though, as to what motivated Trump to flout the law regarding the documents concealed at Mar-a-lago. The maxim, cui bono, often leads to fruitful inquiry, but I wonder what benefit Trump thought he would derive from keeping the subject documents and records rather than returning them to the National Archives. Any ideas?
This time the walls are really closing in.
It could not happen to a nicer guy.
” This time the walls are really closing in. ”
That’s what an half-educated, disaffected, un-American clinger would focus on in this circumstance.
Until replacement, anyway.
You could speculate all day about what he was thinking and come nowhere near the truth. He’s got a reputation as a verbal diarrheac but he can be astonishingly tight-lipped about whatever’s going on in the most cunning corners of his primitive brain-stem.
Turnip is one of the easiest reads going. He’s driven solely by greed and ego. As long as the daylong speculation fest stays focused on motivations involving greed and ego, then most speculation will be close enough to correct.
I don’t doubt that Trump is driven by greed and ego. But what benefit did he think — rightly or wrongly — would accrue to him from his retention and concealment of the subject documents? I don’t know.
Sorry, I should have included “spite.” Ego, spite, and greed.
Ego: trophies of himself to admire himself and show off to whomever.
Spite: info to hold over others and/or to show off the info he has on others to whomever (a spite/ego crossover event).
Greed: to sell or otherwise exchange the info to cover past debts or for something that benefits himself.
You can also speculate all day about an indictment and one will never come.
Really Trumps been dead to rights and facing imminent indictment how many times?
The Cohen/Stormy Daniels “illegal campaign” contributions. The Mueller Investigation obstruction of Justice The NY AG real estate investigation The NY AG tax fraud investigation Jan. 6 The National Archives documents.
And I’m sure that’s just a partial list.
He really is quite incredibly shady, isn’t he?
There’s some reason to think Trump tried to keep files full of all the dirt he encountered in intelligence briefings. Like the stuff about Macron’s sex life. It’s possible he just thought such things might come in handy one day, and purloined them.
There’s no firm evidence of motive at this stage, though. All we know is that he stole documents, not why. It’s also entirely plausible, given it’s Trump, that they were taken by mistake because he barely supervised a shoddy moving job, and the resistance to giving them back is just because he doesn’t like admitting error or being told what to do, even by the law of the land.
“There’s some reason to think Trump tried to keep files full of all the dirt he encountered in intelligence briefings. Like the stuff about Macron’s sex life. It’s possible he just thought such things might come in handy one day, and purloined them.”
Well, doing that worked out pretty well for Bill, no surprise if Donald sought to emulate him.
“All we know is that he stole documents, not why.”
Actually, all we know is that they found documents, not that they were stolen.
On this side a right wing conspiracy theory.
On this side actual evidence of some ax to so documents that don’t really belong outside, and contradict attorney’s legal statements.
And you can’t tell the difference. You always put a strong thumb on the scale of speculation as though it were proof, if you like what it suggests.
And what repeated evidence indicates you like is a political thriller, where the libs are all dag nasty evil and the conservatives are just hard men making hard choices.
so documents that don’t really belong outside,
I would like you to meet
You always put a strong thumb on the scale of speculation as though it were proof
I see. So court filings don’t count as evidence to you. Nor do photographs.
“Actually, all we know is that they found documents, not that they were stolen.”
The documents belong to the federal government. Someone stole them, and they were found in Trump’s wrongful possession. Are you suggesting that someone else stole the documents?
While likely criminal in some way this case does not fit within the common language meaning of “stole”. Trump or his people neglected or refused to return legally obtained documents. Like an overdue library book or rental car (which you can go to jail for in some states).
These people think Ashley Biden’s “My Dad touches me in my private places” Diary was stolen because she left it behind under that mattress in that druggy rehab place.
You people think taking something that doesn’t belong to you isn’t stealing.
I believe he’s pointing out that possessing something, even something you aren’t allowed to possess, is not necessarily the same as stealing it.
Example: a court orders you to hand over the car to your ex-wife. You don’t do it. There might be a crime there, but it’s not grand theft auto.
Example: a plumber leaves some of tools belonging to his employer at your house. When the employer comes to your house, you decline to let them in or look for the tools.
Just to be clear, I think Trump’s a POS and continuing to keep the documents is some kind of crime. But the documents may have been taken to Mar-a-Lago at a time when he was entitled to have them.
And the sandbagging the national archives and FBI since then?
The “stealing” question is rapidly becoming irrelevant. It looks to me that the most likely charge will be obstruction and lying the the DOJ/FBI. Based on what is coming out, it looks like a slam dunk.
Oh, I’m sure that if they indict him, those will be charges; They’re so easy to pull off the feebs could bring those charges against practically everybody they interact with. Especially since they don’t have to record non-custodial interviews, and so can just make it “he said/she said”.
Those sorts of hypos are irrelevant here.
They have a letter from counsel saying everything has been returned. Then they have pictures, taken during the “raid,” showing a bunch of classified documents that had obviously not been returned.
I suppose it is possible that the lawyer will fall on his/her sword and say they wrote the letter without involving or asking Trump, and that could have worked, except for the fact that there were classified docs in Trump’s desk, which destroys any “ignorance” argument he might have had.
As I said, this is a Darryl Dawkins Slam Dunk from the Planet Lovetron.
And that does not even get into the part where they showed the FBI the storage room, but would not let them open any of the boxes. Apparently their Jedi mind tricks (these are not the boxes of classified documents you are looking for) were a bit rusty.
I’m just here to see how Brett turns this back around to the “feebs” railroading Turnip with lame, boring amorphous charges like they do to everyone all the time everywhere and everyone knows it.
I think it’s okay to call it stealing because that seems to be what he was actually doing, but since just posessing these documents when you’re not supposed to is a serious crime, no, that’s not likely to be the charge.
I’m curious as the the venue for any such potential prosecution. Anyone with some expertise on this?
Per 18 U.S.C. 3237(a), “Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.”
There is supposedly a custom of not dropping politically sensitive indictments shortly before an election. I’m sure the prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict over the documents dispute. I think there is a decent chance that the government will quit while it’s ahead, having recovered the documents, rather than go into uncharted waters.
I suspect no indictment will be brought until after the mid-term elections in November.
I think there is a decent chance that the government will quit while it’s ahead, having recovered the documents, rather than go into uncharted waters.
The NYT certainly started laying groundwork for that expectation yesterday, throwing in this completely unnecessary aside in an article walking through the opposition brief:
But department officials are not expected to file charges imminently, if they ever do. And the specific contents of the materials the government recovered in the search remain unclear — as does what risk to national security Mr. Trump’s decision to retain the materials posed.
I’d not be surprised if cooler heads have realized there’s likely a lot less risk and a more hay to be made out of keeping a specter of guilt hanging out there rather than actually trying to prosecute.
Comey dropped Hillary was under increased investigation before the election, faced with the choice of being accused of trying to affect it before, or withholding it until after, either case the same accusation but by opposite sides.
When he was fired, supposedly a 5 O’clock taping of a night talk show, the crowd cheered because he was hated by Democrats. By the time it aired that evening, the echo chamber had ordered him a friend and that this was a Bad Thing, a precursor to hated villains and warhawks being paraded as awesome as long as they took a swing at Trump.
Hillary would have fired Comey had she won.
Such a simple mind. No wonder Trump has so successfully conquered it.
Those of us capable of complex thought were able to simultaneously condemn Trump for pressuring the FBI, bear no sympathy for the idiotic Comey, and worry about what sort of lackey he might appoint next.
I know, right? Three whole simultaneous thoughts!
My guess on the motivation: Trump instinctively views everything as a deal or a transaction. As soon as they asked for the documents, that (in his mind) made them valuable, something they want. Every single cell in his brain is wired for “hold out and get something in return”. He’s literally incapable of thinking any other way.
The other thing to remember: when government officials call you or I and threaten legal action, that’s scary and we normally jump to comply. Trump, on any given day, probably can’t even count how many legal actions he’s involved in, and it’s been that way his whole adult life. He doesn’t believe he’ll really go to jail this time…and he’s probably correct.
Cogent analysis. I concur.
Yeah, I think that’s right.
I’ve also wondered how much he’s been spoiling for a fight here. The raid has gotten him back into his favorite place, the news cycle, with considerably more control over the narrative than he’s had with the Jan 6 hearings. Plus it plays into all his greatest victimization hits (fake news, deep state, corrupt FBI), making for a happily angry base. His entire m-o centers on expertly manipulating chaotic situations, but to do that, he needs to constantly generate chaos. He may feel that he has an inherent advantage when things get weird, since that’s generally when everyone else in the world is at their worst.
I mean, what else is “oh hey guys, check out this storage room, I wonder what’s in here, it’s definitely not classified documents, but don’t open any of the boxes until you get a warrant!”
I’ll be very surprised if he’s indicted, even after the midterms, especially for obstruction alone with no underlying crime. No way. So it’s probably been a smart gamble on his part.
I think the indictment depends on what, particularly, is in the documents. If it was in fact highly sensitive information (rather than stale or over classified info), I don’t think they’ll have much choice but too indict.
If one or more of the classified documents did contain non-stale, identifying information about a human source, the man put others’ lives at risk. Why would he have the document at Mar-a-Lago in the first place? Why would he refuse to return it when asked? And then why would he lie (to or through his attorney) about having kept it after “complying” with the subpoena? There are no good answers to those questions. Ordinary people go to jail for that string of facts (if those turn out to be the facts). Trump has to be held to the same standard.
If, on the other hand, the info in the documents is no more sensitive than what was in Hillary’s email and Trump’s team finds some plausible excuse for representing that all documents had been turned over when, in fact, some were sitting in Trump’s office in a location next to his prized magazine covers and in another box with his passports, yeah, he can skate.
But someone (Bobb or Trump) is going to have to pay the piper for that affidavit averring a diligent search had been conducted and found nothing more.
“Trump, on any given day, probably can’t even count how many legal actions he’s involved in, and it’s been that way his whole adult life.”
True, but in the past it was him suing other people. He REALLY liked suing people for frivolous reasons. This is a horse of a different color.
That said, he probably thinks that his grip on the Republican party will mean he doesn’t even have to lift a finger. There are too many people who are too invested in him. He has multiple layers of cover just because a lot of rich and powerful people can’t afford for his influence to be damaged at all, especially with Ron DeSantis setting up to take him down in the 2024 primary.
He’s not wrong.
Should we believe:
A. That unknown reasons led Trump to engage in actions that no one can explain OR B. That Trump declassified the documents when he could do it effortlessly as President?
Classification is not the issue in the affidavit.
As you have been told many, many times.
Classification is not the issue in the affidavit.
Just stop. The only way you could possibly entertain that notion in good faith is if you haven’t bothered to read the affidavit. Classified documents were the foundation for the entire panic-mode narrative.
DOJ specifically referred to documents marked as classified, not classified documents.
Besides, Trump’s latest filing refers to classified documents.
Besides, “I mentally declassified them” is such obvious BS that I wouldn’t even expect Brett to believe it.
Did you post this in the right place? It’s not clear how any of this speaks to the question of whether the affidavit heavily relied on the notion of classified documents to justify the search/seizure.
The affidavit did not in fact heavily rely on the notion of classified documents to justify the search/seizure. The search/seizure was based on the potential violation of three statutes, none of which turned on whether documents were classified or not.
Also, you should believe that Trump kept them for various Trumpian reasons, rather than that he secretly declassified documents for no reason at all.
The affidavit did not in fact heavily rely on the notion of classified documents to justify the search/seizure.
Shameless poppycock. The affidavit sets the tone (as any persuasive document should) in the very opening sentence: “The government is conducting a criminal investigation concerning the improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces . . .”
Paragraph 2: “determine whether any additional classified documents or records may have been stored in an unauthorized location at the PREMISES or another unknown location, and whether they remain at any such location . . .”
Header at the top of page 17: “The FIFTEEN BOXES Provided to NARA Contain Classified Information”
Header at the top of page 26: “There is Probable Cause to Believe That Documents Containing Classified NDI and Presidential Records Remain at the Premises”
And on and on. Back to Clever Clever Land with you.
Sets the tone? Amazing legal analysis.
Truly, you cited the statutes and the elements that require classified.
If you think persuasion plays no part in litigation, small wonder you don’t practice anymore. But I know you’re smarter than that.
Simply, for those playing simple: if they didn’t need to repeatedly weave the classified/NDI angle into the fabric of the story to get the warrant signed, they wouldn’t have bothered. You can recite as much pedantic legal analysis as you want about the underlying statutes, but without some compelling rationale beyond “hurr durr… GOV’NMENTAL DOCUMINTS” you’re not going to get a fishing-expedition warrant on a former President. Not even Reinhart is that politically malleable.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, none of the statutes referenced in Attachment B of the search warrant specifies that subject documents need be classified for the prohibited conduct to be criminal. Trump’s ignoring the marking of the documents as classified (which the affidavit references) does have evidentiary value, in that it helps to prove scienter. But classification status is not an element which the prosecution need prove.
Life of Brian, however, seems to think that statutory language doesn’t matter.
Life of Brian,
In addition to all the dispositive points raised by others, you don’t seem to get that Trump hasn’t claimed in any legal filing that the documents in question were declassified. You can hang your hat on declassification if you want to, but I expect you to genuflect before us all when it turns out at least some of the documents were, in fact, classified (consistent with their markings).
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with how warrants work. The standard is probable cause to believe a crime was committed and that evidence of the crime will be found at the place to be searched. If that probable cause exists, it’s not a “fishing expedition,” and it doesn’t matter what the crime might be. There’s no extra “compelling rationale” needed.
I don’t think you should mock someone else’s lack of practice given your laughably bad analysis of the Bobb affidavit last week.
You can hang your hat on declassification if you want to
I note you didn’t have a word to say about my actual point, which takes only grade-school reading comprehension to observe did not mention declassification. At all.
It’s really bizarre how you rabid gotta-get-Trumpers just catapult into these threads and smear around your own particular pet talking points with little regard for whether they actually fit into the discussion at hand. It’s almost as though you understand that if you let the histrionics die down for very long people will start to see the situation for the phony opportunism it is.
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with how warrants work.
Nah. I just have enough perspective to be cheerfully confident “vague, super-broad statute SEZ” was not going to do it here. Which is why they larded up the story with all the “national deFENCE” baloney (conspicuously omitting the “noooclear SECRUTS” they leaked to the press, but perhaps hoping for a halo effect) and a dozenish paragraphs of definitions of various types of classified material.
The original point in the thread was Ben’s assertion that his option B (that Trump had declassified the documents) was the most likely one. You jumped into the thread on his side, complaining about a “fishing expedition” based on multiple references to classified documents. Only, it wasn’t a “fishing expedition” because documents marked classified were found in the locations where the search warrant indicated they would be found.
The classification status of the documents did not provide the legal basis for the search. So the warrant wasn’t based on classification status in a legal sense. But the classification status did add some reliability to the assertion that the documents, if mishandled, could damage national security interests, because that’s why the government classifies documents, especially at top secret/SCI levels.
It’s pretty clear the feds were tipped off that Trump had documents marked classified and where he was keeping them (at least some of them). This is the opposite of a fishing expedition.
In fact, it was precisely what search warrants are for: specific information about specific items to be seized based on accurate information. Or, I guess your theory, they just happened to get lucky.
Good luck with that one too. It’s no better than Ben’s “he imagined them declassified so they are”.
(And while you are giving your seminar on persuasiveness, stupid misspellings in quotes doesn’t make your argument more convincing or add to your own credibility.)
As a legal analyst, you might be a competent plumber, Ford parts counter clerk, or French fry technician.
I wonder if this will end up being resolved by some sort of non-prosecution or deferred-prosecution agreement. You agree to spend the rest of your days playing golf and not running for office, and we’ll agree not to prosecute.
You agree to spend the rest of your days playing golf and not running for office, and we’ll agree not to prosecute.
See my comment above about yesterday’s NYT article floating the notion of no timeline for charges, “if ever.” That really doesn’t feel like the sort of thing you leak at this juncture if you think you have that much leverage.
But I guess we won’t know for sure until Trump [re]announces that he’s running again.
Anyone consider that perhaps did this simply to ensure that he stay the center of attention, and so he could say “see, institutional Washington is still against me.” Well, the phrase “institutional Washington” is beyond his vocabulary, but you get the idea.
The thought has crossed my mind. I think the problem for him is that only about 30% of the public is stupid enough or politically motivated enough to find this attractive. I don’t see independents and swing voters buying the BS.
He lives for the adoration of that gullible, bigoted, worthless 30 percent.
The District Court in Florida has taken under advisement Trump’s request for appointment of a special master in regard to the documents seized from Mar-a-lago. Trump wants the special master to review whether seized documents are covered by executive privilege, notwithstanding that the holder of such privilege — President Biden — has not asserted any such claim.
I surmise that the appointment of a special master would not preclude criminal prosecution of Trump and his associates. A generalized assertion of executive privilege must yield to a demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a criminal prosecution. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 713 (1974). Any evidentiary issues arising during such a prosecution would seem to be the province, at least initially, of the district court in which a trial is pending.
As you’ve gotten older do you has qualitative passage of time seemed to have sped up for you? If so in what manner? Does it stop speeding up at some point or does it just keep seeming to accelerate?
“do you has” = “has the”
Yes, it seems to speed up because you’ve seen it all before. When you’re a kid. Every day is a new experience to learn about.
Novelty takes more space subjectively. That’s the whole explanation.
My theory is that you don’t measure time in fixed units. You measure it in units that are, roughly, “what fraction of my whole life was that?”
The older you get, the smaller a fraction of your entire life so far each day is.
Faster and faster. You’ll get to the point where you can’t remember, in September 2022, whether something happened in July 2022 or July 2021, because it seems about the same.
Sorry, man. Should have enjoyed youth while you had it.
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day Fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way Kicking around on a piece of ground in your hometown Waiting for someone or something to show you the way
Tired of lying in the sunshine, staying home to watch the rain You are young and life is long, and there is time to kill today And then one day you find ten years have got behind you No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun
And you run, and you run to catch up with the sun but it’s sinking Racing around to come up behind you again The sun is the same in a relative way but you’re older Shorter of breath and one day closer to death
Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way The time is gone, the song is over, thought I’d something more to say
Today I ran 1/4 mile for the first time in decades. I have done many more strenuous things, like climbing Mount Washington. But I got out of the habit of running. I may run again some day. I like to think it will make me healthy rather than wrecking my knees.
The old sneakers I took out still fit despite being a full size smaller than my newer boots. I’m a man. Men’s sizes are supposed to be consistent and make sense, unlike women’s dresses and the like. Don’t tell me we are getting vanity sizing too.
When you’re 10 years old a single year is about 1/10th of your lifetime. And that year lasts forEVER! By the time you’re fifty it’s 1/50th of all the years you lived. A year still lasts 365 days, every day is still 24hrs, but it feels much much smaller.
And I would say, you only have memories for 5-7 of those first 10 years, so it feels more like 1/5 to 1/7 of your lifetime.
It probably depends most upon how much, and what, one plans to accomplish with the time remaining. As one approaches their “Expiration Date” their consciousness of this issue is, or can be (depending upon the person), more constant and palpable. (At 77 years of age, this is certainly the case for me.)
But this “Sword of Damocles” also seems a double-edged sword. Concern about gradual loss of physical and mental agility does prompt frequent comparison by me of the projected competency level remaining – hopefully another 7 to 8 years – with the state of my life those many years ago. (It also works in inverse order extrapolating the number of years since an event into an equal amount of time in the future.)
This awareness can, and does in my case, cause an expansion of effort to accomplish productive results as much as possible in the time remaining. (In my case it consists of both optimizing order in my physical space as well as devoting more time to pursing and completing certain authorship projects.) The awareness can then produce a sensation of acceleration because of the knowledge of the brevity of the available time. However, by virtue of the volume of productive use of the time it also produces a sensation of deceleration by virtue of recognition of how much has been accomplished in a short (or relatively-short) amount of time.
Nevertheless, it requires a conscious effort to recognize and be appreciative of both trends.
As you’ve gotten older do you has qualitative passage of time seemed to have sped up for you?
Yes, it is a recognized phenomena, explained by Otis above. Each year of your life represents a smaller fraction of your entire life.
Curious: What kind of lawyer should one seek out if you win the lottery?
No, I have not won the lottery. Just curious. 🙂
If you win a big prize, you don’t want a lawyer exactly, you want a biglaw firm. Not only will they have experts to cover the variety of things you probably want to do, but more importantly they have insurance and assets sufficient to protect you from malpractice or embezzlement.
If you just win a few million or whatever, you probably only need a lawyer who can handle real estate, wills, and anything specific you want such as trusts. A local boutique can probably handle it unless you plan something weird.
” Not only will they have experts to cover the variety of things you probably want to do, but more importantly they have insurance and assets sufficient to protect you from malpractice or embezzlement. ”
An excellent point. I persuaded a popular, highly compensated musician (fleeced viciously by his previous ramshackle advisors, but clearly uncomfortable in a huge, ornate, 60th-floor conference room) to engage my firm by telling him to ‘look around . . . we represent banks, insurers, railroads, billionaires . . . the dumbest thing this firm could ever do would be to take a single dollar from you. You’re not worth it.’ He thought for a moment, smiled, then insisted on signing the engagement letter before he left the room (he was touring, leaving town right after that night’s show).
” If you just win a few million or whatever, you probably only need a lawyer who can handle real estate, wills, and anything specific you want such as trusts.”
At a few million, that winner would still want to engage a substantial firm or at least check insurance. Some lawyers can comply with professional standards by arranging a few hundred thousand dollars of coverage, or perhaps by describing a lack of coverage in an engagement letter.
Small firms and sole practitioners can be great, better than large firms in many circumstances. But unsophisticated clients with most eggs in one basket should be careful.
Thank you Art!
Good luck, darkknight9. I hope you find the right fit.
Thank you Drewski!
Agree with Drewski. If you win something to live on for lifetimes, you really need an estate-planning attorney with lots of resources, and you’re most likely to find that at a very large law firm. That attorney, and the team behind them, will have the best chance of knowing how to implement a complex structure to protect you. And, at that point, money is no object.
If you win some lesser amount – say something less than $20 million, you could likely find a decent estate-planning attorney at any respected firm in your area.
As or more important, you will need a very good financial adviser, preferably one paid on an hourly basis (or that cuts you a very good deal based on assets under management). Do not pay someone on commissions or pick someone just because you heard them on the radio.
Thank you David!
I’m just going to say it. A lot of the Pixar movies I find to be overrated. A Bug’s Life is an inferior version of Antz. Brave is a generic grrlll power movie. All but maybe the first Cars sucks of course. The latest one I’ve seen with that Jazz guy I find the protagonist to be irritating but has gotten tons of accolades for some reason. I like the Toy Story movies but its essentially the same plot 4x over. The third one had an okay ending for the series I guess. Then the fourth one craps all over it. Yeah Pixar was and still is in some ways pushing forward computer animation so theres that I guess
They are very well executed.
I think it may more be that the themes those movies are going for aren’t really your bag. Not that they are inherently bad.
This should be posted on /r/unpopularopinions.
As Sarcastro said, they are all very well executed. Their later stuff isn’t as good as early things like Toy Story, but are still very well done. The first 10 minutes of Up is the saddest movie ever made.
Up is a magnificent work. Thank you for mentioning it.
“Up” is one of the small handful of “children’s movies” that I would strongly recommend to adults.
A comment from the Swedish Socialist Democratic paradise: Cash is dead here. If you don’t have a tap credit card you cannot even buy a cup of coffee. No cash is accepted anywhere. Therefore every move you make is recorded and available to the state.
If Dems have their way, coming soon to America.
LOL. This is such a typical Republican reaction. “Thing I don’t like? Must be the Dems!”
Reality: the handful of jurisdictions in the US that have requirements for businesses to accept cash are solidly blue, and did so under Democratic leadership. Colorado recently passed a law requiring cash acceptance. Every single one of the sponsors was a Democrat. The vote in the House was Dems: 40-0, Republicans 5-19. The vote in the Senate was Dems: 20-1, Republicans: 1-12. Recent attempts in Republican controlled Mississippi and South Dakota failed by a wide margin.
So if this future is coming to the US, it’s because of Republican priorities, not Democratic policy.
I guess that all the “……” cannot get credit cards, because you cannot get a credit card without an ID
I’ve gotten credit cards by filling out online applications. No ID required.
In fact, some have been approved instantaneously.
bernard, you did you establish your identity without establishing your financial identity? My guess is that identity is traceable to some seeing a government ID such as a drivers license
I genuinely can’t remember that last time I paid cash for something – I’m sure it’s been at least 5 years.
If the “Dems” are responsible for enabling this, they really should be more vocal about taking credit for it.
really, even to get a coffee or a donut?
Why do people make up daft lies like that?
Why do people believe them?
Currency, credit cards and money in Sweden
“Sweden is widely regarded as the most cashless society on the planet. Most of the country’s bank branches have stopped handling cash; many shops, museums and restaurants now only accept plastic or mobile payments.”
I see no reason a Swedish site promoting tourism would lie about that. Or perhaps you’re disputing that cashless transactions can be tracked?
Does it say that cash can no longer be used anywhere in Sweden?
Oh there my be some backwoods places with no electricity. But in Uppsala, no shop, no restaurant, and no hotel will take cash. If you want a coffee, you need a credit card.
Lots of places have stopped handling cash because 99%+ of their customers were paying by card. It’s not worth the costs to them to do so. There’s no conspiracy. Why the lies?
Doesn’t have to be a conspiracy. Seriously, are you actually trying to deny that all electronic transactions are trackable, or do you just want to sweep that under the table?
Whether the government set out to accomplish that, or just lucked into it, the lack of financial privacy is the same either way.
But it was still a lie.
mr know-it all, prove it or fuck off
Brett, Davedavedave show the usual idiocy around here of calling whatever he inconvenient truth he does like a “conspiracy theory. He i the one who made up the explanation the the Swedish Government made this a decree as a means of tracking the public. I only noted that in Sweden’s cashless society, almost every economic transaction is traceable and therefore an off-the-books economy far from the reach of tax authorities is extremely difficult. The taxman cometh and will not be denied
Why lie about what you wrote a few comments above, Nick? Surely even a 10 year old like you can understand that doesn’t work?
Dave, you are a damned fool. You know nothing about cashless Sweden and yrt you call a first hand report “lies.” You see you as just another know nothing troll. Bye.
Ho Hum Davedave, why the stutter
Because it is not a lie.
It’s certainly untrue, whatever you call it.
you’re wrong. Period. That makes you the liars.
Sorry Don, I’m not sure why it’s always you. Nonetheless, once again it falls to me to swoop in and defend Davedave against your lies.
Recognising the essentiality of cash to a safe and equal Swedish society, a law requiring banks to offer cash services, and ensure individuals do not have to travel far to access them, came into effect this January…. Low though the use of physical money is, it’s still required for nearly one in ten payments, but the reasoning behind the cash protection law has deeper foundations, rooted in societal security and fairness.
So, basically the opposite of your claim.
Although Sweden is a cashless country, it doesn’t mean that Sweden do not use cash. In fact, many places accept both and mostly in supermarkets too. The difference is that some supermarkets only have one cashier for cash payments.
Wait til you hear what the American NSA does. Or profit-seeking capitalist companies like Google and Facebook.
The insinuation that social democracy is what’s driving intrusive surveillance is ludicrous.
Some might even say it’s capitalism that’s driving it.
That is far more likely than Dave”s know-nothing blather.
I mean, yes, but those people would be Nazis. Why are you raising it?
I doubt that will happen here because they don’t want to make it impossible for illegal aliens to integrate in the economy, not to mention the homeless.
The Trump-appointed U. S. District Judge presiding over the lawsuit seeking a special master, Aileen Cannon, on August 27 entered a sua sponte order providing notice of her preliminary intent to appoint a special master in regard property seized in the search of Trump’s Mar-a-lago property. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.29.0_8.pdf At the time such order was entered, the only pleadings on file were those of Mr. Trump. To say that such a preliminary order is highly irregular is an understatment.
Recusal of a federal district judge is governed by 28 U.S.C. 455. Subsection (a) thereof provides that “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” That a judge in a particular case was appointed to the bench by one of the party litigants, without more, will not “create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that [the judge’s] ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence [would be] impaired.” In re Executive Office of the President, 215 F.3d 25, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
Here, however, the judge issued her irregular prelimiinary order without benefit of briefing from the United States. Moreover, the Trump pleadings that then had been filed were unverified and unsupported by affidavits, declarations or any evidence of any kind. (Unverified pleadings, of course, are not evidence.)
There is ample ground here for a reasonable person to question Judge Cannon’s impartiality. I hope that DOJ will seek her recusal.
You appeal to norms to defend the DOJ raiding a former President for the first time in history?
The situation is unusual but the process should follow the standards.
Mr. Trump should receive no more and no less deference than any one else would.
He’s already received much less deference than either of his general election opponents.
Anyone else who got caught taking government documents home when they shouldn’t have ended up in jail, sharpish.
Trump’s first general election opponent took home government document’s when she shouldn’t have, and never saw as much as a raid, much less prison time.
She didn’t take home anything, she co-operated with the investigations, and it turned out nothing she’d done was criminal.
Lying liars lie.
Yes, they do, but not I.
“She didn’t take home anything, she co-operated with the investigations, and it turned out nothing she’d done was criminal.”
Unless you are speaking “Clinton” not one point in that statement is true.
It is entirely true.
The server that improperly held government records was in her house. In a closet next to the bathroom, at one point.
She did not cooperate — she had her lawyers do an incompetent search, then erase everything else on her server.
And the FBI announced that she apparently broke the law, but that “no reasonable prosecutor” would want to join Vince Foster and Seth Rich.
The stories you weave are kinda lame.
Look at how hard Nige is leaning on semantics for lame. Clinton SENT stuff home, and told people to SEND stuff to get house. She didn’t TAKE anything home!
(He mixes in dishonesty for good measure, like her lawyers being a third party rather than her agents.)
The semantic distinction between people sending you work emails while you work and stealing boxes of secret documents as you leave office.
She did not ‘take anything home.’ Things were sent to her, by other people, in the course of her job.
The Feds were satisfied she co-operated fully, and that the erasure was an honest mistake performed by a third party.
The Feds did not announce that they were too scared of being murdered by evil assassins to prosecute Clinton.
And none of that matters because it has nothing to do with the investigation into Trump.
The server that improperly held government records was in her house. In a closet next to the bathroom, at one point.
Wrong. The server in a closet next to the bathroom was in a building in Denver, Colorado.
James Comey stole classified materials then leaked them. He didn’t end up in jail.
Wow, you’d think Trump’s DOJ would have been all over that.
Watching these half-educated right-wing dumbasses flail is perversely entertaining.
Watching the Volokh Conspiracy engage in partisan lathering of these bigoted hayseeds is comforting (with respect to the prospects for conservatism at the modern American marketplace of ideas).
Your unstated premise is that the DOJ is partisan, but that partisan direction is set by the President.
You’re only half right.
Why would it need to be partisan if he’d committed a crime?
The partisan DOJ doesn’t prosecute other Federals, you boob.
Not for violating a procedure, no.
Haha every piece of bullshit the GOP throws at the wall that’s too dumb to stick and has become a deep cut no one remembers?
You remember, and are like the only one who still believes it at this late date.
Impressive memory. Unfortunate true believer level of turning off any critical thinking.
Gaslight0 hard at work.
You buy into the Clinton Death List, it looks like.
Do you even know what ‘James Comey stole classified materials then leaked them’ refers to?
Gaslight your way out of that, Bootlicker.
I have no love for Comey, but violated FBI policy regarding memos he wrote is not ‘stole.’
I’ll give you leaked. I hadn’t heard about this report.
Which would seem to less be due to a coverup and more because it is pretty small fries compared to, for instance, what Trump has done.
You going to bring up Travelgate next, long as you’re into the deep cuts?
“violated FBI policy regarding memos he wrote is not ‘stole.’ ”
Your comrades are screaming about Trump “stealing” his documents. Non-tool that you are, you should call them out too.
Because that’s what Trump did. He didn’t violate a policy, he broke the law by first keeping the documents, then hiding them, and also storing them insecurely.
Seems like he’s taken full advantage of ALL his rights.
And on the other side of the ledger, the government has abused its privileges.
Which, if true, should give Trump’s legal team ample ammunition for their filings, as we have seen so far.
What, for giving immunity to all of Clinton’s aides and the deciding no prosecutor who wants to live would charge Clinton herself?
And for burying FBI or other criminal investigations into Biden family business? No, that just leads to people resigning so they don’t have to cooperate with internal probes.
The government has abused its priveleges in its current investigation of Trump nearly a decade ago in an entirely different investigation that has nothing to do with Trump or the Espionage Act? Yeah, I could believe Trump’s lawyers trying that on since it’s apparent they have nothing else.
The Hillary Clinton investigation was primarily about the classified information she kept on her unapproved server. That’s about the Espionage Act, your ignorance notwithstanding.
At no point was the Espionage Act invoked, not even by the Republican circus who at the time were overwhelmingly concerned about national security and who are now…not.
You are, as usual, full of shit. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/07/the-hillary-clinton-email-scandal-shows-the-espionage-act-is-outdated.html
So the Espionage Act didn’t apply to her case? Thanks for proving me right!
You said “At no point was the Espionage Act invoked”. I showed you that it was invoked. And even Clinton’s partisan defenders only claimed that the law was outdated, not inapplicable.
Fair enough, you found a evocation, but they say it wasn’t applicable to Clinton. The DOJ think it does apply to Trump, his case being somewhat different.
And for burying FBI or other criminal investigations into Biden family business? No, that just leads to people resigning so they don’t have to cooperate with internal probes.
You know who resigned so he wouldn’t have to cooperate with an internal probe? Tony Ornato, the Secret Service guy who Trumpkins were absolutely sure was going to prove Cassidy Hutchinson a liar.
“And on the other side of the ledger . . . .”
Mike P. losing an argument so conveniently changes his target.
You were the one who raised the question of getting more or less deference. One doesn’t get deference by asserting rights, one gets it from the government exercising discretion — or sometimes just cooperating in covering up crimes.
Still going with the lies, Mike?
How’s burying your head in the sand and ignoring the evidence working for you so far?
Facts are facts, you can’t lie your way out of this one.
It is very hard to get a judge removed for making an incorrect decision. In substance, the order appears no worse than any other “order to show cause why …” which has no immediate effect and asks the target to rebut a prima facie case.
This is not merely an incorrect decision. A prima facie case is necessarily based on evidence. Unverified pleadings are not evidence. Canon 3(A)(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges provides that a judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.
Here Judge Cannon staked out a position (albeit preliminarily) favorable to the party litigant who had appointed her to the bench based on no evidence whatsoever. That should lead a reasonable person to doubt her impartiality.
If you can suppress your knee-jerk partisan reflexes for a few seconds, it might start to look more like a move to preserve as much of the remaining status quo as possible while the issue was being briefed.
One cannot “preserve the status quo” with a bizarre order like that, and it did not in fact do so. Note that Trump’s “lawyers” never moved for any sort of TRO that would have allowed her to issue such a decision.
See note re prudent people below, magnified even further in an exceptionally sensitive and high-profile case like this. If they’re really intending on prosecuting this, they can’t afford to pick too many unnecessary fights.
Right. And the early signal also weakened any cover DOJ might have had to continue wading through the raw document collection prior to a formal order. This seems particularly relevant for the documents collected outside the “45 Office” that by design were not subject to review by DOJ’s privilege team. I saw that when the warrant was first unsealed and it blew my mind both that DOJ would request such a senseless carveout and Reinhart would sign off on it. Seems like a significant unforced error at best.
That’s not in fact a thing. A “I’m considering ruling this way” creates no rights or responsibilities in a party, and so of course DOJ properly continued (and finished) its review before its filing.
Foreign as this concept may be, “rights and responsibilities” are not the only factors prudent people consider in litigation. If a special master is appointed and determines that a bunch of the documents already reviewed by the prosecution team are indeed privileged, that has the strong potential for a sideshow that would have been fully avoidable by simply cooling their jets for a week or two.
Evidently, the actual professionals at the DOJ disagree with your analysis; they did in fact continue their review notwithstanding the weird non-order that she issued.
I certainly made no claim they’re being particularly prudent. If you think they are… well.
Fortunately, the attorneys for DOJ seem to be a bit more sensible than you.
I see nothing in Judge Cannon’s orders than a desire to dispose of the case on the (lack of) merits as expeditiously as possible, and no reason to doubt that she will do so.
Did you see Tina Fey was defeated by Democrat Mary Peltola in a special election for Alaska’s lone House seat Wednesday night — making the Democrat the first Native Alaskan to be elected to Congress.
Despite an endorsement from former President Donald Trump, she narrowly lost to Peltola, a former state lawmaker, in the state’s first ranked-choice election spurred by the death of Rep. Don Young.
Peltola took 51.5% of the vote compared to Fey’s 48.5% after multiple rounds of ranked-choice votes were tallied.
Don’t forget all the new mail in ballot rules.
No election security equals Democrat wins every time. So weird.
Do you have any evidence of election fraud?
Or just Dems are never allowed to legitimately win in your pinched worldview?
Especially since this is Alaska where ALL the offices are occupied by Republicans (well except this latest change).
You can tell about how bad mail elections are for Republicans by the way the Democrats have taken over Utah.
Yup. The fact that it was R 59 D 40 in the first round shows that she personally was the problem. Quite a few Republicans not willing to vote for her even as a second choice.
While I am no fan of Illya I do think he makes a point about stupid voters. While Palin’s popularity (or lack of it) may be part of the problem the ranked voting system was being used for the first time and new and different things can take time to get use to.
I am still of two minds about ranked choice voting which kinda explains my position that if I don’t completely understand it’s pros and cons I am not sure everyone else does. Not to mention ‘ranked choice voting’ has multiple flavors and there have been real arguments here about which flavor is best which only adds to the confusion.
Prof. Somin’s point is not about stupid voters! It’s the exact opposite! It’s about rational ignorance!
“she personally was the problem”
Of course but GOP voters in Alaska is split between a “populist” 60%+-majority and a “moderate” 40%+- minority. Some “moderates” often refuse to vote for a “populist” [eg Joe Miller in 2010] and the “moderate” leader Murkowski hates Palin because Palin beat her dad back in 2006.
So its complicated. Palin might still win in a general election though with more voters.
I wish Alaska had published the second choice votes for both Peltola and Palin. That way, we would have known who would have won in the two-way matchups of Peltola-Begich and Palin-Begich. It’s possible Begich would win both of those and yet can’t get elected under any of 1) a traditional primary system (Palin beats Begich just among Republicans), 2) a plurality winner among multiple candidates, 3) a two-way runoff between the the top two (Louisiana style), and 4) ranked-choice voting.
Results from the election revealed that 40% of candidates chose Peltola as their first choice, 31% selected Palin as their first choice and 29% chose Begich as their first choice. Following ranked choice guidelines, Begich was eliminated and his votes were dispersed to Peltola and Palin. Peltola received 15,445 second choice votes from Begich and Palin received 27,042 second choice votes from Begich, bringing Peltola’s total to 91,206, compared to Palin’s 85,987. (Fox News)
Not sure if this shows what you’re looking for: https://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/22SSPG/RcvDetailedReport.pdf
“The seat to represent Alaska’s at-large congressional district became vacant after Rep. Don Young, a Republican who held the seat for 49 years after winning a special election in 1973, passed away earlier this year.”
Hmmm. . . . can anyone say Term Limits?
No. I want to know how Palin’s votes would have been distributed had she been eliminated even though she wasn’t third, and then the same for Peltola. It wouldn’t surprise me if Begich wins in both of those cases. If so, then Begich>Palin (no Peltola) and Begich>Peltola (no Plain), but Begich<Palin<Peltola.
I read that Palin specifically told her supporters to put down no second choice, and one imagines a lot of them followed her instructions. I don’t know if she was just being hardheaded, or maybe she wanted to scare Begich voters into outright switching to her, by killing their hopes of him winnng off 2nd choice votes.
It looks like it backfired: quite a few Begich supporters reciprocated by not listing Palin as second choice. If that hadn’t happened she would’ve won.
So she Peltola won by a margin of 3% despite the two GOP candidates getting 60% of the vote, and they have to do it all over again in the general election in 2 months.
We will see what happens then when the voters and GOP have an opportunity to see exactly what went wrong. Perhaps Begich or Palin will drop out, perhaps the higher turnout will decide things, and perhaps more voters will indicate a second choice or switch candidates in their first and second choice rankings.
MLB argues umpire Angel Hernandez’s 3 overturned calls in 2018 ALDS cost him World Series spot
The Cuba-born Hernandez was hired as a big league umpire in 1993 and sued in 2017, alleging he was discriminated against because he had not been assigned to the World Series since 2005 and had been passed over for crew chief.
U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken granted a summary judgment to MLB in March 2021, and Hernandez asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February to throw out Oetken’s decision.
“Hernandez has not presented, and the record does not contain, a scintilla of evidence that MLB’s actions were based on his race or national origin,” MLB wrote in a 58-page filing on Wednesday.
MLB said Hernandez doesn’t have a legal basis to claim that he need not show discrimination statistically because of the relatively small sample sizes involved in his case.
Being a professional ump/ref must suck.
Your job performance is seen by 10/100 thousands if not millions (Super Bowl, World Cup, Olympics), and one split second decision can ruin your life (death threats, attacks, etc.).
Here’s a video of a referee drawing a weapon!
“MLB said Hernandez doesn’t have a legal basis to claim that he need not show discrimination statistically because of the relatively small sample sizes involved in his case.”
The judge obviously didn’t get the point, in that case. It’s not a matter of law, but of statistics. You can’t apply an impossible statistical burden to such cases, that’s the same as barring them completely, and obviously unconstitutional. If the sample size isn’t big enough, then statistics calculated from it have no statistical significance.
This doesn’t speak to the merits or otherwise of the case beyond that. But it is obviously unjust to require someone to prove something with statistics that statistics cannot prove.
If you follow baseball, you know that Angel Hernandez is the worst ump in the game by a wide margin. If you asked every player in the game — black, white, hispanic, asian etc. — who the worst umpire is, almost every single one would say Angel Hernandez.
Not only is he a bad ump, he is also a jerk.
That he continues to have a job is the real outrage.
100 percent correct.
Exactly. Also, Hernandez had a terrible lawyer; he argued in the complaint that he was discriminated against because Joe Torre (the supervisor of umpires) held a grudge against him based on a call he had made against the Yankees when Torre was managing them.
But that’s evidence he wasn’t discriminated against based on race!
The participation of two of Donald Trump’s lawyers in stiffing the National Archives and the Department of Justice in regard to a grand jury subpoena for materials moved to Mar-a-lago may prove to be problematic for Trump (and to the lawyers themselves). The New York Times reports that M. Evan Corcoran and Christina Bobb are likely to become witnesses or targets in the investigation into how Trump hoarded documents marked as classified. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/us/trump-lawyers-witnesses-investigation.html
Trump has a way of corrupting everyone and everything he comes into contact with.
The RNC isn’t paying Trump’s legal bills over the Mar-a-Lago raid despite having bankrolled his personal lawyers in the past, report says
As of December last year, the committee had agreed to foot the bill for around $1.6 million in legal fees, as The New York Times reported.
At least $121,000 of this relates to two criminal probes, conducted by the Manhattan and New York District Attorneys’ offices, into the Trump Organization’s business dealings, per The Washington Post.
At the time, Vaughn told The Post that “defending President Trump and his record of achievement is critical to the GOP,” and that it was “entirely appropriate” to help.
Abandon Ship!!! Abandon Ship!!!
It’s notable that Christina Bobb isn’t really a lawyer at all. Well, she’s qualified, I think – but a Trump stooge who hasn’t practiced law, rather than the type of high-powered legal advisor you’d expect an ex-POTUS to be able to retain. Corcoran is at least a lawyer of sorts.
Seems like every reputable law firm is running a mile, at this point.
Two reasons they are. Most obvious: They know they will, at best, be paid pennies on the dollar. Also most obvious: He has zero discipline, listens to no one, and will frustrate their every effort and make them look like fools at every single turn.
They also aren’t willing to perjure themselves for him…
Christina Bobb’s June 3 affidavit (Attachment F to the DOJ August 30 response) recites:
3. Based upon the information that has been provided to me, I am authorized to certify, on behalf of the Office of Donald J. Trump, the following: a. A diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida; b. This search was conducted after receipt of the subpoena, in order to locate any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena; c. Any and all responsive documents accompany this certification; and d. No copy, written notation, or reproduction of any kind was retained as to any responsive document.
3. Based upon the information that has been provided to me, I am authorized to certify, on behalf of the Office of Donald J. Trump, the following:
a. A diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida;
b. This search was conducted after receipt of the subpoena, in order to locate any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena;
c. Any and all responsive documents accompany this certification; and
d. No copy, written notation, or reproduction of any kind was retained as to any responsive document.
The use of the passive voice conceals who provided information to the affiant, as well as who conducted the “diligent search” and who moved the boxes to begin with. (The New York Times has reported that after receiving the subpoena, M. Evan Corcoran searched through boxes kept in a storage area in Mar-a-Lago’s basement for files with classified marking.)
This affidavit puts at issue just what information had theretofore been provided to the affiant. If Donald Trump is the source of Ms. Bobb’s information, the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege likely applies. If Mr. Corcoran and/or Ms. Bobb invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, DOJ may want to immunize them such that that privilege would become unavailable. (FWIW, Mr. Corcoran likely has a huge conflict of interest in continuing to represent Mr. Trump in litigation involving the documents found at Mar-a-lago.)
Related to the crime-fraud exception: Eastman took the Fifth in the Georgia election probe.
IANAL, so when it says, “. . .on behalf of the Office of Donald J. Trump. . .,” what does that mean?
On behalf of “the office?”
Is her client “the office?”
Note also, if there were other national security-related documents involved, which were not moved to Mar-A-Lago in the mentioned boxes, but got there some other way, a literal reading would seem to excuse them from the affidavit, especially if those differently-handled documents were stored elsewhere than in the boxes.
Should those lawyers be prosecuted for crimes, or merely disbarred?
Rev, why you got to be so narrow minded?
They can easily be prosecuted AND disbarred.
Sometimes my leniency overcomes sound judgment.
Return of spanking in Missouri school district highlights a lingering and unequal practice
Corporal punishment is more likely to be allowed in southern states, particularly in districts in poorer, rural areas and with a high proportion of Black children. She added that districts that allowed corporal punishment were also located in Republican-leaning areas that are also more evangelical, where social conservatism is at play.
Missouri gotta Missouri.
Where’s the Eight Amendment?
Where’s due process?
What are the standards that determine when a teacher may spank a student – and what defense(s) are available for a student?
Corporal punishment and child marriage – from the people who love to smear their opponents as groomers and abusers.
The ‘I have to have guns to defend my rights’ mob will presumably be lynching any teacher who touches their kids violently?
Parents requested it and give their explicit permission.
You people are always so ignorant.
I’m sure at least some of them did. What appalling people. All of them, though? Are the children of parents who did not agree exempt? They just have to witness other children being beaten. Horrible.
There are some things we don’t let parents do.
Says the guy who supports non-parents grooming and molesting other people’s kids.
Since your definition of grooming is like ‘see a gay person’ I don’t much care what you think.
Willfully ignorant to hide the truth.
It’s legalised physical abuse, everyone who supports it is bad.
Spanking? I don’t remember that being an option in catholic school. I remember Sister Loretta trying to staple Dan’s hand to a desk *(staples not long enough). She calmed down after 7-8 whacks of the ole Swingline. I remember Sister Veronica waiting behind her classroom door until someone went running down the hall and she’d open the door and hit you with it (I got one of those). And I remember the Dean of Students walking down the hallway in 9th grade past one of the popular guys (Eric was his name) who had gotten an earring, and without breaking stride reached up, grabbed the earring by the front and back and ripped it out through his earlobe. He then threw the earring up in the air and caught it when it came down like it was a ball. Blood all over the place. But spanking? Not an option that I remember being used.
Having experienced that kind of childhood trauma without counseling explains a lot about the problems you have these days. It’s not too late to get help for it, though.
If the perps are still alive, you should contact the police regarding the abuse you witnessed. There are probably already open cases to which your evidence could be key to successful prosecutions.
? “…the problems you have these days.”? You put the who in the what now? How do you know whether or not anyone has sought mental health help? 🙂 I guess I’m saying who whizzed in your corn flakes this morning? The ‘perps’ would be near or over 100 years old now… And some of them are nuns. Hedging my bets on whether or not there’s an afterlife, I’ll pass on the nun tattling.
Double Dave also thinks Trump will be executed for treason. Not convicted of obstruction, or mishandling classified docs, but treason. Methinks he is not 100% compos mentis.
I haven’t said anything of the sort, you liar. I have said it’s quite unlikely he’ll face the death penalty, because he’ll plea bargain that away.
We all know he committed treason, and that if he confesses to every crime he’s committed – which I said there’s no chance of – then he’d have to be executed.
Davedave August.25.2022 at 9:01 am Flag Comment Mute User … 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. …
Get back on the meds, son.
After further interaction I’m inclined to agree with you that “…he is not 100% compos mentis.”
Is he always like this?
I don’t want to upset Yale Med School by making a diagnosis without actually examining him, but the legal phrase “res ipsa loquitur” does spring to mind.
You’ve made it quite clear you need help for these issues, because there’s a trauma there you can’t even acknowledge let alone deal with.
It’s not impossible some of the perps are still alive, and we even prosecute old people when their crimes finally catch up with them.
I really can’t see that it matters which abusive organisation they belong to, except insofar as they still have you to terrified of their retribution to go to the police about obvious and rather vile crimes against children.
Ooookay Dr Davedave. It appears you should focus on self diagnosis of your own stuff before judging others. Or at least go finish medical school and post residency, then come back and drop that wicked medical knowledge on us miss Cleo.
“It’s not impossible …I really can’t see…go to the police about obvious and rather vile crimes against children.”
Statute of Limitations.
The statute of limitations isn’t applicable here, in civilised jurisdictions. Lots of prosecutions of those who committed historical child abuse crimes are now in progress.
Sex crimes. You’ll note that the situations above mention no sexual contact.
Have a pleasant weekend.
Someone — apparently the New York AG’s office — leaked to the media confidential tax records naming anonymous donors to a conservative PAC. When will the US DOJ file charges in this crime?
Politico on Friday published information about donors who had made anonymous contributions to Haley’s advocacy group, Stand for America Inc. The 2019 IRS filing had been obtained by a watchdog group called Documented, and shared with Politico.
The outlet reported that Stand for America had received donations from donors including Miriam and Sheldon Adelson, Suzanne Youngkin (the wife of Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin) and former Pennsylvania Senate candidate David McCormick.
Politico reported that Haley’s team moved to stop publication of the story, with a cease-and-desist letter that said Politico “was not authorized to receive the confidential tax return information, nor is Politico entitled to print, publish, or even retain it.” Politico responded by saying that the reporting “is in the public interest and fully protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” (Fox News)
MP, why do you think it was the NY AG’s office that leaked the document?
Because the NY AG’s office stamped the document:
However, the organization Documented, which describes itself as a nonpartisan government watchdog that investigates money in politics, obtained an unredacted copy of Stand For America’s 2019 filings, which it then shared with POLITICO. The group did not share the original source of the filing, but it bears a stamp from the charity office of the New York state attorney general.
So? Why do you think it was the NY AG’s office that leaked the document?
Are you just trying to distract, or do you really think that handling something and leaking it are the same thing? If it’s the latter, you’re accusing Trump of spying for foreign powers…
Offices that receive documents stamp them to provide a paper trail. That office wasn’t supposed to distribute the filing further, and yet it was distributed further. Who else do you think did that?
“That office wasn’t supposed to distribute the filing further”
Rubbish. They were perfectly entitled to pass it along to various partner agencies, contractors, etc.
We have no idea who leaked it. You’re just making stuff up.
LOL The documents were in the custody of the the AG and somehow another organization had possession of them but in your mind, nobody leaked them.
If nothing else, the documents were not properly maintained. But like one state leaking the names and addresses of every gun permit holder, you can bet the same happened in NY
California AG leak: https://californiaglobe.com/articles/calif-attorney-general-leaks-names-and-addresses-of-states-legal-gun-owners-following-scotus-gun-ruling/
Or when something similar happened in NY:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/outrage-after-ny-paper-publishes-names-of-gun-permit-holders/
“They were perfectly entitled to pass it along to various partner agencies, contractors, etc. ”
Were they? Show your work under NY law.
Why wouldn’t we think it? Democratic governments leaking this sort of information illegally is becoming fairly routine. Look at California: They leak so much supposedly private information on their enemies that the courts there are now starting to apply a presumption of leaks to analyze whether data can be demanded in the first place.
They’re The Good Guys
Democratic governments leaking this sort of information illegally is becoming fairly routine.
How sure are you you’re interpreting what’s going on in California correctly? And how sure are you that you can generalize that beyond that often idiosyncratic state?
I mean, you’re always certain, especially when it comes to the evil of Democrats.
Reflexively defending Dems again, you non-partisan.
LOL when did I say I was non-partisan? Plenty of room to be partisan without being a tool about it.
Asking Brett to back up his bullshit is not really partisan, unless you don’t care about whether something is true so long as it makes people hate…oh, right.
See, for instance. California DOJ data breach exposes personal information of all concealed carry permit holders across state
So now a data breech is an intentional leak.
And nothing about a presumption shifting.
And the legal consequences of California routinely ‘accidentally’ leaking information on political enemies: Supreme Court Sides With Conservative Groups, Empowers Dark Money Groups With Ruling Striking Down California Donor Law
That’s a legal decision. You’re offering it to prove a fact that it does not seem to address.
Is it a federal crime to release state tax records?
When will the US DOJ file charges in this crime?
Any day now, if you mean the crime of contributing to the insurrection (unless they come up with some bullshit violation of campaign-finance laws).
These days, it’s almost as dangerous to be a prominent Russian as to report on secret meetings between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62750584
Love me a Clinton Kill List devotee in the wild.
That’s really splendidly loony, given that we know for a fact that Putin has personally participated in killings of his political opponents.
Do you think Putin himself threw Maganov out that window?
I guess that’s no more nutty than anything else you’ve written, but cases like Alexei Navalny’s and Anna Politkovskaya’s suggest that Putin prefers sending minions.
Maganov publicly opposed the war, sorry, special military operation. I think we all know who had him killed.
It’s true that the guy who broke the story on Lynch and Clinton’s secret meeting was found dead recently, an apparent suicide. I suppose it’s not impossible he was killed, but people often suffer from severe depression for years without people around them noticing. And then people are shocked when they kill themselves.
Back in 2008 somebody wrote a book arguing that Hillary Clinton didn’t kill Vince Foster, only drove him to suicide. I suppose it’s possible.
Got an arrangement with a local farmer: He gave me some pig hearts and livers, I’m making them into liver sausage and returning half. Made my first batch last night. Three chubs, about 7 pounds total.
Took what was left in my stuffer and baked it in the oven, (Liver sausage is packed raw!) and the taste seems fine. A bit earthier than the liver sausage you get in the stores. Tonight we’ll open one of the chubs and see what the texture is like.
1) Smaller batches: Just a bit too much for my bender, and it was a tight fit in the slow cooker I used to poach them, too.
2) Wife says I have to make the next batch in the backyard, something about the smell of raw liver in a blender.
3) A messy process!
If anyone gave me a pig’s heart the first thing I’d want to do is re-enact the scene in Mann’s Last Of The Mohicans where Magua holds up the dripping bloody heart of his enemy.
Sounds in character for you. Would you pretend that it’s Trump’s heart?
No, for fuck’s sake, the heart of some poxy redcoat who massacred my family.
Why pretend? Trump and pig are not mutually exclusive.
I wouldn’t do him the honour, even in silly film re-enactments.
Taking a fun comment and trying to pivot it into an empty partisan insult?
Have you ever had fun in your life?
Yes, reading the stupid shit you post.
You have an odd taste in what you consider fun.
Sure doesn’t sound like you are having fun.
Pig hearts are a bit smaller than you might expect, about the size of a partly deflated tennis ball. 150g each. So the theatrical application would be less than impressive. You’d probably want a veal heart for that, the size would be better.
Hey, I’ll take what I can get.
The grey-hair WILL be put under the knife.
Cosplay with pig hearts.
At least I have a heart. Two, now.
How similar are they in flavour to calf hearts? The latter are excellent eating after a long braise.
Been too long since I had calf heart for me to really say. My family ate a lot of beef liver when I was a child, so I developed a taste for it, but I don’t think I had heart or tongue until I was middle aged, and only just once as an experiment.
I don’t think the flavor was bad, certainly, and it cut the liver flavor in the sausage, produced a earthy, meaty tasting mix. If the poached chubs taste anything like the sample I baked, I’ll be happy with them. Nothing like the liver sausage I had last time I was in Germany, though: That was glorious!
We had heart and tongue not infrequently when I was younger – my parents kept a kosher household and they were relatively cheap meats and extremely tasty. I’ve not had heart for a while, but occasionally will have pressed tongue on rye from a NY deli.
If God had meant me to eat hearts and livers He would have had me born in a poorer country.
Better develop a taste for them because your on your way to being in that poorer country.
Prospects may be dimmer for those who can not distinguish you from you’re, but my income is increasing despite my efforts to glide into retirement.
Haste make waste. How many points off?
Don’t you wish there were government inspectors overseeing things? You could get the ingredients inspected and the final product signed off on.
Did you get government approved training to prepare this food? Something could go wrong somehow otherwise.
Do you feel ashamed that you’re taking work away from a union worker by doing it yourself?
Connecticut assistant principle put on leave after admitting to anti-Catholic bias in hiring decisions.
This one is…impressive. Seems Catholics were just too conservative for him, so he wouldn’t hire any. Then said so on camera.
This is a new era of religious bias and discrimination.
If the word “Catholic” had been replaced with “Black”….you’d be screaming bloody murder here.
This is just the most stupid people admitting it…thinking this is OK to promote people of their own political beliefs.
Ironically, that’s what the bias was. Catholics were “too conservative”.
No, actually. Sorry but I am not the partisan tool you are.
An individual white supremecist asshole existing doesn’t prove anything about the world at large.
“I am not the partisan tool you are.”
Extreme delusions can be a sign of mental illness.
“I am not a partisan tool but will defend my side every time”.
I’m a liberal, but I don’t demonize the GOP or go nutpicking.
AL does, because he’s a partisan tool.
It doesn’t surprise me much someone with as notably warped a moral compass as you don’t see much difference between having an ideology (and associated bias), and utterly giving up all principles to serve an ideology.
A nut just like nuts at University of Iowa, Wayne State University, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, San Jose Unified School District, UW Madison, UC Davis, and more.
Maybe you should join a side with fewer nuts.
Assuming your references relate to real shit, 6 nuts is not a lot.
Those cases were of entire school administrations discriminating like this. For example, the Iowa case involved three administrators who did not get QI because the violation was so egregious: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-iowa-officials-liable-targeting-christian-group-76615799
The entire administration of U Iowa is 3 people?
Such exaggerations are what you need to do when all you have is nutpicking.
Same as any news report about any event.
Yes – the principle of not generalizing based on a news story is a pretty good one.
The guy sounds like an asshole, but… how far James O’Keefe has fallen. From trying to take down politicians and the MSM and national advocacy groups to… an individual school vice principal.
The dangers of marijuana escalate.
For decades, we were told that weed wasn’t dangerous. It was OK, and it was legalized at the state level. I…was worried. Big tobacco would get into it. The product would change, become more addictive, more dangerous.
I was right. Altria has bought major portions of cannibis companies. The THC in weed has gone from 2% in the 60’s, and 5% in the 90’s to over 20% today. That’s before you start elevating it to ~80% via the “products” used. It’s addictive now. And 1 in twenty users of weed will develop Schizophrenia.
It’s time to step back from legalization….
What’s your life lacking, that you find it necessary to go on the internet and get excited about imaginary problems?
None of the ‘stats’ you list are true, and there is no link between long-term cannabis use and schizophrenia. A handful of people who are already psychotic are triggered by cannabis, but aside from that there are many, many millions of long-term users who have no problems as a result.
Do you have any evidence that none of the stats are true?
I’ve posted links, testimonies of psychiatrists, and more. Here’s another link to peer-reviewed publications.
Denial of the dangers of marijuana are dangerous, just like denials of the dangers of tobacco or alcohol.
If we’re doing a comparison between alcohol and weed, it used to be that weed was like a cheap beer. Weak in THC/alcohol content. Basically impossible to OD on. These days, it’s more like grain alcohol.
Are you in favor of banning tobacco or alcohol? If not, weird to compare the thing you want to ban with legal vices.
Yes, prolonged drug use seems to be one of many environmental factors that can trigger schizophrenia. But that a pretty weak case to hang your puritanical bullshit on.
Given the level of understudy with the high THC concentrations, and the early studies, and the current federal ban in place…
THC appears to be potentially far more dangerous long term than alcohol or tobacco. More on the order of some opioids.
Banning is appropriate until further studies can be completed.
As so it’s an unknown you rely on.
Even more lame.
You think compounds people are ingesting that have known detrimental effects….shouldn’t be tested? Have the injenging stopped until they are tested? Especially when the doses are increasing?
That’s insane. You seem to just be a pot freak. Laws which you would apply to virtually any other situation are disregarded when it comes to pot.
I think we should do as much research as possible to understand the health impacts of marijuana.
It also should be legal, even if it has negative health impacts. Sugar is horrible for health, but also in tons of foods and legal.
I think there should be a strong presumption against overriding the decisions of adults about what they put in their own body.
Personally, I’m in favor of legalizing ALL drugs, or rather relegalizing them. But it’s certainly not because I think they’re harmless. It’s in spite of them being harmful.
We should concentrate on making sure all the harm from drugs lands on the people who’ve chosen to use them, rather than people sensible enough to refrain. And then just let the stupid people get on with destroying their own lives in peace.
That is a pretty hellish society you want.
Addiction is not a moral failing; it is an illness. Don’t punish people for an illness.
You know what’s really hellish? A society where making the right choices WON’T save you, because things have been arranged to spread the harm from harmful decisions to people who were sensible enough not to make them.
I want the cost of mistakes to fall on the people who make them, because the alternative isn’t mistakes being costless. It’s that cost falling on the people who DIDN’T make the mistakes.
You? You’d perpetrate injustice and call it mercy, that’s how twisted you are.
“Addiction is not a moral failing; it is an illness.”
Feh. It’s an illness caused by a moral failing, unless somebody kidnaps you and addicts you to something without giving you any choice in the matter.
‘because things have been arranged to spread the harm from harmful decisions to people who were sensible enough not to make them’
I entirely agree, but to me this means lives and communities destroyed through pollution and exploitation and environmental destruction, industries and businesses strip-mined and offshored, workers in third-world countries exploited to the point of slavery for cheap consumer goods, towns hollowed out by big-store developments, the poorest all over the world having to suffer the effects of climate change caused by the richest countries who still refuse to change, the casualties of illegal wars, support for brutal and tyrannical regimes, and so on. Addicts getting heathcare for their disease doens’t register. In fact the knock-on suffering from untreated addiction would be one of harms spread by the decision of others to deny addicts treatment, as would the harms from the War On Drugs.
Addiction is a moral failing?
I don’t think so. A person who becomes addicted never had any intention of hurting anyone else.
I agree with you about legalization. But I also think we should spend money to try to help people who want help conquer any serious addiction they acquire.
Back in the day I was a serious triathlete when Dave Scott was dominating the Ironman races. Same time period when there were the infamous ‘this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs’ PSA. Dave Scott made one where he said ‘go ahead and use drugs, see if I care, it just makes you easier to beat’. Kinda sums up my position.
“What’s your life lacking, that you find it necessary to go on the internet and get excited about imaginary problems?”
What’s your life lacking that you feel the need to respond?
Why are you worried about the THC concentration?
What makes marijuana addictive “now” as opposed to presumably not being so previously?
Is this just another instance of you complaining about that which you don’t understand?
What’s the difference between a 4% beer and Everclear? Think about it.
If you don’t understand how concentration of a drug affects things, then perhaps you shouldn’t be commenting on it.
Different substances are different. Good lord this is facile.
2+2=4, and 3+3=6, but that doesn’t mean the arithmetic is substantially different.
If you don’t know, and it’s clear you don’t….
The concept is that the dose of a drug is important when considering its effects…including its propensity to addiction.
To give an example of this, take a bottle of non-alcoholic beer. It actually has an alcohol volume of 0.4%. But it’s almost impossible to be “addicted” to this beer. The alcohol concentration is too low. Increase the alcohol concentration to 8% (a 20-fold increase) and you’re talking about a light beer. It’s very possible to get addicted to that. Increase the concentration again by 5-fold, and you’re looking at a 40% vodka, which you can die from ODing on, and it can be very addictive.
Let’s do the same thing with marijuana. The original stuff from the 1960s had a THC concentration of ~2%. Now, it has a concentration 20%, a 10-fold increase. Increase it another 4-5 fold, and you’re looking at the “dabs” and other products people are using, which are 80% to 100% THC.
The studies that just looked at the 2% weed…aren’t really relevant anymore, anymore than looking at alcoholism by just looking at O’Douls would be. The dose has increased dramatically. And the modern studies are pointing out very pointed risks.
Again with the analogy to alcohol.
Booze is legal, dude! And alcohol is not THC. Dosing matters doesn’t mean it matters in the same way.
I make analogies to things that people better understand here.
And how drugs which may not be dangerous at low doses can be very dangerous at higher doses.
And how having untested drugs with psychoactive effects on the market is extremely unwise and dangerous.
I think you analogy is fine, but I am not sure the issue is concentration as much as quantity. Two servings of something that is 20% alcohol is going to end up having the same effect as one serving of 40% alcohol and 3 servings more effect. Thus, more effect may occur from consuming a lower concentration depending on the quantity consumed.
(Quantity consumed can’t be assumed to be constant, since people often consume until they get high.)
“the issue is concentration as much as quantity.”
The issue with concentration is that it effectively limits how much quantity can be ingested/inhaled.
To give an example, you can..in theory…get drunk off non-alcoholic beer. It has 0.4% alcohol. You just need to drink 20-30 of them in quick order. In practice, drinking 240 oz of beer in short order is pretty difficult. It’s far easier to down 2 shots of vodka.
Likewise, with just 2% THC marijuana, it is far more difficult to hit the same threshhold as modern day 20% marijuana.
I think his analogy is reasonable. Alcohol is, as you say, legal. Alcohol is also a drug.
I am sure there is some link to quantity and addictiveness, but I doubt it is simple. There is the additional issue of tolerance.
He’s using the harms of alcohol to bootstrap THC into the same harmful camp.
This is doubly wrong. Factually, because the substances have different effects. And legally, because alcohol is legal so the argument we should make pot illegal for similar harms doesn’t play.
I agree with your bottom-line, I just don’t think the comparison with respect to concentration/quantity is totally invalid.
To your point, alcohol is much more likely to:
(1) cause aggressive behavior, including sexual assault, and (2) impair driving
than is marijuana.
I also agree with you point on legality.
I do think that the idea that drugs may be more addictive or less addictive based on the quantity consumed is an interesting and plausible idea. I am not familiar with the research on this; it could be completely wrong. But my intuition is that if this idea is valid for alcohol it would be valid for marijuana and vice-versa.
I think his focus on concentration rather than quantity is likely misplaced. We all should know from health class that drinking N larger beers is equivalent to drinking M smaller shots. The smaller shots have higher concentration, but the impact isn’t different than the beer.
That isn’t to say that concentration never matters. Higher concentration is likely to result in higher quantity consumption, sometimes. But in cases where it doesn’t, it shouldn’t usually matter.
Typically physiological addiction just requires enough of the active ingredient to have significant effects on your body. Your body then adapts in an effort to return to the status quo, and when you stop using the drug you suffer from that. So all physiological addiction needs is for the active ingredient to be concentrated enough to make taking the relevant amount of it feasible.
So, for instance, enough people are physiologically addicted to caffeine that pain killers often have caffeine as one of the ingredients, on the assumption that most headaches are just caffeine withdrawal.
Psychological addiction is a different thing: It’s a function of how fast the effects set in. Fast onset of the desired effects of the drug makes for a more efficient linkage of cause and effect by your brain, which is critical to psychological addiction.
Inhalation is about the fastest onset administration route short of injection, while consumption in food and beverages is fairly slow. So inhaled products are much more efficient at producing psychological addiction, and concentrated inhaled products are the most addictive because you get the effect so fast.
So, yeah, you can get physiologically addicted to pot at fairly low THC concentrations, but high concentrations make psychological addiction more likely. And, seriously, it’s the psychological addiction that has the most social consequences.
I think quantity matters more than concentration. I think concentration matters to the extent that with higher concentration people are more likely to consume a higher quantity.
No. Caffeine has an actual effect; it is a analgesic adjuvant. It has nothing to do with any such “assumption.”
8% is not light beer
Benb for the win again! Yes, AL obviously has no clue what he’s talking about. I wonder if he’s seen Reefer Madness? 85 years later and nothing has changed.
Let’s do the same thing with marijuana. The original stuff from the 1960s had a THC concentration of ~2%. Now, it has a concentration 20%, a 10-fold increase. Increase it another 4-5 fold, and you’re looking at the “dabs” and other products people are using, which are 80% to 100% THC.
This bizarrely assumes that people are using the same amount of something which is allegedly more potent, rather than reducing their consumption since they can get the same effect with far less.
But indeed…that’s what people are doing.
“This bizarrely assumes that people are using the same amount of something which is allegedly more potent, rather than reducing their consumption since they can get the same effect with far less.”
Is that what you do when you get a bag of the good stuff? Tell the truth.
If that seems bizarre, think about how people consume beer vs. whiskey, or coca leaves vs. cocaine, for that matter.
You think people drink several 12oz whiskeys while watching the game?
The actual effects of each strain is based on the terpenes, not the THC percentage.
It is nothing akin to alcohol percentage whatsoever. 20% THC with terpenes that work for your body will be far more potent than 30% THC without the same terpenes.
So perhaps I understand the subject better than you do, and I asked a question designed to demonstrate that you don’t actually know anything about it.
“The actual effects of each strain is based on the terpenes, not the THC percentage.”
“It is nothing akin to alcohol percentage whatsoever. 20% THC with terpenes that work for your body will be far more potent than 30% THC without the same terpenes.”
Provide evidence to support this proposal.
Include specific terpenes, effects on specific receptors, concentrations of specific terpenes in relation to THC, relevant marijuana strains with percentages of THC and percentages of relevant, specified terpenes, and any synergistic effects on specified receptors.
Or pull a Sarcastro, as I expect you will, and say “Do your own research” and don’t back up your statements
My information comes from the people who actually work at the dispensaries, and general information easily found online by anyone who actually knew the word “terpene” before a few hours ago.
Since I’m well aware that your paranoia is a more reliable source than the experts who actually work in the industry, here is one study done regarding the entourage effect (ie. How terpenes and cannabinoids interact).
In the meantime, since you’re totally not a hypocrite, why don’t you do the same for your delusions:
“Provide evidence to support this proposal.”
I missed the part where you’ve included any of what you immediately ask from others.
1. The people who “work at the dispensaries” don’t know jack about the actual science behind all of this. It’s like asking your cashier at the supermarket about how they genetically engineer the tomatoes you just bought. That line alone reveals just how out of your depth you are.
2. You do understand that “terpene” refers to a broad array of different chemicals, all of which have different activities at various receptors, typically pretty low activity (in the high micromolar level to millimolar). But probably you don’t understand that…. You see “terpenes” (including alpha-pinene, and beta-pinene) are found in a broad array of plants, including pine trees. When I asked for the specific terpene that was relavent to the effects…I got nothing from you.
3. What you refer to as an “entourage” effect is actually called “synergy.” When two compounds acting together have a greater than additive effect. But key here…you need to know which compounds.
4. I asked for SPECIFIC CHEMICALS and IC50 values. You gave a review which provided none of that.
So since you provided nothing, and clearly have no idea what you’re talking about (seriously…the guys at the dispensory….) I think we’re done here, unless you can actually provide evidence of
1. Which specific terpene you’re interested in. 2. What is the IC50 value of it against the CB1 receptor 3. What is the IC50 value of it in conjunction with THC, which is providing a synergistic effect of >50%
1) I suppose you’re the kind of person who would argue that a bartender doesn’t know anything about drinks.
2) Indeed, I’m more aware than you that there are a plethora of terpenes. If you are in fact aware of that yourself, then one would wonder why you’re asking about a specific terpene, when they affect different people differently.
3) Take your terminology issue up with the study authors. Maybe they know more than you do as well.
4) Again with your ignorance regarding terpenes.
Since we’re repeating numbers because you’re an idiot: 1) There are a multitude of terpenes. Asking for a ‘specific one’ is the request of an idiot. 2) See above. 3) See above again.
You’ve provided jack and shit, to support your paranoid complaint about THC percentage. Something which any individual familiar with the substance would tell you is not a reliable gauge of what the effect will be.
A hit of 90% THC from a vape pen is in no way equivalent to 3 hits of 30% flower.
You’re no less of a fucking idiot about this subject than you are with any of the other political things you bitch about, but don’t let that stop you from pretending otherwise.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. THC content is nothing like alcohol content.
I’m not sure why you’re worried about it. It’s not the bogeyman. Don’t believe hype.
Well yes, the percentage has gone higher. Mostly so to the black market improving on their product.
By what right does one person decide that others cannot consume what they wish?
Whether marijuana is being made more potent or not still does not necessitate government to impose prohibition. This is akin to saying that hard liquor is generally sold at 80-proof but the fact that some is sold at 90- or 100-proof means it should be made illegal.
“By what right does one person decide that others cannot consume what they wish?
Whether marijuana is being made more potent or not still does not necessitate government to impose prohibition. This is akin to saying that hard liquor is generally sold at 80-proof but the fact that some is sold at 90- or 100-proof means it should be made illegal.”
The theory behind society/laws restricting what peeps can do is based on harms those peeps can do. As an example drunk driving is restricted because it often results in accidents. Same goes for hard drugs, often hard drug users commit petty (or serious crimes) to pay for their drugs; not to mention the cost to society to deal with overdoses.
Sure there are plenty of bad laws but that does not meal all laws are bad.
Indeed, some higher proof alcohol is illegal in several states.
“It’s time to step back from legalization….”
Is kidnapping people and locking them in cages more evil or less evil than someone smoking a joint? Is it really a necessary evil in this situation? You know for sure…?
Because we either have law enforcement for this or we don’t. And if you say we should, then you’re endorsing every bad thing that comes with law enforcement. You’re saying it’s a necessary evil because the alternative is …. What? Stoners …?
Does prohibition work? Because the necessary evil balance has to consider what’s actually accomplished by law enforcement, not what you wish it might accomplish.
I’d say the problem isn’t grave enough to justify law enforcement to accomplish what little benefits prohibition accomplishes. But you should decide for yourself.
‘He’s done. He’s over’: Ann Coulter declares an end to Donald Trump’s political reign
As for the midterm elections, Coulter believes Trump has given an illusion of influence because he made last-minute endorsements of political candidates who were already projected to win even without his support.
“Republicans, it’s not the party of Trump. It’s safe to come back, and it’s safe for Republicans to stand up and run without Donald Trump,” she said.
Coulter also predicted that Republicans may far well for the midterm elections even without Trump. “People are angry. Republicans are really angry. We are on a smooth glide path to really, really good midterm elections, and the only thing that can blow it is what probably will blow it: the Republican Party,” she said.
She concluded with a central message to Republicans, collectively. “You don’t need to suck up to Trump anymore, conservative talk radio hosts, talk TV hosts, Republicans running for office,” she announced. “He’s done. He’s over.”
Have any of you see Ann Coulter on the Comedy Central roasts?
Is she the old, barren, cranky, fornicating, “family values” bottle-blonde . . . or is that Laura Ingraham?
What should happen to FBI agents who abuse their office like that guy they just frog marched out?
Six figure retirement funded by the people he abused? Like Lois Lerner?
Depends. If he was supporting a partisan Democratic operation, nothing will happen. He’ll get a book deal, TV gig and full pension.
If he participated in any 2020 election protests, solitary, no bail, no pension, 4 years in jail.
Disaffected clingers with a persecution complex may be my favorite culture war casualties.
JUST IN: U.S. Forces Tasked With Confronting China Ordered to Stop Using Gender Pronouns — Pacific Air Forces base says written ban on mentioning gender, age, race will help improve ‘lethality’
What a disaster the Democrat military has become. No wonder we can’t win any wars. Now President Potato Brains is threatening Americans with these trillion-dollar lovers.
What country or militia is afraid of a military that can’t travel for more than a few hours because they gotta stop to dilate?
And now for the rest of the story. . . .
A spokesman for the Anderson Air Force Base confirmed the authenticity of the email, telling the Free Beacon that the Air Force is shifting “to a narrative writing format for AWARDS AND PERFORMANCE REPORTS.” (emphasis added). The ban on “pronouns, age, race” and other written descriptors is “intended to eliminate any information that could identify the nominee’s name, gender, age, or race so that all members had a fair and equal chance at winning.”
The Andersen air base, the spokesman said, specifically “developed local quarterly award guidance to ensure each nominee was considered without the potential of unfair biases.” Leaders at the base are “continually working to remove barriers and [are] dedicated to ensuring all members have the opportunity to excel.”
The email goes on to list “authorized” and “unauthorized” examples of pronoun use.
The “unauthorized examples” include: “He/She did,” “Best male/female,” “Youngest/Oldest,” and “Sergeant Murray.” The list of “authorized examples” include: “This sergeant,” “This NCO [Non-commissioned officer],” and “This member.”
The policy shift jibes with the Pacific Air Forces’ overarching goal to promote “diversity and inclusion” at all levels of the service, according to the military spokesman.
CLEARLY, writing “she went above and beyond the duties expected of an NCO” will impair lethality!
Some coworkers submitted a paper recently. The version that was sent out for review had to have identifying marks scrubbed off. No names or affiliation. Even the project’s name had to be changed so the paper could be judged on its own merits rather than anybody’s or anything’s reputation.
So? You think that makes these Democrat morons look better?
The sick thing is, these won’t be the ones to die when China or Russia mops the floor the troops.
If they’re smart, they’ll bomb one of the military drag shows and take out the leadership in a fell swoop.
BCD hoping potential enemies will kill US military personnel. . . .
That would make me a Biden or a Clinton!
No, it would make you guilty of treason. Again.
It’s treason to think it wouldn’t be that bad if a bunch of woke trannies and homo’s got waxed by a real, professional military?
Accelerate, I say.
No, it would make you guilty of treason.
You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Funnily enough, this will probably work out best for white males. USG has gotten pretty infamous for unofficial racial and sexual requirements for certain jobs. It will make certain people have to take a few extra steps to implement their preferred racial/sexual schema.
Fun fact: the Chinese military already doesn’t use gender pronouns.
There’s a job opening in my area “looking specifically for Indigenous and Black children book illustrators.” None of the several hundred people it was sent to called out the discrimination. On the same list an announcement of a Trump supporter giving a speech got a dozen replies calling for the government to stop the speech.
“Liberals,” ladies and gentlemen.
It isn’t discrimination we worry about. You discriminate when you choose between options.
We worry about unfair discrimination, which this obviously isn’t: some jobs can only be done by certain groups, and that’s fine.
In any case, it’s lacking in hyphens so is ambiguous, but a more normal reading would be that it seems to be asking for illustrators of ‘black and indigenous children’s books’.
The previous sentence was “Working with a children’s publisher that is looking for BIPOC illustrators.” I think that says the illustrators need melanin, not the illustrations.
The modern custom in children’s books is to have per-book racial quotas of characters. The black characters are often white characters in blackface. I saw an illustrated Cinderella story done that way. Would nobody buy an all-black Cinderella rewritten with black (urban or African) culture around the fairy tale premise? Probably not.
What do you think of the statements of faith and loyalty oaths regularly used by conservative-controlled schools, John F. Carr?
By conservative-controlled schools, I mean the low-ranked, censorship-shackled, nonsense-teaching dogma factories that right-wingers establish at just about every campus they get their hands on.
Which generates a question: Why should the liberal-libertarian mainstream be in the market for pointers from right-wingers?
The Monkees’ Micky Dolenz sues Justice Department to get FBI files on his 1960s band
The last surviving member of The Monkees is suing the Justice Department on Tuesday to get secret files from the FBI.
Micky Dolenz, the last surviving member of the 1960s rock band, sued the Justice Department after his attempts to get the records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) were ignored, according to the legal papers. The documents from the FBI had compiled information on The Monkees’ use of their performances to protest the Vietnam War, according to Rolling Stone.
“This lawsuit is designed to obtain any records the FBI created and/or possesses on the Monkees as well as its individual members,” the filing reads.
I fully support the FOIA program and goals of increased transparency of the govt (and I think it’s one of the few things all of us agree on).
Additional reporting shows the FOIA request was submitted in June and I don’t see that the FBI has outright denied the request.
But the info he’s requesting is from a half-century ago so I don’t see why it can’t be released.
Well, people did say they monkeyed around.
But my understanding was that they were too busy singing to put anybody down. . . .
Why do they?
To scourge Americans for sins against the Earth.
Maybe Joe will address that tonight ? Ha
Why do all the far right nutjobs round here hate the greens, when it’s such fertile ground for the fash?
Oh Dave Dave Dave Dave oops got carried away.
Because they are supporting stuff that increases emissions not decreases. But you didn’t answer the question. Can you?
But they’re doing that because they want all the brown people to die, so why do you oppose it? They’re your lot’s stooges.
They don’t want all the brown people to die, they are just perfectly happy to have them keep living in poverty and without electricity.
Like they are now? Oh no, wait, that’s without WATER. In Jackson, Mississipi. Because of the drought and poorly-maintained public infrastructure.
They’ll get there. They’ll go from ‘climate change is a hoax’ to ‘we must cull the overpopulated third world to save the planet’ in a heartbeat.
That’s already what you get from most greens, so I’m pretty sure the idiots here are just too stupid to realise that the their side’s bosses have spent decades infiltrating the greens and winning support.
In Germany they’re at least alert to the green-brown link, and so they have a vaguely credible, not-Nazi-infiltrated green movement. Everywhere else, they’re mostly Holocaust deniers (and their useful idiots), campaigning to do what the scientific consensus on climate change says will basically result in genocidal ethnic cleansing of the planet. Why do you think you never see a brown face among them?
While I certainly think right-wing eco-fascism is a thing, and is likely to get worse, and some Greens do go on about overpopulation, most Greens and environmentalists know that the global south is paying for the excesses of the global north and that this is an injustice. I know no Greens or environmentlists that deny the Holocaust or support genocidal ethnic cleansing, and I don’t know how you got that out of the scientific consensus on climate change, though I know it could be twisted to justify that.
You sound like a typical head-in-the-sand Green, tbh. The nazi infiltration of the green movement has been a thing since the start, and to keep denying it is ludicrous.
There are large, high-profile global campaigns to do as I said – basically, everyone calling for immediate massive action is calling for the death of a few billion people, almost all of whom will be of darker shades of skin. That’s genocide. Ethnic cleansing. Beyond white supremacists’ wildest dreams.
The scientific consensus is as I said: we have to be very careful not to do too much prevention now, and impoverish ourselves for dealing with mitigation later, because we are not going to be able to prevent mitigation being required. There are whole chapters on this in the IPCC report, and they are absolutely key.
“I know no Greens or environmentlists that deny the Holocaust”
There are none so blind as those who won’t see. It’s a required view in order to be socially accepted. Key climate change campaigners are also overt and deliberate Holocaust deniers – Michael Mann, for example. Green leaders are usually virulently and overtly antisemitic. There is a good reason most people think the Greens are a hypocritical bad joke.
Because people are reflexively dumb about nuclear power.
And don’t care how much harm they cause by their stupidity. Or revel in causing harm in some cases.
That’s a lot of hate, Ben.
People are wrong all the time. Some of them have political power, even. It’ll burn you up to rage against all of it.
And no, just choosing to rage against the liberal people being wrong is note a healthy way to apportion your hate. Demonization creates a simple world where you get to be righteous, but it’s not healthy.
That’s a lot of defense for recklessly and stupidly harming people.
You tell them to stop instead of telling the people harmed to just get used to being harmed.
What do you care about people being harmed? Global warming has resulted in disasters all over the world. Death, destruction, disease, starvation, and you’re mad because nuclear power is an unpopular solution owing to just a meltdown here a radioactive leak there a few bits of sea that practically glow at night?
Now you’re making stuff up just like the Trump idiots, Nige. There have been no incidents like that.
You should read more about what happens with radioactive stuff dumped into the sea. It’s to be avoided, but not a catastrophe usually – the soviets disposed of several reactors by dumping them at sea, with no significant harm to the environment as a result. Water is extremely good at stopping radiation.
The soviets, famous for their attention to safety and the environment and telling the truth about them. Don’t fotget the oh-so-trusthworthy British Nuclear Fuels and what they did to the North Irish Sea.
Personally, I’m not all that anti-nuclear, but it’s ridiculous to pretend that nuclear isn’t a byword for poison and disaster and contamination and the spectre of mega-deaths, and getting snippy and evangelical about it isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.
I don’t care what the soviets said, I care what they did and what the measured results are. We know where they dropped the reactors and there has been extensive monitoring. Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, there have been no effects worth mentioning.
“it’s ridiculous to pretend that nuclear isn’t a byword for poison and disaster and contamination and the spectre of mega-deaths”
You put ‘isn’t’, by mistake? Or are you really saying that myths spread by people who irrationally dislike something count for more than the actual facts?
Where do you see me defending the people I called reflexively dumb, Ben?
Wait’ll you find out the harm caused by continuing dependence on fossil fuels.
Hinting that you might have something to say isn’t the same as having something to say. Your bogeymen are your own.
I said exactly what I meant.
Only if you want it to be.
Because Just One Radioactive Waste Oopsie Could Ruin Your Entire Day.
Big Biden speech tonight. Any guesses at the content?
1. How many different groups of Americans will Biden say he hates? I will guess it will be several: – billionaires/millionaires – MAGA/Ultra-MAGA – CEOs/executives/corporate people – gun owners – maybe others. Texans. Religious people. People who don’t buy into Covid hype. Parents who care about what happens at schools.
Which Americans do you think he’ll express hatred for? What names will he call them? What will he say their sins are to justify his hatred of them?
2. Which of the special people will get catered to the most? In the same speech where some of the Americans above are relegated to subhuman status, will he also put special people above all criticism and make it clear we all have a sacred duty to cater to their feelings?
3. Which sections of the constitution will Biden say he plans to violate? The second amendment almost for sure. Probably the first. Will he reference government collusion with corporations to censor?
4. How will he promise to make Americans’ lives worse? – More environmental restrictions? – More government meddling in your health care? – More expensive gas? – More incentives for more Americans to not work? – More homeless migrants? – More IRS audits? – More taxes? – More Covid rules? – More coerced injections? – More empty shelves at stores? – More speech police? – More blacklists? – More political enforcement at the DOJ and other agencies? – More new propaganda messages? – More bogeymen to be afraid of?
Which ones? What else? This is only a small fraction of what he could announce to make Americans’ lives worse.
Any other thoughts on what Biden might say?
He’ll call “Climate Change” an emergency and then propose a bunch of stuff that won’t reduce GHG emissions
But it will make life worse for Americans. That’s the main thing.
He’s going to declare war on regular Trump supporters.
The Federals are going to start killing people soon.
I thought you law-n-order types were all for the death penalty.
You think Trump supporters deserve the death penalty?
– More bogeymen to be afraid of?
Rep. Jim Jordan wrote to [FBI Director Christopher] Wray [on July 27] that whistleblowers had approached him about FBI efforts at “artificially padding domestic terrorism data.” source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/whistles-start-to-blow-at-the-fbi-trump-mar-a-lago-hunter-biden-russia-disinformation-briefing-leak-grassley-johnson-crossfire-hurricane-11660071125
Given his history, Jordan should be the last person any whistleblower should approach.
Hope you had fun with your partisan grievance list. You seemed to, at least.
Reveling in resentment like that seems to ensure a miserable existence, but at least you have some fun with it!
I will report back on how many of these things Biden end up saying. It will be a few of them at least.
Don’t you get tired of defending so much bad behavior and hateful messaging coming from Democrats every day?
You will also write up all the stuff that makes you rage, and pretend Biden will say that as well. And then get angry at me for noting you made it all up.
Because why not revel in rage? What harm could that cause?
Get out sometime; touch grass.
You’re defending Dem hatred and intentionally caused harm by complaining that someone noticed.
It would have been quicker to just say “No.”
“Don’t you get tired of defending so much bad behavior and hateful messaging coming from Democrats every day?”
No he does not. None of the lefties here do.
He does like to pretend he’s not a tool though.
What bad behaviour? Criticising his political opponents who tried to violently overthrow his election win?
Looks like Biden will live down to expectations:
But, on the other hand, maybe NYTimes is just completely making it up. Always possible.
Hiring Klingons to design the stage and setup the lighting was an odd choice.
1. Biden hated on Trump voters. It’s only one group, but it’s 74 million Americans. And he sold the hatred hard, over and over.
For name-calling, he used “MAGA forces”. Did any President ever offer this much hostility to Americans while calling them “forces” before?
It wasn’t a long speech so Biden didn’t get around to trashing or name-calling the many other groups of Americans that Democrats harbor hatred and hostility for.
2. No direct catering to the feelings of the special people in this speech. It was a strange omission for a Democrat.
3 and 4. Biden didn’t offer any plans to do anything. This was a speech about hating Trump voters. That’s the extent of the world Biden wants for Dems for now.
Does anyone have any reactions to the speech? Did you want anything besides hatred and hostility from Biden? Maybe a policy or a plan for something? Are you upset that the special people didn’t get directly catered to?
Any plans to personally actualize Biden’s hostility with violence or oppression? Were you already planning that? Or do you need a more direct call to action than this speech?
Not everyone who voted for Trump is into violence and overturning elections, Ben.
But those who are, I’m glad the President told them to suck it. Those who can’t deal with Democratic victories and contemplate civil war because of it don’t get kowtowed to.
Any plans to personally actualize Biden’s hostility with violence or oppression? Were you already planning that? Or do you need a more direct call to action than this speech? Like this whining. You expect me to agree with you? To sympathize with your delusions of victimization? Go along with your rants about how minorities have all the breaks?
No. You’re wrong, which is fine. But you can’t deal with a society where people think you’re wrong – you confuse not getting indulged with being oppressed. Just don’t go trying to shoot up any FBI buildings in your bitterness.
“Not everyone who voted for Trump is into violence and overturning elections…”
But Democrats will lie and say they are. Just like Democrats always do.
No Democrat has ever said that.
Democrats broad-brush the other as a general rule. Guilt by association is a core value of Democrats. They are almost never nuanced, almost never give the benefit of the doubt to non-leftists, and persist in making false accusations towards Republicans, Independents, and non-political individuals even after it has been made crystal clear that it’s false.
So yeah, they say it all the time.
Thank you for the laugh-out-loud self-own!
Also, my remarks about the special people aren’t about them. I’m talking about how people are treated by you.
You guys are happy to treat Americans badly, but you always cater to the special people and insist that anything that even threatens to hurt the feelings of the special people is a mortal sin. And you’d make it a crime to hurt their feelings except for that pesky constitution.
A special college student feels bad? Evil and should be a crime. A not special military cadet plays circle game? Leftists try to ruin his life while people like you either cheerlead for it or passively enable it to happen time and time again.
Because he’s not special. So his life is less than meaningless to leftists and his head is just another potential trophy for you guys.
BofA is offering non-whites a zero down, zero closing cost mortgage.
When those homeowners default on those loans, will white people have to pick up the tab?
And no way no how does that violate the CRA!
Where do you get this stuff from? Obviously it’s pure fantasy, but it doesn’t seem like you have this much imagination.
Don’t you ever wonder where all the Nazi propaganda you gobble up actually comes from?
might try that thing called Google before posting dumb shit
That doesn’t say the same thing…
It exactly does. Are you stupid or something?
What’s the point in you trying to lie about something anyone can check by reading the lurid claims above and then clicking on the link? It was a lie, and the link does not support it.
What’s the difference?
This one is legit.
The unaffordability of new homes has hit people of color particularly hard, and Bank of America is apparently doing something about it.
A 29-percentage-point gap in homeownership exists between Whites and Blacks, and for Hispanics, the gap is 21 percentage points, according to the National Association of Realtors.
“The competitive housing market has made it even more difficult for potential homebuyers, especially people of color, to buy homes,” BofA said in a statement.
To address that problem, it has announced a new zero down-payment, zero closing-cost mortgage for first-time homebuyers, which will be available in certain Black and/or Hispanic neighborhoods in Charlotte, N.C., Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles and Miami.
“Individual eligibility is based on income and home location”
So…not actually based on white vs. non-white.
So, not JUST based on white vs non-white. Technically, a case of red-lining, only they’re discriminating against the people outside the line, not inside.
But they’re explicitly drawing the line based on race.
Yes, agreed. It seems like they are intending to help undo the insidious effects of redlining by doing the opposite of redlining (making it easier to get a loan in contexts where banks previously made it impossible to do so).
I’m not sure this is legal under the current Supreme Court, but it’s hard to argue it’s immoral the long-term effects redlining had on black families’ abilities to join white families in the WW-2 till recent years real-estate driven engine of class mobility and wealth creation.
It’s absurdly easy to argue that it’s immoral, once you remember that it isn’t just the people getting the loans who will be affected. Why do you think we had that real estate crash back in 2008? In no small part because mortgage companies had been pressured to issue loans that didn’t meet sound underwriting standards.
At the very least it’s a violation of the bank’s fiduciary responsibility to stock holders.
It doesn’t say they’re changing their credit standards, just changing the loan product to make it more accessible.
Wait, you think zero down has nothing to do with credit standards?
“doesn’t say they’re changing their credit standards”
“doesn’t say” is correct but giving loans based on 100% loan to value is a different [and lesser] credit standard.
Reducing the amount of income you need to qualify is also a change in credit standards.
It does say that they’re aware of the potential problem with lowering credit standards, so that at least suggests that they’re trying not to, by taking different criteria into account.
Bank of America said applicants under this program will not have their credit score taken into account when applying for a home loan. Instead, loan processors will look at if the applicant has paid their rent, phone, auto insurance or utility bills on time…. “What we don’t want to do with this program is place people in homes they cannot stay in,” Barkley told Bloomberg News.
You seem to be confusing a threshold inquiry with an optimization inquiry.
This confusion seems to come up a lot, though mostly when race or gender is involved.
Contrary to what you think, most of that pressure came from investment houses looking for “product,” and ignoring risk, in collusion with the rating agencies, rather than the government.
The crash in 2018 was largely due to deregulated high finance shenanigans, not poor people getting loans, but rather what the fucking amoral finance geniuses did with them.
The mortgage companies were lending money head over heels in 2008 with no pressure whatsoever. They could get the fees then securitize them and sell away the risk to teachers’ pension funds in Scandinavia.
The government’s contribution was serial bubble blower Alan Greenspan blowing up the housing bubble, but then the mortgage companies and investment banks spread the contagion all over the planet.
Hey. Stop introducing CRT concepts to the VC commentariat.
DeSantis won’t like it.
How many of you Democrats/Bootlickers personally know any black people who don’t have any form of ID and are too stupid to get one?
Your leaders keep talking about all these blacks without ID. How many of you know one?
We have Google, which is full of examples.
And we understand the concept doing good for people outside our immediate social sphere.
Oh, the Googles.
Check this out:
Which has nothing to do with the fact that there are plenty of easily findable stories out there about citizens without ID.
I don’t much care what color they are – those people get to vote.
Generally you don’t rely on Google as a primary source; it links out to something and then you can evaluate that source on its own merits.
Also, I don’t care if Google Image Search has some black faces in addition to white ones when I search for a white person.
My ask was answered; overinclusivity is not a big deal for this function.
I am amused BCD seems to think this proves Google is…anti-white, I guess?
If they’re not then maybe you can explain why when I Google Martin Luther King there aren’t an equal number of pics of J. Edgar Hoover?
He was the white Martin Luther King?
The Joker to MLK’s Batman.
JEH? The Penguin, surely.
Building off the scifi/fantasy thread, anybody have any good suggestions for thriller-espionage novels/authors?
I have pretty much read everything by:
John LeCarre Frederick Forsyth Alan Furst Eric Ambler Graham Greene Charles McCarry Lee Child Bernard MacIntyre (non-fiction but reads like a thriller)
I am not a big fan of David Balducci (not sure if he counts anyway) or Robert Ludlum.
Good list. I’d not read everything by Eric Ambler – but I wonder whether nowadays people read anything by him.
If you like WWII spy thrillers, then I can recommend Alex Gerlis – though I may be slightly biased as he’s an old boarding school chum.
Ambler’s a lefty, but that shouldn’t bother you 😉
He is more consistent in quality than a lot of the others — his books range from pretty good to really good. None of his stuff is as good as Day of the Jackal or Night Soldiers, but none it is nearly as bad (or just boring) as you see in the lesser efforts of Forsyth or Furst.
I would recommend Martin Cruz Smith’s Arkady Renko series, starting with Gorky Park. In fact all of Smith’s novels are entertaining, I think his dialogue is particularly good.
Good suggestion. I read Gorky Park a while back and liked it. I liked the movie too.
As an aside, if you ever get a chance to see Child 44 on cable, do so. It is loosely based on the Chirilenko child murders, but set during the post-war Stalin regime.
I’ll look for it, sounds good.
Great list! Maybe add Daniel Silva to it — and I’d move Furst to No. 2.
I wasn’t ranking them — that was a stream of consciousness list. I probably should have included Tom Clancy too. His earlier stuff was good to great. I kinda gave up on him when he started using his books to shill for his video games.
I enjoyed Alistair MacLean’s novels. You may find some of the plots and characters repetitive. Some are politically or technologically obsolete, like _When Eight Bells Toll_ depends on long distance radios being large.
“St. George and the Dragon” is a fun short story set in the years after WW2. Not a thriller, though.
Desmond Bagley Duncan Kyle Hammond Innes (sort of a different category)
Alastair MacLean – yes, but stay away from the last several books, he was in a decline. The best ones are the series written in the first person in mid career.
FWIW I preferred Desmond Bagley to Alastair McLean…
Hammond Innes was a favourite of mine in my teens. Not intended as disparagement. He wrote lots of good stuff. I wonder whether he’s at all dated.
Started re-reading my Innes books recently. They don’t seem dated at all, any more than recent novels intentionally set in the 50’s and 60’s.
Hey, just popped in to point out that in the past seven days, California has:
1. Gleefully announced they won’t allow the sale of internal combustion cars beginning in 2035. 2. Asked EV drivers not to charge their vehicles because it’ll make the brownouts worse.
I guess to power all those EVs that are coming they’ll have to shut down another couple of nukes.
Our leaders continue to march us into a power grid abyss and not a peep from the watchdogs in the media.
And they just begrudgingly “allowed” their last remaining nuclear plant to run 5 more years. When similar facilities are licensed to run 40 more years.
They are just dumb as crap.
At least it is warm in Cali. I have a feeling there is about to be a run on coal stoves, wood stoves and kerosene heaters in the UK. At New Years, they are gonna party like its 1799.
Who knew that the coal miners were actually playing the long game.
Almost iike car dependency is actually a big part of the problem, no matter how it’s powered.
Cars are freedom. Go anywhere you want at any time. No waiting for a bus or train. No figuring out how to get from railhead to destination. No exposure to disease from other passengers.
Cars are great.
Cars are a finanical pit and an anchor round the neck, a necessary evil for some, they kill millions every year through air pollution alone and the fuels they use have helped heat the planet by 1.2 degrees and the production and control of that fuel has lead to wars, large-scale environmental destruction, and things called cancer corridors. They’re loud, they smell, they kill, they promote sprawl, they take up acres of space for parking, and if you can’t afford one in a car dependant city or a rural area you’re screwed. None of that is free.
The cheap energy that powers those cars among other things has contributed to more than a century of widespread prosperity.
You think we’d be better off now if we’d spent the last 100 years burning trees and ox shit to keep warm?
I think we’d have been better off if we’d listened to warnings about what the effects on the planet were going to be at any point over the century and actually did something about it. Even now, it would be nice, because as it is all we’ve done is created and almighty boom and bust.
If we had listened to warnings that didn’t exist and deforested the planet with no industrial development we’d have been better off?
You really don’t understand anything beyond climate panic boilerplate rhetoric do you?
We’ve known about the threat posed by global warming since the 1960s, which was when oil companies began spending vast amounts of money denying it and obfuscating the issue, though scientists were suggesting it as early as the 1900s. There were also warnings about the effects of deforestation, of course, and much of the planet has, in fact, been deforested, and continues to be deforested, and I’m sorry what point are you trying to make?
There may have been a study or two in the 1960s that posited global warming. But in the 1970s the consensus opinion was that Earth was headed for another ice age. There were alarms at the time that people would have to stop using gasoline/give up their cars, not because of the environment but because the expectation was that the Earth would run out of petroleum by the end of the 1980s!
As far as the 1900s go, we were absolutely in a global warming stage … the Little Ice Age ran from the 1300s (or earlier, there was a cooling trend in the 4th century as well) to the late 1800s. Warming was not seen as a problem. People were finally able to be outside without wearing 4 layers of clothing.
By the end of the 1960s the theory was established enough for the oil companies to start their disinformation campaign. The ice age thing only made a brief splash. The little ice age was only a tiny drop in temperatures relative to the steep rise since the 1900s.
Sure cars are expensive. Air conditioning to keep you cool is expensive, heat in the winter is expensive, good food is expensive. A high standard of living is by definition expensive.
But opposing fracking and natural gas is expensive and kills millions each year and decimated the environment.
And an estimated 4.3 million people worldwide die every year from indoor air pollution emitted by rudimentary biomass and coal cook stoves. They die from strokes, and heart and pulmonary diseases, such as childhood pneumonia and lung cancer. Women and children are particularly vulnerable.
These diseases are primarily caused by high levels of fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide released by the burning of solid fuels such as wood, coal, animal dung, crop waste and charcoal in inefficient stoves, space heaters, or lamps.
The only practical alternative to wood, dung and coal indoor heating and cooking is propane. And propane/LNG is dependent on fracking, lack of sufficient supplies of propane is killing millions every year, according to the UN.
And claiming electrification would solve the problem is partially true but any third world power plants are most likely to be coal.
‘A high standard of living is by definition expensive.’
In its current form it is burning the whole planet, so yes, expensive.
‘But opposing fracking and natural gas is expensive and kills millions each year and decimated the environment.’
Well, no, because they’re fossil fuels and using them heats and pollutes the planet, and fracking is environmentally devastating.
The rest of your comment seems to be agreeing with me that fossil fuels are poisonous and deadly and awful.
The do not charge request was surprisingly sensible. California is asking electricity users to shift loads from peak to off peak hours. For example, set the thermostat lower than normal around noon to precool the house then turn it way up during afternoon peak consumption.
Sure, it’s reasonable to ask people to charge their cars off peak, if blackouts are threatening. The senseless part of it is the threat to outlaw non-electric cars even as they’re having electricity shortages which they refuse to do anything to fix.
Not only is the California grid not ready for all electric vehicles, they’re refusing to do anything to MAKE it ready.
Sure if they need to distribute load better that’s reasonable. The issue is the juxtaposition. We can’t keep up with demand now but we’re going to increase demand ten fold in the next decade while simultaneously shutting down politically unpopular sources of electricity supply.
“…and not a peep from the watchdogs in the media.”
Because the news media want you to suffer for your sins against the Earth.
Bank of America announces that they want to pay billions in litigation fees through a patently discriminatory loan program aimed at blacks and hispanics.
You’re too late!
BCD addressed this above.
Loved it when the FBI leaked a photo of all those “classified” documents such as framed magazine covers.
How do we know the Russian’s didn’t plant this stuff????
I regard the FBI as just as trustworthy as the news report on the next “noose” hoax or “n-word” hoax. Not at all
Sounds like the FBI needs a Democratic leader (which it has never had) to impose some adult supervision.
Carry on, bigoted, half-educated clingers.
Yes, I’ve noticed many on here prefer to think something they disagree with is a lie than deal with it’s implications.
You’re as guilty of that as anyone on here, tin foil man.
You said diversity statements are an intentional plot to sew fear. I’m afraid I think you believe that, so it’s not a lie just sadly delusional.
Most stupid things arise due to stupidity.
I absolutely did not say that. I’ve never even thought that. I avoided that conversation because there’s no convincing anyone on it. I have an opinion but saw no point in sharing it, so I didn’t. You must have me confused with someone else. Or you’re delusional.
I said that FIRE had done a survey that found that conservative students and professors were self censoring on campus out of fear. You called it tin foil hat stuff.
I linked to this yesterday, I’ll link to it again:
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/26/academic-freedom-alliance-on-diversity-statements/?comments=true#comment-9672084Tens, hell, hundreds of thousands are being made scared by this stuff. Intentionally.
How else can I read this than you declaring a plot wherein diversity statements have the intent of intimidating hundreds of thousands?
The actions of individual DEI officers is not a conspiracy. The problem is a lack of diversity of opinion among DEI people, which is damned ironic if you think about it and speaks to the sincerity of their efforts. No conspiracy necessary. I absolutely did not say conspiracy as you can see. I don’t think in terms of conspiracy. 99.998% of conspiracy theories are fantasy.
Your misinterpretation is on you not me.
Hundreds of thousands is about individual DEI officers.
And yes, you are positing is a conspiracy within these individual DEI offices, even if you don’t think it’s nationwide.
You have no proof of such bad faith, just hostility.
“You’re saying it’s a conspiracy even though you’re saying it’s not a conspiracy”
Can you ever just take a fucking L? You’re the one that brought conspiracy into this and you insist on putting it in me. This is tiresome.
To be fair, Sarcastr0 didn’t say “conspiracy” either. He said “plot.” An individual can hatch a plot to intentionally sew fear.
If he had said “declaring a plot or plots” he would have been 100% accurate. And since that’s a minor omission with no consequence, I declare you, bevis, the Loser.
I’m not sure you know what leaked means. That was in a court filing, you foolish man.
I remember a scene from a Tom Clancy novel where it was decided that something should be leaked. One character (maybe Jack Ryan) looked around the room and asked “everybody here know how to leak?”
The FBI is trying to make the case that Trump’s personal effects were mixed in with documents Trump was not supposed to have. Kind of like having his fingerprints on them.
Yup, that’s why his passports are a YUGE issue.
They were co-mingled with some of the documents in his desk so he can’t say he didn’t know about the documents.
You do realize that the warrant allowed them to seize anything that was so much as in the same room as what they were looking for, right? So the fact that they took his passports, and some attorney-client privileged communications, doesn’t mean they were intermingled with the documents from the White house.
Just means they were in the same room.
Like in a box. In his office. With Time covers.
They were in a box with some of the documents.
Try to keep up. Also, just checking: Do you still claim Trump was cooperating with the archives, or is that history?
Merely the same room wouldn’t allow them to make the argument they did in their brief that John F. Carr notes.
We know because Turnip himself has several Twuth Social posts wherein he tells us he had them. The most recent being his hilarious attempt to reassure people that he doesn’t keep a messy office, which he hilariously thinks is the general takeaway from the pic of files on the floor. In support of that hilarious attempt he tells us those files were in cartons last he knew.
They probably were; My understanding is that the feds asserted under oath that they’d found those files, but not that they’d found them lying on the floor. Wouldn’t be the first time they staged a photo.
Who in their right mind actually believed the Feds were trying to insinuate the files were found like that on the floor? Oh, yeah, you do, because the ridiculous right wing response was that the photo was ‘staged.’
Most adults are easily able to and do recognize they laid them on the floor to document what they had. Only Turnip and his idiot followers think they found them there or that they put them on the floor to besmirch Big Baby’s office cleanliness habits.
So yes, Brett, the photo was “staged.” But it wasn’t staged under the bad faith connotation you intend.
Lastly, the only reason you saw that pic outside of Big Baby’s criminal trial is because the feds were required to respond to Turnip’s foolish and often laughable demands. He has apparently backed off the request for more details and there’ll be no further unsealing. That’s likely because someone was able to finally convince none of these revelations are helping him in any way.
[Now’s the part where you say they included the photo to force him to back down on his unsealing demands. Don’t sweat it, gotcha covered buddy.]
OMG Brett, no one thinks the picture of the files on the floor is the FBI showing the files were found just lying on the floor.
“The FBI is lying about the stolen money they took from my house – I never piled up the money into a huge cube like in the pic they took!’
Good lord, dude.
” Wouldn’t be the first time they staged a photo. ”
The photograph that included a size gauge, you bigoted, gullible jackass?
Poor Brett, his mind is collapsing under the weight of all the cognitive dissonance. Will he escape the cult before it’s too late, or succumb to the hemlock-flavored kool-aid? Stay tuned kids!
How do we know the Russian’s didn’t plant this stuff???? We don’t!
Because your Clown Leader admitted otherwise.
Biden threatens “brave right wing Americans,” says they will be crushed by US military being used against them domestically.
As James Madison pointed out, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.”
Sounds like he’s giving them advice.
You want to attack the United States, you better have a serious arsenal and not a bunch of “Proud Boys” shooting Ozark Beer cans in a field outside of Higginson, Arkansas.
As always, check out ML’s source for a trip.
Yeah, he’s wrong. They’re not brave. Or maybe it’s sarcasm?
Well that’s not quite what he said.
Then again, Lindsay Graham didn’t try to stoke violence either.
The American media, twisting political enemies’ statements into unrecognizable but negative threats since…..
Lindsay Graham didn’t try to stoke violence either.
He certainly didn’t discourage it.
He neutrally predicted it would happen. Sadly, he’s probably right.
That said, in that situation I’d have just kept my mouth shut. But he’s a politician and keeping his mouth shut is not in his skill set.
But all that said it doesn’t excuse the media and politicians on the left misinforming the public by twisting what he said into a threat. Just like media and politicians on the right shouldn’t be misinforming the public that Biden threatened to turn loose the military on Alabama.
I wonder why everyone is so divided and angry.
It wasn’t that hard. It was right there. As you say, he didn’t have to say it, unless it was a threat. See also Trump’s ‘turn down the heat’ message to Garland, as Trump was busy turning up the heat.
Graham has spent a lot of time and effort to avoid testifying in Georgia, which allows for at least one conclusion to be drawn:
Graham is not a decent person.
If he was concerned about his own criminal liability, he could invoke the 5th Amendment. If he was merely interested in refusing to tell the truth, he’d do what he’s been doing and repeatedly attempt to quash the subpoena.
Nobody of good character goes through that much effort to avoid telling the truth.
Because of that conclusion, it’s my opinion that his words were nothing more than a dog whistle, and the people who are listening have already attempted violence on behalf of Trump multiple times.
Regardless of the threat of the MAGA idiots – in fact I’d say in spite of those threats, the evidence revealed thus far against Trump indicate that he absolutely must be indicted. Anyone taking up violence against the FBI, other involved parties, or other institutions of the Government because of his prosecution should face the absolute worst that the law can muster.
Trump and his idiots think they can bully their way into or out of anything. It’s past time to correct their mistaken beliefs.
Nor are you discouraging it here.
Dems think they can send F-15s to strike homes in the Houston suburbs or something. It’s genius!
The Michigan Board of State, Canvasses, on party lines, disallowed a referendum petition to add a pro-abortion amendment to the state constitution. The ostensible reason was there wasn’t enough white space between the words for the petition to be legible.
Nonsense. The words on the the petition are clearly legible. The point of Dobbs was to return the matter to voters, not to permit partisan hacks to use their power to override the voters’ expressed will.
Are you saying there is partisan procedural game playing in our state legislatures?!
I mean, this is bad behavior and I hope 1) This loophole is plugged, and 2) the voters take this nonsense into account. But also, this is not some post-Dobbs thing.
We had a rule in Massachusetts that any stray mark on a signature page for a petition invalidated the entire page. It wasn’t even a pretext for one case only, it was a general rule.
Definitely don’t want to let the voters decide. They need to leave this to the politicians who can look out for what is best for the people. Let the people decide and you will have the legalization of marijuana (ND) and allowing ex-felons to vote (FL). Besides states like Michigan and Wisconsin have old abortion laws, which like wine get better with age.
The point of Dobbs was to return the matter to voters, not to permit partisan hacks to use their power to override the voters’ expressed will.
Ostensibly, but that was always a lie.
The court could simply have upheld the Mississippi law. And the anti-abortion forces, including, at a minimum, Thomas, Alito, and Barrett, were never going to stop there.
New COVID boosters to be released without FDA testing. FDA is “confident” this is NBD. https://www.wsj.com/articles/latest-covid-boosters-are-set-to-roll-out-before-human-testing-is-completed-11661679003
Without human testing.
Yes, given the experience we have with similar vaccines at this point, there has been a policy decision that the risk is small enough to privilege speed over mitigating that risk.
You’re appeal to ooga booga is noted.
Isn’t this how the annual flu vaccine works? Different technology, but same reasoning that it’s known to be safe and predicted to be effective.
At this point it would be silly for me to get this new shot, having already had Covid and having gotten the older booster. But if I’d never had Covid or been vaccinated against it, at my age, (63) I’d likely get it. I’d intended to get the first vaccine, I just caught Covid before it was available locally.
My suspicion is that most of the problems with the Covid vaccine have related to injection technique, more than the actual vaccine. This is, like most vaccines, intended to be injected into solid tissue, not into the bloodstream. And there’s a technique for making sure of that.
But how many people administering the vaccine bother to use it? Practically none, from what I’ve seen.
You’ve got a substance which causes enough irritation to create a substantial “goose egg” at the injection site, and instead by chance it gets injected into a vein or artery. You expect good things of that?
It’s the story of modern medicine: Even as the technology has been taking vast leaps, they’ve been losing the things they used to be good at, like asepsis, and injection technique.
People are injecting the vaccine into veins? You’ve seen this?
And you may want to get boosted – new strains seem to be reinfecting people who previously had Covid.
I guess the question is whether you could accidentally hit a vein in the shoulder (not that people are tying off their arm and doing a vaccine booster right before they do a speedball).
The needle they use is pretty long. I don’t know if there are actually veins in range that could be accidentally stuck.
Well new strains are also infecting people who have been vaccinated 3 or 4 times too.
I’m not going to bother with anymore MRna vaccines, if they come up with a traditional vaccine, and testing shows it will work against all the strains then I might be interested.
Look at the disease rates after the vaccines rolled out, chief. Sucks the effectiveness fades, but that’s more coronaviruses than any nontraditionalness of the vaccine.
If right-wing dumbasses want to flout a virus by avoiding vaccination, at this point, let the virus take its course. Children are a different issue, and the entitlement to exclude antisocial, virus-flouting losers from property or gatherings is yet another issue.
Vaccines that don’t prevent getting the disease. Big pharma to the rescue.
There are a couple of articles floating around relating to a Dr. Arneson (IIRC) talking about autopsy results showing severely inflamed hearts in people who had recently received the vax. It seemed pretty flaky to me, but I wonder if accidentally hitting a vein could cause a reaction in the heart rather than the injection site.
Biden thinks MAGA Republicans are a “semi-fascist” threat to democracy.
What should a President do to defend the country a semi-fascist threat to our democracy?
Mandatory gay marriages.
You’d put children and dogs at risk to save democracy?
I think BCD wants to marry a puppy?
Well, they tried to overturn an election, still claim with no evidence that it was stolen, threatened civil war when the FBI found secret documents illegally held at Trump’s home, are banning books in schools and libraries and branching out to bookshops, hate minorities, want to ban teaching that slavery in the US was a bad thing that happened to black people predominantly to the benefit of white people, keep boasting about their big bad scary guns and intimate they’re going to use them if they don’t get their way: I’d say he’s half-right.
What should he do about them?
Beat them in every election possible.
So that’s what you do when the fascists are about to take away your rights and your sacred democracy?
Why? What would you do?
He’s doing it. Try to convince them that they’re behaving fascistically so maybe they’ll stop. Stay conservative if you want to, but at least exit the death-to-America cult.
I was wondering if this site keeps data on which users have been muted, and by how many other users. If Prof. Volokh has access to that data, I think it would be amusing. Also which users mute the most other users.
So DeSantis wants 20 people prosecuted for voting illegally. Except they seem to have asked officials whether they could legally vote or not and were told they could.
Question: How big an asshole does this make DeSantis?
1. No bigger than before 2. Giant-sized. 3. Super-jumbo.
DeSantis seemed ok at first but he’s gone balls to the wall in his attempt to switch Trump voters. His attack on the Tampa Bay Rays and the Disney mess was pretty much it for me.
I agree that Disney is attempting to indoctrinate children (I watch Disney Jr with my grandson) but that’s their right like it and it’s not the place of the governor to punish them for it.
So my answer is 1. He was already dead to me.
So if he’s the candidate in 2024, who will you be voting for?
Don Knotts. Or Snoopy.
I went for Moses in 2016. Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani?
In 2020 I honored my recently deceased father by writing in his name. Oh how close he came to being President.
Your Dad’s name was Donald Trump?
Nope. But dad got closer to the presidency than with you or I did.
Trump forced to hand over financial records to Congress after three-year legal
Donald Trump and his accounting firm have reached an agreement with the House Oversight Committee for lawmakers to receive key financial records as part of a long-running probe into his disclosures and conflicts of interest.
Will be interesting when a Republican Congress seeks Biden’s records.
I don’t think Biden will comply as long as Merrick Garland is AG.
Lets not forget Eric Holder thumbed his nose at a congressional subpoena and transferred the DOJ records to the Whitehouse, then tried to claim executive privilege.
Then when the House found him in contempt his DOJ refused to prosecute him.
You mean there’s a double standard?
Well, Biden released his financial information, for starters, while Trump lied about following that norm.
Carry on, clingers.
The walls are closing in!
I don’t expect the Volokh Conspirators to care much, but plenty of clingers should probably be looking at becoming more familiar with the crime-fraud exception.
Eastman, Clark, Corcoran, Bobb, and Giuliani (and their clients), for example, should be intently focused on that issue, and those losers welcomed another member to the club today, when an Oath Keepers lawyer was arrested. That lawyer is reported to have been a Lawyers For Trump volunteer, too, so it is difficult to pinpoint the un-American activity underlying the charges.
Peter Thiel, who as I recall is considered to be just dreamy by several Conspirators, has been nuzzling with bigoted right-wing extremists.
Expect the Volokh Conspirators to bravely and strenuously avoid the issue. Whether this is because they are hoping to grab some of the dollars falling from Thiel’s pockets, because they don’t want to cross Trump, or because they don’t object to white nationalism is a worthy subject of discussion.
No. Pretty much nothing you talk about is worthy of discussion, which is why you, like Behar, talk only to yourself. (Certainly not a two-year old news article.)
Does it puzzle you that guys like me have been kicking the shit out of guys like you in the American culture war throughout our lives?
Do you have any hope that will change before you are replaced?
You couldn’t kick the shit out of a paralyzed 6-month old baby.
Dayum. I just saw a story online about the former NYC cop that got sentenced today to 10 years. He beat the shit out of a Capitol cop. Fully on video. Extremely violent. 10 years seems almost lenient.
I hope none of the Trumpers on here are gonna defend this guy.
Are not gonna defend him. Sorry.
I trust your judgment that it’s extremely violent, and agree that such an assault is abhorrent. But where are the sentencing enhancements for Antifa rioters who did the same? How many of them were hunted down and prosecuted, rather than getting to go home night after violent night, when they were also wearing body armor and engaging in terrorist acts? What sentence did that illegally armed security guard get in Denver for shooting and killing Lee Keltner?
I don’t know why you are picking one random shooting out of 30,000 in the country over the last few years to compare this to, but for the record, the guy who shot Keltner was not ‘illegally armed.’ He had a carry permit.
“It’s not a slippery slope!”
“There is no totalitarian impulse! Quit making shit up!”
Wear flu mask or else!
And the apologists, in their capacity as goalpostshifting Atlas, wiggle their way under the structure, and heft 17 billion tons up on their shoulders and take a few steps over, and set it back down.
“Well, that is reasonable, too!”
Get this. I saw Biden’s press secretary today explicitly state that the Republicans forcing the schools to be closed harmed the children but thankfully the Democrats were there to push to reopen. She seriously said that.
Completely rewriting very recent history and everyone knows it’s total bullshit and the American Pravda won’t call her out on it.
Uh… “UC Berkeley does something ridiculous” is pretty played out.
A hypothetical for originalists: It is early 1776. King George decides that he is going to let the citizens of the American colonies vote on independence. They won’t vote on a simple yes/no proposal; instead, he has his people draft a constitution which the citizens of the colonies will then ratify or reject. And if rejected, then nothing would change, at least for the immediate future.
We will assume that the rules for ratification matched the real Article VII, and that the document was somewhat similar to the one of 1787, particularly in the rules for amendments and in the nature of the judiciary. Finally, let us assume that it was ratified, ultimately by all of the colonies.
My question for originalists: Would you still argue that judges should focus solely on the original public meaning of that Constitution?
Why would the meaning of the document change?
Benjamin Franklin’s letters “Experiments and Observations on Electricity” were published in 1751. Do they mean something different now?
Versus making stuff up? Yeah. If the words mean what they mean, then everyone knows the law by reading the words.
If judges make stuff up, they’re no different than King George. Except in your scenario, judges are actually much, much worse because your King George at least allowed people to vote.
Thanks for the responses. (Thumbs up for the ‘oath’ one.)
True that KG allowed the people to vote, but that was simply choosing between two options, with the people playing no role in developing either option. In your view is that not at all relevant?
Also King George presumably didn’t take a judges’ oath. So, in addition to being despots, the judges who would make stuff up instead of following the law have betrayed their oaths as judges.
I’ve come across the bald statement, “the president is not an officer of the US” more than a few times. I note that Volokh has addressed this (probably more than once), e.g., here: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
But what slightly puzzles me is why there’s any debate given how obvious it is that the president is an officer on the basis of the text. The Constitution consistently refers to the presidency as an office, e.g., “he shall hold his office during the term of four years” or “no person…shall be eligible to the office of President”. As a matter of English as understood at the time, if you hold an office, you’re an officer by (obvious) definition.
According to President Sponge-Brain Shits-His-Pants I’m a grave threat to the Republic because I want to put America First before foreign citizens in Mexico, Ukraine, or China and I think citizens should govern themselves instead of rich elites.
Or because you want to put Americans first – and you get to define who is an American, and past experience suggests that people like the persona you present here have a very narrow definition of who is an authentic citizen of a given country, and a very broad description of what you’re permitted to do to people who aren’t.
That’s not why.
No, it’s because you want to physically attack United States citizens and United States agencies and United States institutions.
I encourage you to use ALL legal, non-violent methods available to you to obtain your goals, but you constantly threaten and encourage violence.
Of course you’re a YUGE piece of chicken shit who will never act on your violent wishes.
At some point, when you’re using uniformed military as props for a political speech, when your blood-red backdrop is reminiscent of Leni Riefenstahl, and you’re demonizing your political opponents by accusing them of using Big Lie tactics, you really should stop and ask yourself “am I the baddie?”
Unfortunately, Joe Biden is too decompos mentis to have that much perspective. He just reads whatever is on that teleprompter.
Do you need more pearls?
Yikes! Those are some terrible optics.
But no, standing up for the Constitution doesn’t make you the baddie.
Attacking the Capitol sure as shit does!
Standing up for the Constitution does not involve saying your side’s violence is speech, or that the other side’s speech is violence. https://dailytorch.com/2022/09/bidens-war-on-dissent-is-undemocratic-and-un-american/
Tell that to yourself re: Jan 06, or the BLM protests that you insist were all riots.
When did Biden say that his side’s violence was speech? Hint: you made it up. (Trump says it all the time of course.)
I see that Rick Manning has declared a war on proofreading.
New high water mark in January 6 sentencing: ten years for Thomas Webster for assaulting a police officer outside the Capitol. By the prosecution’s calculation he got off easy. The sentencing memoranda are in the docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59735143/united-states-v-webster/?page=2
There is a substantial enhancement for using body armor during a crime of violence. The judge observed that although it technically applied here, the prosecution had not requested it in a previous case. Last month in another case it was the terrorism enhancement that was being applied unevenly.
It’s lovely to see your eyes opening up to the inequities of the criminal justice system.
Please log in to post comments
11.26.2022 8:30 AM
11.26.2022 7:00 AM
11.25.2022 10:00 AM
Elizabeth Nolan Brown
11.25.2022 9:00 AM
Deirdre Nansen McCloskey
11.25.2022 8:30 AM