Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[apedad]

Woman whose rape DNA led to her arrest sues San Francisco

A rape victim whose DNA from her sexual assault case was used by San Francisco police to arrest her in an unrelated property crime on Monday filed a lawsuit against the city.

During a search of a San Francisco Police Department crime lab database, the woman’s DNA was tied to a burglary in late 2021. Her DNA had been collected and stored in the system as part of a 2016 domestic violence and sexual assault case, then-District Attorney Chesa Boudin said in February in a shocking revelation that raised privacy concerns.

Federal law already prohibits the inclusion of victims’ DNA in the national Combined DNA Index System. There is no corresponding law in California to prohibit local law enforcement databases from retaining victims’ profiles and searching them years later for entirely different purposes.

https://apnews.com/article/crime-arrests-lawsuits-california-san-francisco-7f5a5868d69eb742e80ff663893b17ee

Kinda torn on this one.

One the one hand, it’s in the public’s interest that sexual assault victims feel comfortable about reporting assaults.

On the other hand, it’s also in the public’s interest that crimes be investigated using whatever – legal – methods and/or sources that are available and this women allegedly committed a crime.

[John F. Carr]

It's like calling 911 and having police check on your background. Which is common. If you have a warrant out for you, be careful of asking police to help.

[David Nieporent]

Well, it's only a bit like that, because the point here is that she called the police years ago, and they saved it permanently.

But I don't know what her grounds for suit are.

[shawn_dude]

Part of the complaint, as I understand it, was that she didn't consent to the collection of her DNA for law enforcement activities outside of her rape investigation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I find DNA evidence just a bit concerning, since once you have it, it's technically capable of being spoofed; You could synthesize a bit of DNA and plant it. At the same time, it's widely considered to be very reliable evidence, so framing somebody this way would be very effective.

There are other abuses retaining it might enable, such as violations of medical privacy.

From that perspective, I'd greatly prefer that governments not retain any DNA information on people who haven't been found guilty of a crime. I'm less concerned about crime victims' DNA being compared against pre-existing crime scene evidence, because doing that doesn't have the planted evidence potential. Though I understand the desire to avoid discouraging reporting crimes, there has to be some limit to that.

For anybody who says this is conspiracy thinking, rights protections ARE kind of based on the notion that government might sometimes be up to no good, and it's not like police have never framed anybody.

[Krayt]

Was it Philadelphia maybe which had hundreds of men volunteer their DNA to help solve a crime? After, the police said we're keeping it, and the courts said Ok.

That's all you need to know for scumbucket behavior by various branches.

[John F. Carr]

There was a case like that in Truro, Massachusetts, on Cape Cod. They wanted DNA from every man in town and didn't tell the men that their DNA would be treated like DNA from any other criminal suspect. Murder of Christa Worthington if you want to go search for the final disposition of DNA evidence.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

It's not that easy to synthesize DNA coding for an entire human genome, all the chromosomes, even in a small amount (ie even if you only need a few copies of each chromosome).

[David Welker]

It is possible that people can be framed. But you can plant DNA without synthesizing it. You could just steal it by going through their trash or whatever.

Your issue with the government retaining DNA is partially misplaced. The DNA collected by private organizations is available to law enforcement. There have been quite a few cold cases that have been solved this way.

Overall, I believe identifying people via DNA is a positive thing. The harder it is to get away with crimes, especially serious violent crimes, the better.

[Voize]

Do you think DNA should be treated the same as fingerprints or differently?

[Brett Bellmore]

DNA tells you more about a person, (Finger prints barely establish more than that you have intact fingers!) and so has more abuse potential. So the government should actually be more restricted in regards to DNA than fingerprints.

[Longtobefree]

DNA tells you nothing. It no longer can even tell men from women.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I'm not following. What more do you think it tells you?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a huge treasure trove of medical data, as well as allowing for genealogy searches. Every year your genes become more informative about your health.

[Sarcastr0]

What do you think the police do????

[TwelveInchPianist]

Whatever they want.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That's not how forensic DNA analysis works.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Actually, the police had a history of looking at DNA databases of and using that to track down criminal suspects via their relatives who were in the database. You can't do that with fingerprints.

https://www.science.org/content/article/new-federal-rules-limit-police-searches-family-tree-dna-databases

[Noscitur a sociis]

Okay? That doesn't change the fact that forensic DNA profiles aren't based on genes and thus don't constitute "a huge treasure trove of medical data" (and indeed, don't really give any phenotypical information).

[Armchair Lawyer]

So here's the deal. If you're "just" talking about DNA matches (via forensics) then it doesn't tell you a lot. But keep in mind...they still have all the DNA, and can retest for specific areas and regions as needed.

So, when the police for example, had a cold case and needed to find relatives of the suspect, they would retest the DNA, and get more data out of it. This would allow them for genealogy searches. It's not part of "standard" forensics, but the police would use it as needed. So the DNA there would give more information.

Likewise, if needed, the government could expand their current repository of DNA evidence and test for specific genes, as needed. They don't CURRENTLY, but as seen with the genealogy searches, they do have the capability to expand it, as needed, when needed. And they do so. The material is still there. So it is something to be cautious of.

[shawn_dude]

Fingerprints identify one person. DNA can identify you and also your close relatives.

[Voize]

I asked because fingerprint records have been used for over a century in criminal investigations so there has been some time to develop policies for their retention and reuse that strike a balance between privacy and law enforcement interests. You raise a good point though, maybe the fingerprint experience isn't directly transferable because DNA may impact more than a single individual's privacy.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

When I was in grad school in the late 1990s, I found a very short antique book in the chemistry library. It was from some time in the 1920s. The title was Fingerprints Can Be Forged. It was written by a convict, in prison, who had been a chemist specializing in photo-chemistry and film-technology. It detailed a method of copying fingerprints from one surface to another, in a way which could not be detected afterwards.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

UPDATE: Ah, here it is!

https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=ha010440068

[John F. Carr]

A second plane has hit the island! Florida sent two planeloads of migrants to a rich vacation spot in Massachusetts. It's the off season now so there might be room. Officials are not rewarding DeSantis by acting angry.

https://apnews.com/article/florida-immigration-ron-desantis-charlie-baker-4fe96d293de4b189299a372b85c95add

[Brett Bellmore]

I understand they were dropped off right in front of Obama's mansion.

[Nige]

What was it, twelve million for a cheap stunt using poor and vulnerable people like they're props so the MAGA base know he's their guy and will hilariously abuse migrants to pwn the libs with even more imaginative cruelty than Trump?

[Krayt]

Putting the poor in rich neighborhoods is a Good Thing as it forces them to see what's the current state ofWE DIDN'T MEAN US!

[Sarcastr0]

No rich person was discomfited by this, just folks that work near them.

You appear to think this wasn't a stunt. It was.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Is declaring yourself a “sanctuary city” with no intent of ever actually giving sanctuary also a stunt? Or is it just an out and out lie?

[Sarcastr0]

Not actually giving sanctuary?

Those cities, for better of worse (I think worse) have a policy that seems to have a material effect, according to both the federal government and the states themselves.

[bevis the lumberjack]

A policy that seems to have a material effect. Pure bureaucratese.
How about taking some of the load off of places like Eagle Pass and Del Rio?

When asked (forced?) to actually do something to help handle a problem that their rhetoric encourages, they bitch and moan and complain. It's a horrible look. Completely embarrassing. And it shows them to be just a bunch of useless windbags.

[David Nieporent]

They didn't bitch and moan and complain.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They didn't bitch and moan and complain."

Not here maybe but the mayors of DC and Chicago certainly have about the buses with illegals sent to their cities. DC mayor wanted to use the National Guard! Chicago bused them in turn to the suburbs.

[bernard11]

As a MA citizen I'm happy to help these people.Let's have a few conditions, though:

1. Send them to Boston or other places that are better equipped to provide help, community support, etc. Sending them to Martha's Vineyard is scummy performative crap, like everything DeSantis does.

2. Let the local officials know they are coming.

3. Only send people who choose to go, and tell them what's going on.

Of course, showing off for the MAGAts is more important to that dirtbag than doing any of that.

Like his BS "voter fraud" arrests he is rapidly demonstrating his utter lack of any decency, presumably in an effort to win the GOP nomination should Trump falter.

What that says about the GOP is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bernard,

Some items to consider.

1. The Biden administration has caught and released over a million illegal immigrants into the country due to their change in policy. That's illegal immigrant for every 330 Americans.

2. The year-round population of Martha's Vineyard is about 17,000. They've been "asked" to take on just 50 of these illegal immigrants (which is approximately 1 for every 330 MV residents). Yet there appears to be substantial griping...despite towns in South Texas taking on hundreds or thousands more.

3. MV is in some ways especially suited to take on additional residents. They regularly take on another 150,000 or so people during the summer, not to mention being quite a rich county. But just taking on "50" illegal immigrants is a special burden? Despite regularly taking on 100 times that number of people during the summer... What's the difference? Perhaps the class of people.

4. So, the griping here says a lot more about liberals and so on that it does about the GOP. That they can't even take on their proportional burden in a rich community that regularly takes on hundreds of times as many normal people.

[Nige]

There was no asking. There's no policy here, no attempt to organise the relocation, no planning no outreach, no preperation, just to dump people in a place to embarass the residents and humilate the migrants, who they lied to. The nasty glee is undisguised. This can't be defended as anything other than a callback to the days when people in the south would give black people one-way tickets to northern cities and lie about what was waiting for them there.

[Ben_]

I hereby officially warn blue-state virtue signalers to prepare for migrants. They’ll be coming by bus or plane as long as the borders are open.

Consider this your official warning

[Nige]

Yeah, instead of actually organising something issue vague warnings, organising might actually acheive something meaningful, warnings make you feel big and stwong.

[bernard11]

A.L.

Bernard,

Some items to consider.

Fuck you and your "items."

DeSantis made zero effort to contact anyone to let them know these people were coming. He was concerned for their welfare? Fuck that.

DeSantis was picking up people in San Antonio(!!) with lies and phony promises, and flying them FL and then MV. Lovely guy.

DeSantis told them they had to register their "addresses" - created out of thin air - with the wrong agency.

MV is a summer resort is;and. When September come there is not a lot of demand for labor, even if Obama does have a house there.

This was a scumbag, smug, stunt by an utter asshole, and those defending it, like you are no better. I'd say ypu should be ashamed of yourself, but you are incapable of that.

Items! Kiss my ass.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bernard,

The policies put into place by the guy you voted for have resulted in thousands...tens of thousands...of illegal immigrants overrunning smaller, poorer towns on the Mexican border.

There was no warning. There is no capacity. Nothing. They've been screaming for months about it, asking for help. And nothing has been done.

Martha's Vineyard gets JUST 50 illegal immigrants...a miniscule fraction of what poorer, smaller towns have had to deal with...and suddenly it's a human calamity that you care about. And they had them for what....48 hours? Before they were all rounded up and put in a military camp?

Maybe you should get off your fat hypocritical ass and demand Biden do something about the literal hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants he "catch and releasing" into the country. Maybe you should care about something besides a fat rich Island.

I'm sure these immigrants are much better off trapped on a military base, rather than...I don't know...renting 2-3 of these empty vacation homes on MV and letting them stay there and work in the community?

Nah...too many immigrants for MV.

[bernard11]

They actually helped plenty, bevis. Get your facts straight before you jump on your high horse.

They didn't bitch and moan and complain. When the migrants showed up, unannounced, they were fed, provided with clothing and shelter, and are on their way to the mainland, where they actually can get some help with relocation.

You often accuse others of wearing partisan blinders, but you have some pretty strong blinders yourself. You're so locked into your "pox on both their houses shtick you won't deal with reality.

This was a nasty, cruel, stunt by DeSantis. No amount of barroom "yuk, yuk, that'll show 'em" can justify it.

[Jazzizhep]

Of course it was political until the policy was actually tested. They failed.

[John F. Carr]

None of the towns on Martha's Vineyard, where the planes arrived, is a sanctuary city. This according to online lists of sanctuary cities.

The lists for Massachusetts include the liberal larger cities, where a poor immigrant might realistically be found, and only a few smaller towns signalling their virtues without expecting to have to do anything.

[David Nieporent]

Did Martha's Vineyard declare itself a sanctuary city?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Prolly.

Why should poor communities like Eagle Pass and Del Rio bear the burden of this influx that's being encouraged by the current administration and by big city mayors?

It's a stunt by Abbott (who I hate for personal reasons, btw) but it's as fair as fair can be. He's trying to make a point, and the mayors of DC,et al are making it for him just fine.

The only non-hypocrite in the bunch (that I've seen) has been the mayor of Chicago, who merely said something to the effect that they're human beings and we're going to treat them as such. Props where props are due.

[bernard11]

Prolly.

Prolly not, because, as David N points out below, it's not a city, but an island.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I mean, they did have these signs.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/09/15/17/62449547-11216207-For_several_years_many_businesses_and_homes_in_Martha_s_Vineyard-a-56_1663260109147.jpg

But that's just a sign. I'm sure they didn't actually mean they wanted 50 illegal immigrants.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"We stand with immigrants"

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, the old 'they put up a sign I don't like so fuck them all' policy justification.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's just 50 illegal immigrants, in a community of 17,000 that regularly takes on 150,000 additional residents in the summer...

Why all the griping? Are they the "wrong sort" of people?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Martha's Vineyard will be fine, AL. They've already dealt with the issue with compassion DeSantis would not understand.

But that doesn't mean I need to like an expensive political stunt using confused and lied to immigrants as props.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" They've already dealt with the issue with compassion DeSantis would not understand."

Huh? They were kicked off Martha's Vinyard in about 24 hours.

[bernard11]

They were kicked off Martha's Vinyard in about 24 hours.

Longer than they were in FL.

You people really are total fucking assholes.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Did Martha's Vineyard declare itself a sanctuary city?

No, but it's in MA, which did declare itself to be a sanctuary state.

[Jazzizhep]

The state of Massachusetts did.

[OtisAH]

Oh look, yet another opportunity for shitheads and liars to keep shit-talking and lying about yet another topic they understand almost nothing about. How fun.

“Sanctuary city” indicates that the city will not commit municipal resources to enforcement of federal immigration laws. This is all it has ever meant.

I return you now to your regularly scheduled shit-talking and lying.

[Moderation4ever]

Thanks for point out the BS of the term "Sanctuary City"

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You appear to think this wasn't a stunt. It was."

Stunt or not, it's good policy, and the stunt would be unnecessary if the Biden administration were halfway competent.

[Nige]

The stunt was necessary to position DeSantis as Trump's anointed succesor for xenophobes.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure I'd actually argue that they ARE competent, but it seems to me the problem isn't incompetent execution of good policy, but instead semi-competent execution of really, really bad policy.

They're deliberately maximizing illegal immigration, and succeeding wonderfully at that.

[Nige]

Keep pretending climate change isn't real, soon enough people will be migrating all over the place.

[Brett Bellmore]

Riiight. Mexico didn't used to have those hot summers!

[Nige]

Hotter and hotter, and whole continent below that.

[Jazzizhep]

Yeah, it’s the 0.2° rise over several decades and not the political climate or an open invitation from Biden causing migration.

Next level thinker, you are.

[Nige]

'soon enough'

'will be'

[Brett Bellmore]

As an example,

Biden Admin Awards $80 Million Contract That Prohibits GPS Monitoring Of Illegal Immigrants

Not merely didn't require GPS monitoring. Affirmatively forbade it.

[Nige]

Yeah that's not Big Brotherish at all.

[Armchair Lawyer]

How do you feel about GPS tracking of people on probation?

[Nige]

Big Brothery.

[Sarcastr0]

Stunt or not, it's good policy

Stunts are good policy?

No - you are confusing policy with politics. Don't do that - it's brain poison.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Stunts are good policy?"

Sigh. A good policy doesn't become bad just because you characterize it as a stunt.

[Nige]

A stunt doesn't become policy because policy takes hard work and thought and co-operation and DeSantis isn't interested in any of that.

[Sarcastr0]

Sigh. A good policy doesn't become bad just because you characterize it as a stunt.

YOU characterized it as a stunt!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"YOU characterized it as a stunt!"

Whatever, Gaslightro.

Sarcastro: "You appear to think this wasn't a stunt. It was."
...
TIP: "Stunt or not..."

[Sarcastr0]

What do you think stunt or not means?

It means even if it is a stunt you think it's good policy.

Which is directly contradicted by your 'A good policy doesn't become bad just because you characterize it as a stunt.'

Seems like your urge to contradict got ahead of your ability to be consistent. Sit down with yourself, figure out what you want to mean, and then stick to it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"What do you think stunt or not means?"

It means he's non-committal on calling it a stunt, and choosing not to argue for or against the definition at this time.

You previously did define it as a stunt.

[Sarcastr0]

It means that he thinks that *even if it is a stunt* it's still good policy, AL.

This is not hard to parse.

[VinniUSMC]

It means that he thinks that *even if it is a stunt* it's still good policy, AL.

YOU characterized it as a stunt!

So, which is it? Did he characterize it as a stunt or not?

Or, are you just a trolling liar?

[Sarcastr0]

You're right , Vinni - he argued even if it were a stunt, it would still be good policy.
And then later said that it's a good policy, and I'm just calling it a stunt.

I was mistaken in the specific characterization of what he said. But he is still contradicting himself as to whether a stunt can be good policy.

But also, this is so clearly not about policy, it's about owning the libs. I'd be just as up in arms if Biden did something purely to make conservatives unhappy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Stunts are good policy? "

Something can be both good politics and good policy.

Having a few states bear the entire burden of runaway illegal immigration is certainly not good policy.

[Randal]

Abandoning people with no means on an island is not good policy. It's a cruel, exploitative stunt.

If Texas wants to give immigrants a free ride to somewhere, I think that's great, as long as it's being done in good faith. The complaints of the DC mayor are cringeworthy.

[Bob from Ohio]

They shouldn't have left their home countries.

Its a great stunt [though Abbott did it first'.

[Randal]

They shouldn't have left their home countries.

If that's how you feel, why screw around with the expensive jets? Just shoot them.

[Nige]

Hey it's not human trafficking if you don't regard them as human.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Democrats could respond by dragging Ken Paxton from the dinner table, while his family watches, when arresting Paxton. Then, perp walk him for about two blocks to a police vehicle, providing plenty of great angles for news photographers.

Federal agents were very lenient during the search at Mar-a-Lago (timing, clothing, etc.). Trump should get no courtesy during searches at Bedminster and Trump Tower.

No free swings, clingers.

[bernard11]

it's good policy

It's crappy policy, or rather not policy at all, but stunt to show what an asshole he is, in the (realistic) belief that you have to be a total asshole to get the GOP nomination.

If he wants to help these people move let him try to get in touch with officials in various places and coordinate their arrival, etc.

He's just trying to create chaos.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's crappy policy..."

Any argument or evidence? Why do you think the immigrants are better off in areas already saturated than in MV?

[bernard11]

Stupid question.

See above where I commented on this policy.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

but stunt to show what an asshole he is

No, it's to show what hypocritical, lying assholes the open borders (but NIMBY!) blowhards are

[Nige]

Yeah, Republican policy is pwning the libs, we said that. Apart from that it's utterly useless and a horrible way to treat people.

[Krayt]

No, I know it was a stunt.

Some seem to think it wasn't worth it.

[Sarcastr0]

Your post indicates you think the rich liberals were personally disturbed by this in some way.

They were not.

[Krayt]

*I* am fine bringing in lots of immigrants because this is the shining city on the hill. Come here and live free from dictatorship and corruption!

*I* am fine bringing in lots of immigrants because, in an economically free society, the more, the better.

I am not fine bringing them in hand over fist so you can win elections so you can squat all over point 2 above (and indirectly, point 1, by increasing getting in the way of business. And I am not fine with the head Republican wiping his ass with immigrant sentiment because, hey, it works historically.

[Sarcastr0]

So a Replacement Theory jackass, then.
It's all telepathy why you don't like Dems' immigration policies, seems like.

Also: 'Putting the poor in rich neighborhoods is a Good Thing as it forces them to see what's the current state ofWE DIDN'T MEAN US' does not sound like you're in favor of immigration.

It also sounds like you think rich liberals were the one that had to deal with this stunt.

[jb]

"I am not fine bringing them in hand over fist so you can win elections"

No one is doing this. This is some weird Republican bogeyman. Immigrants can't vote for years, and aren't nearly as reliable a voting block for Democrats as many other groups. Educational attainment is a much better predictor of party affiliation than immigration status, for example.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which way do the ignorant, poorly educated people, communities, and states tend to vote?

[Nige]

I'm sure the rich neighborhood will be just fine. The migrants, on the other hand, deserve better.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The migrants, on the other hand, deserve better."

Better than Martha's Vinyard? Any suggestions?

[Mr. Bumble]

Beverly Hills?

[Moderation4ever]

Mar-a-loga?

[Nige]

Well, maybe they'll be treated with some humanity there.

[Mr. Bumble]

You continue to redefine stupid.

[Nige]

Yes, we know you guys think treating migrants as human is stupid.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hey, I bet these guys will be a lot more fun at the cocktail parties than Dershowitz.

[Brett Bellmore]

In my experience, Dershowitz is a pretty fun guy, so maybe not.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I guess you like better people making decisions about border enforcement that they know they'll never suffer the consequences of.

[Sarcastr0]

Who suffered the consequences here, Brett?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe nobody. Perhaps it's a win-win.

[Sarcastr0]

No - a bunch of working stiffs in Martha's Vinyard had to deal with a bunch of nonsense. And a bunch of illegals got used as political props. And then there is the cost. Suddenly, budgets don't matter if it owns the libs.

I know you're smart - why do you play dumb?

[Ben_]

What do you mean "suffered"? The working stiff will benefit from all the economic growth that the migrants will bring.

Or are you saying all those promises of economic growth from migration were just more lies?

[Sarcastr0]

The working stiff will benefit from all the economic growth that the migrants will bring.

Another person playing dumb.

The people who had to deal with this dumbass stunt are not the rich, they are working stiffs. Shitty day for them, regardless of what economic strawman you try and apply to a very small number of people.

But you don't really care about them, do you? For all your grandstanding about liberals don't care about the losers of their cost-benefit analysis you don't even bother with the analysis, and day fuck the workers, lets own the libs.

[Ben_]

You support the border policy, you support the consequences of it.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you know what's not a consequence of liking more open immigration policies? Governors grandstanding.

Second, who is 'you' here? You don't know the politics of those who had to spin up on this unneeded churn in their plans.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You support the border policy, you support the consequences of it."

The libs here and in the press are a great example of this meme:

Me sowing: Haha f**k yeah!!! Yes!!

Me reaping: Well this f**king sucks. What the f**k.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you don't know the politics of those who had to spin up on this unneeded churn in their plans."

We don't?

2020:
Biden and Harris: 9,763
Trump and Pence: 2,610

That's about 80%.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, if it's 80% sure they vote for Democrats, then that counts as knowing for sure!

Bob, statistics don't work like that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"statistics don't work like that."

You are just being intentionally obtuse.

"Oh, we don't KNOW FOR SURE what 80% think, we only have evidence that they voted for the pro-open borders candidate. Its quite possible that all 80% actually supported the border wall. Its possible. Don't you know how stats work!!"

Its also not the "working stiffs" dealing with it, its local and state officials. And how many "working stiffs" can afford MV?

[Ben_]

You means you. You support everything that comes with uncontrolled migration because you support open borders and the President who opened them.

[Sarcastr0]

You support everything that comes with uncontrolled migration because you support open borders and the President who opened them.

Funny, I thought we were talking about the people that work at Martha's Vineyard. Having trouble staying on topic, and prefer to start ranting about me?

[Bob from Ohio]

"And then there is the cost."

What does public school cost per year? Each kid you can send away saves $250,000 at least.

[Nige]

Each kid you educate is an investment in the future, this is just an investment in his presidential campaign.

[shawn_dude]

Try $7400 per kid in Florida. ($250K?! where'd you pull THAT from?!)

[Bob from Ohio]

That's the amount spent by the state. Now do local spending.

I'm counting K to 12, not per year. I' might be a bit high, its more like $150,000.

[shawn_dude]

And then you need to subtract based on age and any pre-existing education. Not every child will need K-12 since, presumably, immigrant children range in age and educational attainment.

Florida estimates that it uses about 150K-200K migrant farm workers per year in its agricultural sector. This suggests they could save lots more if they were willing to upset businesses who gain from the low-cost labor.

[Ben_]

Ilya Somin has "keyhole solutions" to suggest for the people of Martha's Vineyard. Any concerns of anyone there can be casually dismissed by suggesting rhetorical "keyhole solutions".

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No - a bunch of working stiffs in Martha's Vinyard had to deal with a bunch of nonsense."

What are you even talking about? If you're referring to providing the immigrants with shelter, etc, that would have had to be done wherever they landed. As for the cost, that is offset by the benefit of getting these guys where they want to go.

[Sarcastr0]

This was unexpected. That makes everything worse. You know this.

I can't tell if you turned your brain off or are just pretending you did.

As for the cost, that is offset by the benefit of getting these guys where they want to go.
They wanted to go here? You got any evidence of that?

[Ben_]

The inevitable consequence of the policy you support is not "unexpected".

[bernard11]

It's just the usual nyaah nyaah bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

The inevitable consequence of the policy you support

Weird definition of inevitable, when it takes a shithead governor spending his own state's money to make this happen.

[Ben_]

It’s inevitable that migrants cross an open border. Tell them they owe it to the people of Martha's Vineyard to coordinate their arrival.

[Sarcastr0]

they owe it to the people of Martha's Vineyard to coordinate their arrival.

Coordination is not about owing anyone anything, it's just good policy.

[Randal]

They didn't want to go to Martha's Vinyard. Kidnapping people and abandoning them on an island is obviously hideous. Right on brand for MAGA's race to humanity's bottom.

Maybe they were lied to and consented based on the lies, i.e. tricked, but that's still kidnapping. Lying that you have candy in your car so that the kid gets in voluntarily doesn't make it not kidnapping.

Take immigrants to real places that they honestly want to go, like DC and Chicago. That's a great idea. Free bus ride.

[Ben_]

An open door means you don’t get to choose who comes through or when they come.

You don’t get to have "good policy". You get whatever happens to occur. If you want to choose what happens according to a "good policy", a closed door lets you make that choice.

[Sarcastr0]

We don't have an open door.

And DeSantis is absolutely choosing where they go.

You're inner ideologue is out and proud, and trying to deny reality, like all ideologues must do to remain pure.

[Ben_]

Same with migrants. They choose, not anyone trying to make a "good policy".

A closed door is a door you can choose to open for migrants when you decide it’s a "good policy".

If Florida doesn’t get to exclude migrants, neither does Martha’s Vineyard. Martha’s Vineyard can spend $12M to send migrants to Wyoming if they decide they were wrong about their sanctuary policy.

[Randal]

Who cares about Martha's Vinyard? You're kidnapping people! It's just sick.

[Ben_]

I hope some of you say "kidnapping" publicly so DeSantis and others can sue you for defamation.

[Randal]

A lot of people are saying "kidnapping" publicly, because it obviously is. Charlie Crist is also saying "indict."

[Michael P]

Ben_, he's accusing you personally of kidnapping. To quote Gaslight0, "this is not hard to parse".

[Ben_]

Update: Migrants exiled from Martha’s Vineyard.

Exclusivity wins again among the people who pretend to be inclusive. You knew they were complete phonies the whole time.

They'll donate $5 to help house the migrants somewhere where poor Americans can be displaced.

[Randal]

That's just stupid, Benm. I don't even know what the point is, it's just sort of evaporatively stupid.

Do you even know what a sanctuary city is? It means, we're not going to harass our immigrant communities (such as by kidnapping people and leaving them on islands).

You can't dump a bunch of people on Martha's Vineyard and call it an immigrant community, stupid. They were assisted off the island that they didn't want to be on in the first place.

[Kazinski]

A bunch of working stiffs in Texas, Florida, and Arizona have to deal with a bunch of nonsense all the time.

What's the difference?

[Ben_]

No opportunity to hate on DeSantis or other GOP officials means leftists aren’t interested. They only pretend to care about anyone in order to launch attacks.

[Nige]

Maybe working stiffs in Texas, Florida, and Arizona need more competent elected representatives.

[Ben_]

Sending the problem to Martha’s Vineyard and to Chicago is exceptionally competent.

[Nige]

An admission of failure, at best.

[Ben_]

Biden is a failure. There was never a question about that.

[Nige]

Nah, poor old DeSantis just can't handle it and panicked.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz - they're paid to deal with this and expect it.

[Kazinski]

Who is paying working stiffs to put up with it? As a former and future resident of Arizona, nobody is paying the working stiffs in Arizona for overwhelming their communities with illegal aliens.

They are putting up with a lot more disruption than Martha's Vineyard.

[Sarcastr0]

No one in Texas or Arizona handles immigrant processing and placement?

We're talking about actual happenings here, not some handwaiving about 'immigrants bad and make people sad' nonsense.

[Nige]

Better than the white-elephant fraud-vehicle wall and kidnapping children to give to Christian adoption agencies? Without those policies on border enforcement, apparently this cynical posturing is all that's left in the conservative barrel.

[jb]

Isn't this equally true for people in states like Utah or Arkansas as it is for people from Massachusetts? And meanwhile, lots of border states vote for people who are supportive of pro-immigration policies.

[Ben_]

Almost everyone is pro-immigration.

Biden is pro-illegality and pro-chaos.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" hilariously abuse migrants to pwn the libs with even more imaginative cruelty than Trump?"

I'm not sure why you guys want to characterize this as abuse. The places these people are voluntary going are nice places. Especially Martha's Vinyard.

[Nige]

Sure they are. With no provisions made in advance for their arrival. It's nasty performative edgelord-politics antics.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not sure what you mean. There's no provisions made for their arrival in other states either. They come when they come.

[Nige]

When they're moved around by officals, you expect better organisation. But not from Republicans spending millions for the lulz.

[TwelveInchPianist]

They are being voluntarily moved from places that are already saturated with migrants to places where there is more opportunity. Whatever else it is, it's good policy.

The fact that it's states that are forced to implement this policy represents an abject failure on the part of the federal government, who at the moment is entirely controlled by the Dems.

[Nige]

Not sure it's voluntary, and I note there was no effort to set up an ordered system of relocations, absent which, it's just a nasty stunt, to show MAGAs that DeSantis hates migrants and pwns the libs.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Not sure it's voluntary,"

If it's involuntary than it's kidnaping, and the Biden administration needs prosecute the people responsible immediately.

"...and I note there was no effort to set up an ordered system of relocations, absent which, it's just a nasty stunt..."

Something tells me that DeSantis and the Mayor of Martha's Vinyard would have had a difficult time working together to accomplish this.

Of course, it's on the feds to set up an orderly system of relocations, which makes this an abject failure by Biden.

[Nige]

No, it turns out they were lied to, told they were being taken to Boston and there were jobs and houses waiting for them. Classy, huh?

Yeah, if DesSantis were protesting the failure of the Feds to co-operate with his non-existent detailed proposals for a nationwide relocation program, you and he might have a point. But he isn't. There's no policy here, no proposal, no strategy other than winning votes.

[David Nieporent]

Something tells me that DeSantis and the Mayor of Martha's Vinyard would have had a difficult time working together to accomplish this.

Well, yeah, because Martha's Vineyard does not have a mayor because it is not a town; it's an island.

If it's involuntary than it's kidnaping, and the Biden administration needs prosecute the people responsible immediately.

Agreed. But Republicans would throw a tantrum if DeSantis were jailed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Well, yeah, because Martha's Vineyard does not have a mayor because it is not a town; it's an island."

Lol. OK, whoever he would work with, then.

"Agreed. But Republicans would throw a tantrum if DeSantis were jailed."

You really think DeSantis needs to coerce people to go to Martha's Vinyard? Especially given the difference in policies on cooperating with the feds between Florida and Mass.

[Nige]

He felt the need to lie about it to them, yes.

[Sarcastr0]

You really think DeSantis needs to coerce people to go to Martha's Vinyard?

How many people do you think know what Martha's Vineyard is?

You're making shit up at a furious pace.

[Ben_]

"Republicans would throw a tantrum if DeSantis were jailed"

Whereas Democrats entirely support jailing people for bad politics now.

[Randal]

It's not "bad politics," it's fucking kidnapping!

[Stephen Lathrop]

". . . places where there is more opportunity."

As for opportunity, you might as well have dropped them in the Sahara. To work on the Vineyard, you have to figure out how to live on the mainland, and commute by ferry. Early autumn is not the time to figure that out, even for locals.

Massachusetts has always hosted its share of immigrants, and still does. It does not accommodate them in places rich people want to live.

[Nige]

I suppose it's progrees that you agree it's bad politics, anyway.

[Ben_]

You know what would make migrant arrivals orderly? A wall.

[Nige]

Nah, walls are for defrauding people out of millions, then falling down.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure why you guys want to characterize this as abuse. The places these people are voluntary going are nice places. Especially Martha's Vinyard.

They were told they were going to Boston. Which makes sense, there are jobs there. They were bribed with food to get on the plane.

And had no idea where they ended up or why, TiP.

Quit pretending you're a dumbass - you know exactly what was going on and how these people were treated (not like people). Martha's Vineyard is not where anyone in their position would want to go.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Apparently the signed documents stating where they were going.

But are you shocked that they were "deported" from Martha's Vinyard in less than 24 hours? If you're going to be pro-immigrant, you have to accept immigrants.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The fact that you are actually defending this action tells us everything we need to know about you. I'd say it's unbelievable, but it really isn't anymore.

[John F. Carr]

I hope they were let out at the airport. You made me think of an incident in 2010 where a boy from the South was literally dropped onto a rich Boston suburb. He stowed away in an airliner's wheel well and fell to earth when the landing gear came down on approach to Logan Airport.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not understand your point.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I understand they were dropped off right in front of Obama's mansion. "

How is the search for that birth certificate coming along?

That question is directed not solely at Birther Brett (and Donald Trump) but also at every antisocial, bigoted, obsolete, right-wing culture war loser.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Good. Hopefully they'll be able to establish fulfilling lives at MV or wherever else they choose to go.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Send them all. Democrats are vile loathsome subhumans amd deserve this.

[Jimmy the Dane]

c. 2016 Leftists: Our cities are open to immigration and will defy the orders of our nazi president Trump!

c. 2022 Leftists: Why do you keep on sending us all these immigrants?!? Don't you know this stuff is expensive and these are a drain on our public welfare systems?!? What gave you any indication we were actually serious?!?

[Nige]

Twelve million dollars to pwn the libs, money well spent.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Paying for daily care of all those immigrants is far from free. Let the taxpayers of those "sanctuary" jurisdictions put their money where their mouth is for once.....

[Nige]

Then they should have spent it on that not on DeSantis' election campaign.

[Ben_]

Are you lying about the $12M? Where does that number come from?

It’s not your $12M regardless, so it’s none of your business whether it’s $12M or $12k or $0.12.

Migrants need to go somewhere. The best place is obviously Martha's Vineyard and other rich neighborhoods in blue states. The people who support a policy should deal with the consequences of it.

Look for these sorts of actions to continue and increase. It’s been a huge success so far.

[Bob from Ohio]

Chartering two planes from Florida to Boston won't cost more than $100,000. He pulled the number out of his a**.

[Ben_]

Leftists like to make stuff up.

Hopefully there’s actually $12M. At $100k per two planes, the arrivals can continue for a long, long time.

Many other blue state rich neighborhoods need planes full of migrants.

[Nige]

You're actually right. Apparently he appropriated 12 million for the, let's generously call it a 'program,' so it probably wasn't all spent on this one stunt, and he has lots leftover for more, I stand corrected.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he appropriated"

No, the Florida legislature did

[Nige]

Potayto potahto.

[Nige]

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/desantis-use-taxpayer-funds-fly-migrants-marthas-vineyard-rcna47859

[Jimmy the Dane]

Only the left is allowed to pilfer the public coffers for electioneering reasons....

[Nige]

So, you're agreeing that he's pilfering the coffers for electioneering reasons.

[Ben_]

Connecticut can be next. Lots of rich neighborhoods there need migrants.

[Sarcastr0]

Dressing up your spite as just a natural consequence is a great way to avoid having any agency in your own bad decisions.

[Ben_]

It’s your policy, not mine.

[Sarcastr0]

Natural consequences alongside 'Lots of rich neighborhoods there need migrants' is all you, and all spite.

Seems a miserable way to be.

[Ben_]

Those people with those virtue-signaling signs need migrants at their front door.

That will be their opportunity to grow up.

[Sarcastr0]

Those people with those virtue-signaling signs need migrants at their front door.
So, once again, not natural consequences. Just revenge for the slight of voting wrong.

[Ben_]

Just like when thieves get caught and face consequences. That’s not natural either, but the hope is that they learn that crime doesn’t pay.

Childish virtue-signalers are getting such lessons now thanks to red state governors. Maybe they will learn.

[Nige]

I think you should teach more people that the cruelty is the point with you guys. Just in case it hasn't sunk in for everyone yet.

[Ben_]

If visiting Martha’s Vineyard is cruel, then Obama was a monster for holding his birthday party there.

[Sarcastr0]

You are comparing voting for national policies you don't like to criminal actions.

Pull the fuck up.

[Ben_]

Facilitating illegal entry is criminal.

Biden and Dems just encourage it and support it though. Like telling someone to start smoking meth and then congratulating them for smoking it. It’s definitely comparable to a crime, but not quite a crime itself.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This discussion inclines me to believe it may be time for educated, modern, successful, diverse communities to stop subsidizing and trying to help the ignorant, bigoted, economically inadequate, Republican, rural and southern communities. Let the clingers and their dysfunctional communities rot. Let the rubes pray on it a spell and hope for a miracle. Why should better Americans pay to try to solve the hayseeds’ self-inflicted problems? Those communities and people — except the minors, who deserve a lifeline enabling them to get the hell out of there — are write-offs.

[Sarcastr0]

You switched to politicians (though their policy positions are not illegal either).

You were talking about the *voters* who lived in Martha's Vineyard. Not Biden nor a bunch of other Democrats.

I hope you made the switch because calling voting badly criminal seems to set off your 'maybe that's fascist' alarm.

Good impulse there.

[Ben_]

Democrat mentality is a criminal mentality at it's core:
- How can we manipulate and scam people to get money we didn't earn?
- How can we make rules for others to follow while exempting ourselves?
- How can we get away with self-indulgent behavior we know is harmful in many cases?
- What lies can we make others believe and how do we suppress the truth and spin tales to keep our scams going?
- How can we divide populations into warring factions so we can be leaders of one faction against the other?
- Anything to get money or power or something of value without providing any value in return.

For reference, because you probably forgot what non-criminal thinking is like, here's how honest people get what they want:

- I'll get a job helping a business with work. Then I'll save money from my paychecks to buy this thing I want.
- I can earn money by building useful things and selling them.
- I know how to make this job take half the time. I'll help you for a fee.
- I get paid by people because I provide work with tangible value. My earnings are from helping people.

[Sarcastr0]

Democrat mentality is a criminal mentality at it's core

You need to stop smelling your own farts. This comes directly from your own ass.

Listing the evil thoughts and plans you're sure liberals have and then getting angry about it is fucking nuts. You should stop doing that.

[Ben_]

Keep that scam going, Sarcastr0. Otherwise you guys might someday have to do real work at honest jobs.

[Nige]

'The people who support a policy should deal with the consequences of it.'

This is DeSantis' policy. He is admitting utter failure in dealing with the problem, and he apparently isn't interested in actually establishing some sort of functional national relocation program with other states, but this is actually just performative cruelty for a MAGA audience, so really he's using taxpayer money to bolster his chances in a future presidential run.

[bernard11]

this is actually just performative cruelty for a MAGA audience, so really he's using taxpayer money to bolster his chances in a future presidential run.

And the fact that this bolsters his chances is really disgraceful.

[Krayt]

It took less than one minute to borrow that $12 million @$200,000 borrowed per second.

Well, I guess your sudden fiscal concern is a welcome, if late change of heart.

Balanced budget amendment, friendssncnnnn ohhhhh I guess not.

[Nige]

Are you under the impression that Republicans are fiscally responsible? Lol.

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

I confess that making people walk the walk is a clever political manoeuvre but the stunt is given away by sending those immigrants without warning the authorities to their destination. It shows the unwillingness to solve a problem by organising the distribution of a priori asylum seekers. The Florida governor is in a bind: while his suspicion that too many are not bona fide asylum seekers might be justified, there is no legal way to deny a proper processing of the asylum claim. Yet, he must avoid at any cost APPEARING to do noting about immigration.
The United Kingdom has just gotten rid of a Home Secretary who claimed to reduce illegal Channel crossings. She did not do it by attacking the people smugglers at the core of the problem but by trying to push back immigrants, thus supposedly deterring others and invalidating the smugglers' business model . The result: hundreds of drowned asylum seekers while their total number is at the highest ever. Humanity gets lost, stunts instead of solutions, whether by DeSantis or by Priti Patel.
And he dares to call himself Christian.

[Ben_]

If you want orderly migration, you want a wall.

[shawn_dude]

Do ladders make things orderly?

[Ben_]

Imaginary ladders don’t have any effect at all.

[Nige]

Except on imaginary walls.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Officials are not rewarding DeSantis by acting angry."

They don't have to be, the media is angry enough on their behalf.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Two buses carrying about 100 migrants from Texas arrived early Thursday outside Vice President Kamala Harris’ residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington, DC."

[Nige]

See, the only policy here is spite.

[shawn_dude]

Well, spite is the essential ingredient to GOP elections these days, so it's at least logical.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
"A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. "

Learned from your side.

[Nige]

This is what you do instead of policies that solve problems, and you still blame others for your behaviour.

[Ben_]

Educating libs about the policies they support is a public service.

[Nige]

I suspect this is going to turn out about as well as the abortion bans, in terms of revolting people with your behaviour.

[Ben_]

Boo hoo, a visit to Martha's Vineyard is soooooooooo revolting.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't understand who these immigrants are at all as people, do you?

You yell that Democratic policies don't pay attention to those that are hurt by them, and well well well look at you, dehumanizing harder than anything you've objected to.

[Ben_]

Soldiers showed up and the migrants were exiled to camps instead of being allowed to stay in rich liberals' summer homes.

Martha’s Vineyard is exclusive again. Congrats.

[Nige]

I thought it was some sort of liberal hellhole?

[Nige]

Turn out this is an old school-style policy/stunt.

'To embarrass Northern liberals and humiliate Black people, southern White Citizens Councils started their so-called "Reverse Freedom Rides," giving Black people one-way tickets to northern cities with false promises of jobs, housing, and better lives.'

https://twitter.com/JFKLibrary/status/1570410627134529536

[Moderation4ever]

If you listen to Fox news there are millions swarming across daily so I don't think the fifty or so on the plan will make much of a dent in the problem.

[CigmaDom]

Is there any chance that DC, Chicago, the island could ship some of their people in jail down to Texas and Florida? Give the people in jail a choice of staying in jail or maybe getting on a bus to drop them off in Texas and Florida? IF they come back they go back to jail.
A parole to TX and FL.

[bevis the lumberjack]

So you’re comparing criminals to migrants and asylum seekers? Really? Care to rethink that one?

[CigmaDom]

No, not comparing criminals to migrants. Policy = you have a problem person you ship them to somewhere else. So just saying the same policy works for Chicago or DC. Only they ship people in their jails to another nice place like Texas or Florida. Same policy at work.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Four years ago my client, threatened with jail for being unable to pay alimony, was shaken down by a judge. Marty had just received a wrongful death settlement from the tragic in-service death of his son. When we offered everything that the wife’s attorney asked for, the judge said, “That’s not enough!” We had no choice but to agree to the amount he demanded. I said quietly, “I never want to appear before you again.” On the way back to the courtroom he said to me, “If you bring this up before the Committee on Judicial Ethics, you’ll regret it!”

It was a shattering experience.

This past week I appeared in front of him again, in a routine auto injury case. He was jovial, called my adversary by his first name, routinely agreed to an adjournment. I understand from comments at a Bar Association dinner that he’s well liked and respected.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Did you appeal the order regarding child support? Usually not worth the time/effort/fees but still there is the principle.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Marty was an associate in my law firm. Suffering from Parkinson's, he could no longer do his job, but when his son was killed I kept paying him for a year until I could no longer afford to. His ex-wife was vicious and had a vicious lawyer (that this judge was buddy-buddy with). Marty had had to discharge his divorce attorney because he could no longer pay him. Acting pro se, he had somehow allowed an order for alimony to be entered which required him to pay even if physically disabled. When contempt hearings were scheduled I came in and began to represent him (pro bono) even though I had no experience in that area of the law. The judge held a "willfulness hearing" to see if his failure to pay alimony was "willful". He threatened Marty with jail.

If I appealed the alimony order I would not have known what I was doing. Also there would be the expense of the record, briefs, etc. I was going down myself because my law firm was losing its biggest clients (even though I ran a tighter ship than the guys I bought the firm from) and I still owed the bank. And as for reporting this judge to the Committee, Marty would be a key witness and I did not want to drag him through that.

[Jacob Grimes]

Tough to read. That really sucks.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Indeed. In the divorce proceeding he also lost his house (though that was before the son was killed).

His son was a high-achieving "star", an Army pilot, and was killed in a crash while a passenger. Their other child is autistic and lives in a group home.

The judge made his threat to me because he believed that I would put up the $16K immediately needed and get it back from Marty's proceeds (which would be champerty, which is unethical). Which was not true.

The case got discontinued and we haven't heard from the ex-wife since. Though the lien from the former attorney is still lurking around and hopefully won't get executed. Marty is "stable" now in a nursing home; his new girlfriend watches out for him.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yeah that sucks. The way our family court systems generally operate is horrible.

I've seen cases where men (and to be fair sometimes women) have had aggregate liabilities exceed their monthly take home pay. Happened a ton for people who got variable bonuses when times were good or did sporadic, but profitable, outside consulting, so their "real" income appeared to be higher on tax filings. Problem is come 2008 the bonuses dried up, many had to take pay cuts, and consulting contracts were not as lucrative. Then people did not seek modifications or the family court denied them. That creates all kinds of problems not only for the person in arrears but the person who is structuring their finances on those payments.

[Bob from Ohio]

"reporting this judge to the Committee"

Good thing you didn't, appearing in court "even though I had no experience in that area of the law" and "not have known what I was doing" is an ethical violation itself. It being pro bono doesn't excuse you.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Quite beside the point, isn't it, insofar as what the judge did?

It was far better for me to be there, than for Marty to continue to screw things up pro se. He was broken in mind and body.

[Bob from Ohio]

You still haven't explained how the judge was acting illegally or unethically.

Thinking the wife's demand was still inadequate is within his discretion, I would think.

[Brett Bellmore]

Did you miss the threat if he were referred to the ethics board?

[Bob from Ohio]

That was after the hearing. He's complaining the actions at the were a "shakedown".

I don't believe that the exchange happened as written either.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If you refuse to believe that a judge can be corrupt, then that's your business.

[Bob from Ohio]

Bad lawyers often blame the judge.

Court orders payment. No payment. Court has contempt hearing. Court says that if you don't agree to pay X, I will find you in contempt and send you to jail. Defendant agrees to pay X.

That is not "corrupt" nor is it a "shakedown".

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't think your accepting a representation that you weren't qualified to undertake is "beside the point" that your client got a suboptimal outcome.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The judge was shaking him down. Don't you see?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, of course I don't see! You are the only one here who (supposedly) knows about the case, and you haven't even explained why you think the judge was wrong (much less why his error was the product of a "shake down").

[Dan Schiavetta]

Plaintiff was demanding total capitulation (paying full value of what was owed) and we agreed to it. The judge said, "That's not enough." Why? Where did that extra money go to?

[Jacob Grimes]

If it was on an emergency basis and was only a single hearing, then it's not an ethical violation, at least under the model rules.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I say that I didn't know what I was doing, but what I mean by that is I had never been attorney of record in a matrimonial action (though many times I was on the periphery). However once I saw what I had to do, I understood it perfectly well. In fact I think my papers were better written than my adversary's (she used a lot of blustery language).

[Bob from Ohio]

"shaken down by a judge"

You were not. He didn't ask for a bribe.

I see downchain that there was already a court order, getting your client to pay as ordered is not a "shakedown", you just disagree.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You misunderstand. Plaintiff's attorney was demanding full value. When we offered it, the judge said, "That's not enough."

[apedad]

Package explodes on Northeastern University campus, injuring staff member

ABC News reported that the staff member, a 45-year-old man, who was injured in the incident had opened a hard-packed Pelican-type case, according to law enforcement sources. The case did not contain any explosive material, ABC reported, however it had been pressurized and when opened cause the detonation.

Officials allegedly found what sources described as an anonymous note railing against virtual reality, among other things.

https://www.wcvb.com/article/explosion-northeastern-university-boston/41200371#

Hey, BravoCharlieDelta, Bob from Ohio, Longtobefree, etc.,

Can you guys give us a heads up when you start your attacks?

I’d much rather hear confirmation directly from you that to read about it in some spotty press release.

Mucho thanks!

[Brett Bellmore]

According to the account, authorities suspect the staff member of having staged the whole thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Further accounts say the police are now proceeding on the basis that they're investigating a hoax by the guy who reported it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah because the Unibomber was such a fire-breathing conservative.

What a politically addled brain you have. It makes you act like a jackass.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In your own words, can you describe what happened in many major cities across the US during the Summer of 2020 and then explain how that doesn't bother you one bit?

But this hoax does?

[apedad]

I have ALWAYS deplored violence and have stated many times on this blog.

Any violence should be investigated and those found guilty punished.

[VinniUSMC]

Hey, BravoCharlieDelta, Bob from Ohio, Longtobefree, etc., Can you guys give us a heads up when you start your attacks? I’d much rather hear confirmation directly from you that to read about it in some spotty press release.</i?

Hey apedad, go fuck yourself.

Anyone who wasn't a full on moron might have a clue that cases like that are built with, wait for it, pressure relief valves. Yet, here you are, so quick to judge as always.

You're really a terrible human being. Do the world a favor and down a bottle of Draino.

[Brett Bellmore]

Went to see Styx in concert last night. Man, that Gowan is something else, a real showman in addition to being a phenomenal singer AND keyboardist.

[apedad]

Styx is still going!?!

Wow!

Saw them on May 29, 1983 in Biloxi, MS, when they did their Kilroy Was Here tour.

[Brett Bellmore]

Still going, and still great. It's a ship of Theseus thing, I guess. 😉 A band can go on forever as long as you keep replacing members.

They did bring out one of the original band members, Chuck Panozzo, but he didn't do much playing. No shocker, he was born in 1948!

[Mr. Bumble]

"he was born in 1948!"

...says someone born in 1958?

[Brett Bellmore]

1959. Eleven years makes a pretty huge difference when you're already a senior citizen.

[Mr. Bumble]

ageist!

[not guilty]

The Trump team has filed its opposition to the government's request for a partial stay pending appeal of the injunction issued by Judge (loose) Cannon. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.84.0_3.pdf The government is seeking a stay to the extent the trial court Order (1) enjoins the further review and use for criminal investigative purposes of records bearing classification markings that were recovered pursuant to a court-authorized search warrant and (2) requires the government to disclose those classified records to a special master for review.

The Trump team yaps and yammers about a president's authority to declassify governmental records. That, however, is not at issue. The filing conspicuously avoids any assertion that Donald Trump in fact issued any order declassifying any of the subject documents. I wonder if that will matter to a rogue trial judge who issued a temporary injunction without having received a shred of evidence. I hope that the Court of Appeals will be more circumspect.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do they need to litigate the issue of whether the "purported" classified documents, (That's how they refer to them.) really are classified, in this context? The Special master is supposed to be looking to see if the FBI has actually separated those documents from privileged things like attorney-client communications or medical records aren't they?

[not guilty]

The partial stay request references "records bearing classified markings." That can easily be determined by examining the four corners of a document.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure, because the warrant specified "records bearing classified markings.". Though "specified" is a bit misleading, it actually allowed them to seize anything that was anywhere near such a document, in fact there are complaints that it was so broad in that regard as to amount to a general warrant.

But the specific issue, as I understand it, is that the FBI hoovered up so much stuff that they've got a load of stuff they had no business having custody of or seeing, and the special master's job is to sort it out, on the basis that, no, you can't actually trust the FBI to police the FBI.

[Nige]

Actually, it seems like Trump had so many government records and documents marked classified and had them stored in such a haphazard manner that a relatively small amount of private Trump documents got taken up in the sweep.

[Brett Bellmore]

Please don't pretend that staged photo with documents strewn across the floor actually represents how they were stored.

The warrant allowed them to seize anything that was so much as in the same room as a document marked classified. They took plenty of boxes that had no indication of being relevant except for being in the same room.

[Nige]

Nobody is pretending that's how they were stored, it wasn't a staged photo, it was an evidentiary display.

Considering how many of the documents were supposed to be locked in secure areas, the fact that other documents were lying around with them, or that they were lying around with them, speaks to Trump's carelessness and indifference to national security.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A photograph that prominently includes a size gauge is tough to see as a "staged" photograph . . . except among the profoundly uninformed, unsophisticated, and uneducated.

[Brett Bellmore]

See, the staged photo had the effect they intended: You actually think the documents were "lying around", rather than neatly packed away in labeled boxes.

[SimonP]

And Trump Team's "flood with shit" strategy is having the intended effect, since you'd rather give the benefit of the doubt to a known, profligate liar claiming that the photo was "staged" than believe that a law enforcement agency has an interest in diligently cataloguing and not tampering with evidence in the course of a criminal investigation.

Virtually everything that Trump has claimed about this raid has been a lie. Why do you believe him, here?

[Nige]

Neatly packed away in a box labeled 'Time Covers' in a closet in his office. But you guys are so serious about national security.

[Sarcastr0]

See, the staged photo had the effect they intended: You actually think the documents were "lying around", rather than neatly packed away in labeled boxes.

No one thinks the picture is true. That doesn't mean any of what you just said about boxes is true, either.

[OtisAH]

JFC this shit again. Clowns have to clown i suppose.

[not guilty]

"The warrant allowed them to seize anything that was so much as in the same room as a document marked classified. They took plenty of boxes that had no indication of being relevant except for being in the same room."

What word or group of words in Attachment B of the search warrant do you claim authorized seizure of anything in the same room? Please be specific -- hyperbole doesn't suffice.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mar a Largo warrant

"a. Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, <b<as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes;"

That's broad enough to seize anything in the same room as one of those boxes.

[Ridgeway]

No -- it allows them to seize other boxes or containers in the same room. There are more things in heaven and earth than boxes and containers.

[not guilty]

"That's broad enough to seize anything in the same room as one of those boxes."

Uh, no it isn't.

[shawn_dude]

This is a strawman that I've been seeing peppered all over the internet and in national media. It appears to be an attempt to draw attention away from the very real classified document folders that include top secret markings that were found in Trump's golf club. The photo is evidence of top secret documents at a golf club in violation of government law, policy, and practice. There isn't a single place on Mar-a-lago where a top secret document can be stored safely. That's what the photo shows, in addition to showing that Trump's affidavit regarding having turned over everything already was a bold-faced lie.

[not guilty]

None of Trump's apologists is able to explain away his non-compliance with the grand jury subpoena, while falsely representing (through counsel) that all responsive documents were being furnished.

[Sarcastr0]

no, you can't actually trust the FBI to police the FBI.

Unless this is special pleading for Trump, this principle rather obliterates the admissibility of most evidence. Chain of custody, evidence logging, etc - all internal controls of law enforcement by law enforcement.

[Nige]

That Man For All Seasons quote about chopping down all laws to get at the devil is fairly popular round here, as I recall, except nowadays they want to chop down all laws to protect the devil.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, actually I DO think all internal controls of law enforcement by law enforcement are pretty much a joke. You haven't figured that out yet?

[Sarcastr0]

So lets open all the jails - no one can be verified as guilty since they almost all relied on internal controls!

This isn't hard-nosed principle, it's crossed over to idiocy.

[Brett Bellmore]

How about, instead, we institute external controls? You know, like an expanded badge cam system? Presuming that harm that comes to prisoners in areas with known gaps in surveilance cameras is intentional? Adverse inferences from failures to record interviews?

In this case, the special master is an external control. I'm all in favor of it, even if it IS realistically closing the barn door after the horses have all left, because the FBI probably informally photographed all the privileged material by now.

[OtisAH]

Right, because I think we all know Brett Bellmore would *definitely* respect the decisions of an external review board. As long as it remains in the abstract and he can use it to support his latest idiocy. Not so much if one was ever formed, mind you, but for now it’s a brilliant and obvious solution with no troubling aspects at all.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not either or, Brett.

None of what you proposed addresses the validation of evidence. Or did you forget your original objection?

[apedad]

The "external" controls are already in place.

They're called:
Legislatures (to enact/remove laws)
Judges (to approve/disapprove search warrants)
District Attorneys (to oversee investigations)
Judges (again!) (to ensure trials are conducted fairly)
Juries (to make impartial decisions of guilt)
Voters (who oversee everything)

Additionally, there are some Community Oversight panels in some jurisdictions.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gah. If the cops are doing stuff out of sight of anybody else, there's realistically no control on what they're doing, because the 'external control' has to take their word for what happened.

That's why badge cams instead of asking cops to testify what they did, for instance.

[Sarcastr0]

the cops are doing stuff out of sight of anybody else, there's realistically no control on what they're doing

I don't much like law enforcement's culture either, Brett, but it's once again incredible to me that you don't think professionalism is a thing that exists in people.

To the point that you want an unworkable system.

[Brett Bellmore]

Professionalism is absolutely a thing that exists in some people, and it's absolutely a thing which local agency cultures can suppress. Maybe you think all law enforcement agencies are some kind of mashup of Adam 12 and Dragnet, but the reality is a lot less pretty.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice excluded middle.

[not guilty]

The intermingling of documents marked classified and items of personal property has evidentiary value. It is probative of Trump's control of the premises and of his knowledge that the documents contained sensitive material.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's a bingo!

[Ridgeway]

It depresses me that I have to take the side of you and NG, because this point is so galactically obvious. It is the equivalent of someone claiming he was not guilty of murder during an armed robbery, because his accomplice pulled the trigger. IOW, a defense that nobody who understands how, yunno, the law works, would ever make.

P.S. I am a big fan of the bingo reference.

[Life of Brian]

The intermingling of documents marked classified and items of personal property has evidentiary value.

Taking that as true, the government destroyed any such evidence when it segregated the documents with classification markings from the rest of the property. All they have now is whatever evidence of intermingling (photos/logs/etc.) they claim to have captured before segregating those documents.

[Nige]

Ah, so now all the have left is *evidence* that the documents were intermingled, when they should have left them intermingled - not sure how that fits with Trump getting his docs back, but nevermind - and in any court case they could have left them in intermingled piles for the jury to file past like mourners viewing the Queen.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" when they should have left them intermingled "

. . . in which circumstance the delusional observers would have claimed the government intermingled the documents.

Ignoring these disaffected, downscale rubes is the best course.

[Life of Brian]

The topic in this thread you parachuted into is whether the government has any legitimate ongoing interest in the personal property so as to justify its continued withholding.

I trust the reading comprehension of such a clearly august figure as yourself is not indeed as poor as it appears, and you simply must be incapable of thought outside the boundaries of 8-bit partisan politics.

[David Nieporent]

And the answer is obviously yes. Does a jury want to hear testimony about what the documents were intermingled with, or actually see for itself what the documents were intermingled with?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your understanding of the criminal justice system is . . . odd.

[Life of Brian]

Juries want to see all sorts of things. That doesn't make them legally relevant.

I take from this, though, that you're recognizing the personal contents would simply be trial props.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is that what amateurs and clingers call evidence these days when attempting to discuss legal issues?

[Brett Bellmore]

What's your evidence they were "intermingled"? Perhaps more tellingly, what's your definition of "intermingled"? "In the same room"?

[Nige]

Some of them, marked classifed, were kept in a box of framed Time covers, that kind of intermingled.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Jesus fucking Christ, Brett. We’ve been over this.

Appendix C

[not guilty]

"Taking that as true, the government destroyed any such evidence when it segregated the documents with classification markings from the rest of the property. All they have now is whatever evidence of intermingling (photos/logs/etc.) they claim to have captured before segregating those documents."

What facts support your claim that the government destroyed anything? The agents who executed the search warrant are available to testify, and they likely did photograph the locations and condition in which they found the items seized. What of any significance do you contend was "destroyed"?

[Life of Brian]

What facts support your claim that the government destroyed anything?

Is this a joke? You said that the intermingling of the documents itself had evidentiary value. I pointed out that any such evidentiary value was destroyed when they segregated the intermingled documents. That doesn't seem particularly difficult.

The agents who executed the search warrant are available to testify, and they likely did photograph the locations and condition in which they found the items seized.

Which is, as I said (and you quoted!), the only evidence that would have ongoing evidentiary value. The personal property itself no longer does.

[Nige]

You say it was destroyed, but you also say evidence of it was recorded. Resolving that is kind of difficult.

[not guilty]

Once again, what facts support your claim that the government destroyed anything? I asked for facts, and you responded by merely repeating your ipse dixit assertion.

If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

[Life of Brian]

If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

Good one. It's at moments like this I seriously question your story that you practiced for 25 years. If you were actually a lawyer, it's hard to imagine you were a particularly effective one.

Once again, what facts support your claim that the government destroyed anything?

There's nothing to claim, my friend -- you baked it into your hypothetical. Once more, slowly:

1. By saying that the physical intermingling of documents with classification markings and personal documents gives the personal documents themselves independent evidentiary value, that by definition only holds true as long as they continue to be intermingled.

2. They're no longer intermingled. By the government's own admission.

3. Thus, the government chose to alter the arrangement that you claim gives evidentiary value to the personal documents. By definition, therefore, whatever evidentiary value you claim they had no longer exists. The only way to establish the intermingling is by documentation/testimony of how they were originally arranged. You can't just put the documents back in a box together and say that's how they were found (unless you're in the mood to be sanctioned, I suppose).

4. The personal documents themselves therefore serve no evidentiary purpose going forward.

Reread as needed until it sinks in. Or not. But that's enough spoon feeding for one day.

[not guilty]

The claim that the government destroyed evidence is yours -- and I posited no hypothetical.

Attachment B to the search warrant authorized seizure of, inter alia:

All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071 , or 1519, including the following:

a. Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes

"[I]ncluding the following" indicates a subset of "[a]ll evidence."
IOW, including but not limited to. The subject of a search warrant executed during a criminal investigation is not entitled to return of seized items of evidence prior to trial. The prosecution typically stores such items prior to trial in evidence rooms, where they don't somehow lose value as evidence.

Life of Brian, when and where did you get your legal training, if any? Have you ever tried a criminal jury trial?

[Life of Brian]

Apparently I wrongly gave you credit for having kept up with the government's briefing. The motion to stay explicitly states: "The classified records—a discrete set of just over 100 documents—have already been segregated from the other seized records and are being maintained separately." This is not even mildly controversial.

[not guilty]

I know what the government's briefing says. The fact that certain items seized have been segregated from other items seized does not "destroy" evidentiary value of anything one whit.

And your avoidance of my questions about your legal training and experience is duly noted.

[Life of Brian]

The fact that certain items seized have been segregated from other items seized does not "destroy" evidentiary value of anything one whit.

Of course it does, when the very evidentiary value you claim they have is their physical proximity to other documents, and that physical proximity has been deliberately altered. At this point, you're either playing dumb or... not playing.

And your avoidance of my questions about your legal training and experience is duly noted.

As is your laughable implication that turning down an invitation to doxx oneself on a pseudonymous message board is some strange form of adoptive admission.

[not guilty]

Have you got anything other than assuming, and repeating ad infinitum, your specious conclusion?

Items seized pursuant to a search warrant remain in police custody during the investigation. What evidence to offer at trial during the government's proof in chief is up to the prosecution, subject to the rules of evidence. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Fed.R.Evid 401.

The records with classification markings are obviously probative of whether the occupant of the searched premises had violated the statutes cited in the search warrant. Part of what the prosecution needs to prove is Donald Trump's possessory interest and control of the premises where the classified documents were found. Trump was not himself present when the search warrant was executed. The presence of Trump's personal effects on the searched premises helps to prove Trump's control of the premises and his constructive possession of the incriminating documents. That remains true whether the FBI retains control of the personal effects or returns them to Trump.

Glenn Kirschner explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWb7itW4i-I

[Life of Brian]

Items seized pursuant to a search warrant remain in police custody during the investigation.

Except when they're returned beforehand through a well-defined mechanism for doing so, as you and I both well know. This sort of blustering bluff gets very old very quickly.

Part of what the prosecution needs to prove is Donald Trump's possessory interest and control of the premises where the classified documents were found.

Um... yeah. If the only play you (and the prosecution) have to try to breathe relevance into these personal documents is some tortured explanation of how their presence in a box on the premises is going to tip the balance on whether Trump actually owns Mar-a-Lago, you may as well just hang up a big neon sign flashing "PRETEXT."

That remains true whether the FBI retains control of the personal effects or returns them to Trump.

You were doing so well, only to cut yourself off at the knees in the final sentence. So after several hours of gobsmackingly painful dissembling, you finally admit the prosecution indeed does not have any need for the actual physical personal effects. Looks like we're done here.

[David Nieporent]

Taking that as true, the government destroyed any such evidence when it segregated the documents with classification markings from the rest of the property. All they have now is whatever evidence of intermingling (photos/logs/etc.) they claim to have captured before segregating those documents.

Sometimes you make weak legal arguments, like your claims about Bobb's affidavit. Sometimes you make such terrible arguments that I wonder if you left your computer unlocked and someone wandered past and typed in a post.

Do you think that in any crime in the history of ever, law enforcement has cryogenically frozen the crime scene to preserve the evidence in the exact same way it was found?

"By taking the corpse back to the morgue and doing an autopsy, you've destroyed the evidence of where it was found and the condition of the body! All you have now is whatever evidence you claim to have found before cleaning up the crime scene!"

Please pretend to be a serious person, instead of a Trump lawyer.

[Life of Brian]

Do you think that in any crime in the history of ever, law enforcement has cryogenically frozen the crime scene to preserve the evidence in the exact same way it was found?

Actually, they do take a good deal of care to do that, until it can be documented. Then the vast majority of the contents of the crime scene are themselves irrelevant and are not further preserved.

Please pretend to be a serious person, instead of a Trump lawyer.

And you please try your hardest to keep up with the actual discussion, instead of grotesquely distorting my words and burning down the resultant straw man.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look at, for instance, the Ruby Ridge case. Why did Weaver get off? Because his lawyer was able to prove that the feds had altered the crime scene to agree with their version of events before documenting it.

The only reason he was able to prove that was that the press were allowed in before they did it, and you could compare the press photos to the staged police photos. Puts the FBI's insistence that nobody accompany them as the conduct a search in an interesting light, doesn't it?

[Nige]

Except, again, this wasn't a 'staged' photo.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except that, since the files weren't lying there like that until they put them there, is absolutely was a staged photo.

[Nige]

Wow, you saw right through their clever ruse. So did literally everybody else, in the sense that they recognised it for what it was, but you're especially clever.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, you think FBI agents salted in compartmented information files to take down Trump? How the hell would an FBI agent get his hands on compartmented information files in the first place?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

By walking around Mar-A-Lago, obviously.

[not guilty]

The partial stay request involves about a hundred documents. The government, although it has appealed the trial court order in its entirety, has not requested other interim relief during pendency of the appeal.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"But the specific issue, as I understand it, is that the FBI hoovered up so much stuff that they've got a load of stuff they had no business having custody of or seeing,"

When you do not understand how search warrants or seizures work . . .

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled last week that expungement of convictions for simple possession of marijuana, no longer a crime, should be allowed in essentially all cases. The petitioner had other convictions and the trial court judge was not persuaded that expungement was "in the best interests of justice". As I see it SJC rewrote the statute to create a strong presumption of expungement instead of allowing the judge to use discretion. In earlier years the SJC had been hard on police who tried to use the smell of marijuana as an excuse to stop and search. From 2008 it was no longer criminal to possess a small amount. Police had hoped that they could testify to a strong smell instead of an ordinary smell and go on with business as usual. There's no way to disprove the percieved strength of an odor.

The petitioner's counsel had stated to the judge: "there is actually a system being set up so that the expungement notices go to the FBI so that they can decide whether or not to also take it off of the FBI record."

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2022/09/08/m13153.pdf

[bevis the lumberjack]

So, I guess those of y’all who went with the “inflation was zero in July!” b.s. know after the August report what a load of crap that was, right? No, probably not.

And the embarrassing part is that the Biden White House had a big celebration on the same day patting themselves on the back for passing a bill that has inflation in his name but is projected to have a minimal effect on inflation. While they were partying, the markets were dripping 4% on average in response to the report because the markets realize how far the fed still has to go on rates, and the impact that will have on the economy.

First they denied it existed, then they blamed it on everyone they could think of, now they’re trying to spin it. But spinning this one won’t work. Spin won’t replace what people are experiencing every day.

The only thing that’s going to save the Democrats from a historic beating in November is that the Republicans are no longer a political party, but are just a cult of personality.

[Brett Bellmore]

More like, they'll be saved by the fact that the Republican establishment don't WANT to win the midterms. (Based on the way they're acting, anyway.) The only way they have even the slightest chance of not being stuck with the blame for all the Democrats' screwups is to be conspicuously powerless.

[apedad]

We'll take that!

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sure. There's a reason conservatives compare the GOP to the Washington Generals.

[David Nieporent]

Not conservatives, Brett. Lunatics.

[Krayt]

The Washington Lunatics. I like that.

It's fun. But does lunatic describe intelligent, amoral corruptions whose only social skill is the ability to lie convincingly?

[Nige]

Considering the catastrophes that tend to occur during and as a consequence of their tenures, perhaps it's just as well.

[SimonP]

Just imagine how things might be playing out if Trump took a step back and cooperated with the RNC to support more Youngkin-like candidates.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yup. Trump’s ego kills everything it touches.

[SRG]

I am always surprised by the failure of Americans to realise that there is an outside world.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Inflation_in_the_euro_area

[Brett Bellmore]

Why, it's almost as though multiple countries were making the same mistakes about the same time.

I think that's actually a large problem today: There's such a degree of group-think among Western leaders that if one of them is screwing up big time, they may all be making the same mistake.

[Nige]

Yes, and it's mostly down to not taxing billionaires or windfall profits enough.

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "enough". Please be specific.

[Nige]

A lot.

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "a lot" . Please be specific.

[Nige]

Loads.

[Mr. Bumble]

Loads is what you're peddling.

[Nige]

Oodles.

[Sarcastr0]

Those of us saying it was zero all pointed out this was Biden playing politics but it was technically correct. Did you not remember that part, now that you're pretending folks offered it for the truth of the matter asserted?

Anyhow, I don't know if you're feeling inflation, but I'm actually not really. That might be because I am a fancy lad and most of my food is via farm share.

Here is some counterveilling analysis to chew on, if you're interested in doing more than ranting.
https://jabberwocking.com/inflation-in-august-remained-subdued/

On a year-over-year basis, headline inflation came in at 8.2%, down from 8.5% in July.

As always, the trendline is the thing to watch. The trend for headline inflation continues to come down nicely, but core CPI has been relatively flat at around 6% for nearly a year now. That's not good news, and it's odd since the PCE core rate is both lower and dropping faster.

Gasoline was down substantially in August, but food prices continued to be stubbornly high. Food was up 10% on an annualized basis.

On a positive note, blue-collar wages were up 4.4%, and with inflation so low that translates to a 3.9% real increase. As usual, though, what's good for workers is bad for the Fed, since it means now they'll be fretting about growing labor costs.

[Brett Bellmore]

"On a positive note, blue-collar wages were up 4.4%, and with inflation so low that translates to a 3.9% real increase. "

That's great for people who get hired each month, and/or get continuous cost of living adjustments.

The thing is, most people get wage adjustments maybe once a year, so inflation is a complete loss until that occurs. Then they go back to the status quo, (Assuming a complete adjustment!) and again, any further inflation is a loss.

When you've got steep inflation, the area between the continuously rising prices, and the yearly step increases in pay, can be pretty substantial, and represents a very real hit to their living standards even if the COLA accurately tracks lived inflation rates. And, of course, our savings are evaporating, because banks haven't yet bothered increasing interest rates on saving accounts to anything remotely like the inflation rate. Because, what's your alternative, a pickle jar?

It's a pretty interesting question why the banks don't anymore feel any need to offer non-negligible interest on savings accounts in a time of high inflation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

""On a positive note, blue-collar wages were up 4.4%, and with inflation so low that translates to a 3.9% real increase. "

Remember....Sarcastro lies. This time he's lying via a blog that gives unsourced and inaccurate information.

What you want are the real earnings for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls ("AKA blue collar")

That data is clear here.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.t02.htm

Real hourly earnings are down 2.4% year over year (August to August)
Real weekly earnings are down 3.2% year over year (August to August)

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck off, I don't lie. I linked to my source.

I due you the courtesy of assuming you're wrong, maybe to the same for me.

Asshole.

[Armchair Lawyer]

When you "link" to sources that cut off video (like a random twitter link) or provide data from a blog that is clearly questionable without links...it's a form of deception. You might as well be linking to your own twitter feed where you say things as "proof".

Any reasonable person would have checked out that very odd fact, and quickly understood it was wrong. You didn't...because you wanted to use it. Deliberately using inaccurate information is a form of lying.

You still haven't apologized or admitted you're wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

a blog that is clearly questionable

Clearly.

You need to do more work than that to call it questionable. Much less me a liar for linking to it.

As I said, I don't say you're lying when you post stuff I think is wrong, I say why I think it's wrong.

Any reasonable person would have checked out that very odd fact

No, you made a different metric than I linked. THAN I LINKED. Hard to call me dishonest when I linked my source, which in turn linked to his sources.

But you did so, because you didn't actually engage with the material. Just went right for the personal attacks. Which just lowers the discourse here.

Really bad show here from you.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No, I did the work by posting the actual statistics and showing they were dead wrong from unsourced random numbers pulled from nowhere....

[Sarcastr0]

Kevin Drum posted actual statistics as well. If you have an issue with them, talk about why they are not correct, don't just say 'I like these stats so anyone posting other stats is a liar!!'

Well, you can say that, but you would come off as not very smart.

[David Welker]

I agree with Sarcastro.

Calling someone a liar should be a serious thing. I don't think he was actually trying to mislead anyone.

[Kazinski]

Seems to me that someone who frequently accuses others of using bogus or "crap sources" has a burden to make sure his own sources are decent.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, feel free to attack my source, and explain why it's bad. I do indeed do that often (though Kevin Drum is no Breitbart)

But don't call me a liar when I come with a source.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You're a liar. I "engaged" with the material

I demonstrated using official statistics exactly WHY this supposed "Blue-collar wages were up 4.4%" bit was entirely bogus (and who knows WHERE that number comes from...it's entirely unsourced).

I demonstrated how actual real wages were down between 2.4% (hourly) and 3.2% (weekly).

You claimed I didn't "engage" with the material. Which is another lie.

The proper response here is for you to APOLOGIZE, admit you didn't mean to lie, and that they information you were provided was dead wrong.

But you continue to defend it...because you're deceptive.

[Sarcastr0]

You did not engage with the material, you said you had another stat you preferred and then said I was a liar.

But my bigger issue is not you once again failing to understand statistics and economics, it's you calling me a liar because you don't like my source.

Posting a bad source is getting lied to, it's not being a liar.

But you went after *me*. Not my comment, not my source - me.

This is me going after your comment: It is a bad comment, it makes you look like an asshole, and you should feel bad.

The proper response here is for you to APOLOGIZE, admit you didn't mean to lie, and that they information you were provided was dead wrong.
You have not come anywhere near establishing that. Does this kind of angry bluster get you any success in real life?

[Armchair Lawyer]

You should feel bad for lying. You still haven't defended anything. Because it can't be defended...they're essentially numbers plucked from the void.

I provided official statistics. You've got a rando blogger who didn't link anything about his supposed stats.

And you still defend it. It's deceptive.

[Sarcastr0]

I linked a source. You think it is inaccurate (though you're having trouble explaining your issue).

That doesn't make me a liar. If I were a liar, I guess that means I didn't believe the source I linked? That's some impressive telepathy!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yup, Especially with questionable numbers that can easily be researched from independent sources.

But...deception is easier for Sarcastro

[Sarcastr0]

Linking to Kevin Drum is not deception. You're throwing out insults in compensation for not understanding what's going on.

And you have still failed to actually deal with: blue-collar wages were up 4.4%, and with inflation so low that translates to a 3.9% real increase other than linking a table that has different numbers and then calling it the REAL TRUTH.

But I'm not sure you actually looked at your table, or maybe just didn't understand it.

Your table says:

Real average hourly earnings:
Aug. 2021 $9.74
June 2022 $9.42
July 2022(P) $9.48
Aug. 2022(P) $9.51

Do you know what real means in this context? It doesn't seem like you do!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh... Keep reading the table.

[Sarcastr0]

Please, tell me what numbers you think are more salient?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I'm rich so I can just ignore it.

But my 20 and 30something kids are constantly complaining about it, as are my siblings. And my wife's.

That celebration yesterday was just so awful. James Taylor can sing his entire collection of songs and it won't affect a damn thing here.

And energy going down is a respite. It's dropping as the market prices in a nasty fed-induced hard landing for the economy. If that doesn't happen, energy cost will gleefully begin to reverse the gift we've been given.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" But my 20 and 30something kids are constantly complaining about it "

Mine are not. They have advanced degrees, marketable skills, and good incomes.

Sorry for your losses.

[Sarcastr0]

Outrage by proxy, really has you going! One might mistake you for one of those social justice types.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m tired of watching the dude and his people tell whopper after whopper and having the lapdog media lap it up. Last week his spokesperson tried to claim the Republicans wanted schools closed but Democrats forced them to open. It’s like they exist in Alternative Reality Land.

When Trump told his whoppers heads exploded in the media. It should be the same now. And what does the fact that these guys say this shit and expect you to believe it say about their opinion of your intelligence?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I believe in actual justice more than the SJ warriors do. And unlike most of them I grew up in a blue collar and country family and feel more a part of that culture than the educated crowd.

I have more true empathy with the poor and undereducated than damn near any progressive. Watching Biden bumble and lie his way through this while people’s lives are being made really difficult really pisses me off.

[David Welker]

There is something to this, sometimes.

There are some people who have more empathy for people in theory than in practice. For some on the left, empathy for the misfortunate is performative.

However, there are genuine and sincere people on both sides of the political spectrum. So, let's always try to see the whole picture.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I am a fancy lad and most of my food is via farm share"

The people have no bread, then let them eat organic argula.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty much.

[Sarcastr0]

Whereas you folks are just normal lunchbox folks.

No?

Huh. Almost as though your taking on the suffering of parties not present and may not be sincere.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have a large garden, raise poultry, and have a working relationship with a local farmer; I help him with his slaughtering, and get part of the meat, for instance. That's a bit less hoity toity than getting a box delivered.

This doesn't really insulate me all that well from food inflation, because I don't have a large enough backyard to remotely raise all the veggies and poultry my family eats, and man does not live on pork and poultry alone, though home made liverwurst is pretty good. I'll probably move out to the country when I retire in a few years, and be a bit more food self-sufficient.

[Sarcastr0]

Right- so your taking on the suffering of parties not present and may not be sincere.

I also don't like inflation, but this populism about it coming from you is nonsense.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Whereas you folks are just normal lunchbox folks."

I just go to the grocery store and buy groceries. I can afford the inflation but not everyone can.

A few boutique farms in NoVa can't feed the whole DC metro area either, fancy lad.

[Jmaie]

Please help me to understand the math. Wages up 4.4%, inflation 8%, real wage growth 3.9%.

[Krayt]

Good for wage slaves, bad for savings. If they are chattel with no savings pols can toot toot toot to.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"On a positive note, blue-collar wages were up 4.4%, and with inflation so low that translates to a 3.9% real increase. As usual, though, what's good for workers is bad for the Fed, since it means now they'll be fretting about growing labor costs."

This is unsourced, and in error at best, and a lie at worst.

What you want are the real earnings for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls ("AKA blue collar")

That data is clear here.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.t02.htm

Real hourly earnings are down 2.4% year over year (August to August)
Real weekly earnings are down 3.2% year over year (August to August)

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Anyhow, I don't know if you're feeling inflation, but I'm actually not really. That might be because I am a fancy lad and most of my food is via farm share."

If they can't afford bread, then let them eat cake!

[bernard11]

I guess those of y’all who went with the “inflation was zero in July!”

Guess what, Bevis, inflation was zero in July. If you drive 1000 miles a month from January through November, and then park the car all December, you drove 11000 miles over the year,and none in December.

Not hard to understand.

[bevis the lumberjack]

See above. Sarcastro disagrees with you.

You and your boy Biden are completely full of shit on this. Inflation is you exclude a bunch of stuff was zero. Out in real world land, people can't exclude a bunch of stuff and the total inflation number was 8.5%. 8.5% >>>>> 0%.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure you have bernard's goalposts right here.

If you are enraged by 'technically correct is the best kind of correct' you are in the wrong comentariat!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well it’s a damn good thing that people out in the actual world suffered no inflation in July.

Oh, wait…….

[Bob from Ohio]

"inflation was zero in July"

So full of s**t. Gasoline prices went down, everything else continued to rise.

Who needs food or housing.

[bernard11]

Once again, the concept of "average" seems to be too difficult for you to grasp.

[Bob from Ohio]

Everybody eats. People need shelter and clothing. Not everyone drives or drives very much.

[Kazinski]

Inflation is pretty noisy data and saying it was zero in July is less than meaningless, its wrong.

Its like a football coach who's team is down 27-0 after 3 quarters, then both teams are scoreless in the 4th quarter and he tells the press in his post game press conference:

"I was pretty happy we were able to pull out a tie in the 4th qtr."

[Bob from Ohio]

"save the Democrats from a historic beating in November"

They are still getting beaten badly. 250 GOP reps is no more useful than the 230 they will easily get.

[Commenter_XY]

I disagree, you need the margin from having 250 for the impeachment vote.

[Ben_]

Rich leftists living in gated neighborhoods will be ok.

They’re a lot more worried that they might have to deal with migrants when they visit Martha’s Vineyard.

[dwb68]

hey look Inflation!

Again. still.

I am still of the opinion rates need to be 8% + to staunch the problem, because the Feds have spent a shitload of money they didn't have the last few years in the face of supply issues. Then they went and tried to spend more to reduce inflation. lmao, thats not how that works. Oh and we are going to cancel 500 billion in student debt.

Fiscal mismanagement by the left never causes inflation, am i rite? I meam in only took Venezuela 5 years to go from most prospeperous South American country to a hell hole. cant happen here, am i rite?

Hello recession.

[Ed Grinberg]

As someone said (in reference to all those news stories about suburban women voting against Trump in 2016 and 2020):
"When the Suburban Women are resorting to eating their pets after voting to become Venezuela..."

[dwb68]

Does democracy always result in socialism?

An interesting question.

If 10% of the people hold 90% of the wealth, its in the interests of a supermajority to vote for redistribution of wealth, and also in the interests of the elite to disarm the voters to ensure their survival.

what if socialism is the only stable equilibrium in a democracy?

[Brett Bellmore]

I would argue that progressive income taxation always leads to high income inequality in a democracy. The more concentrated income becomes, the more revenue the government can bring in without pissing off large numbers of voters. So it's in the government's own interest to push up income inequality once you introduce progressive taxation of income.

And that's even ignoring that the wealthy are a better source of graft and kickbacks to politicians than a wide base of moderate prosperity.

By contrast, reliance on a sales tax means that the government largely doesn't care how income is distributed, it gets the same cut regardless.

[bernard11]

Wow.

Considering how much our tax system favors the wealthy that's really bizarre. And how, exactly, other than through the tax system is the government going to create inequality?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I did see a study a few years ago that showed that generally the higher the tax burden, the greater inequality was. I’m not sure what the mechanism for that is, or that there’s even any cause and effect relationship. But the highest inequality was in places like new York, California, etc. with the lowest in like the Dakotas and places like that.

I only remember it because I was surprised to see it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And how, exactly, other than through the tax system is the government going to create inequality?"

Is that actually a serious question? Surely you can't be THAT lacking in imagination!

Every time you throw up barriers to small business, that large businesses can more easily surmount on account of scale, it promotes inequality. Example: Requiring people who sell food to have a separate kitchen devoted to their business, rather than just using the same kitchen to feed their families, favors large food producers and discourages small scale entry.

Requiring companies that sell online to charge and pay local taxes at the purchasing end. Almost trivial for a large company, a crushing burden for a mom and pop shop.

[bernard11]

Requiring people who sell food to have a separate kitchen devoted to their business, rather than just using the same kitchen to feed their families, favors large food producers and discourages small scale entry.

You know, I'd just as soon have commercial food be produced in a kitchen that can be inspected and is required to meet health and sanitation requirements.

Producing food in even relatively small commercial quantities is different than cooking for a family. Greater volumes of ingredients and output, more refrigeration and other storage facilities needed, more equipment in use that needs to cleaned, need to store goods until they are sold, etc.

[Krayt]

Is it solving a problem? Or are pols taking donations to sit about while regulators regulate, only backing off when it gets too wild?

[bernard11]

Well, if you are convinced that everything is corrupt, I guess not. No doubt there is some corruption, but what do you propose - no regulations on commercial food producers?

You think the problem will solve itself? It won't, and don't give me some, "but the market" BS.

[dwb68]

also barriers to work.

Progressives have this odd notion things get done without people working to achieve it. The income tax is a regressive tax on work and should be abolished.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or, for instance, promoting illegal immigration of unskilled workers. You think that doesn't lower wages among the poorest people?

[bernard11]

You think that's a major driver of inequality? It's not.

[Nige]

Considering the concentration of wealth across the world, including democracies, while the value of wages keeps dropping and everybody who isn't wealthy gets priced out of everything and industries that poison the planet are allowed to continue for the sake of their profits, I'd say either no, or the disarming is going swimmingly.

[EscherEnigma]

If 10% of the people hold 90% of the wealth [...]

Then you have an unstable society either actively collapsing or on the precipice thereof.

Societies can support and exist under a lot of wealth inequality for a long time. But that extreme of a tilt is not sustainable.

That said, the US is currently only at ~70% of the wealth being held by 10% of the population (with half that wealth being held by 1%). In '89 it was about 60%. So we aren't there yet.

But we are working on it.

[Krayt]

Our "common man" lives like a king compared to the past, or most other places on Earth.

This is the comparison. There is nothing to "work on" for income inequality because this is a false, political red herring.

The only measurement that matters are things like average health and wealth and longevity. "You're doing pretty well, but see that rich guy over there! Yeah, you need to hate him. Give me power to get in his way and my wealth will skyrock...uhhh, I mean I will make your life better!

[EscherEnigma]

Right, because humans are famously known for comparing their status quo to that of their ancestors, not to that of the guy on the hill.

[Ben_]

"If 10% of the people hold 90% of the wealth, its in the interests of a supermajority to vote for redistribution of wealth…"

But anyone who falls for that sales pitch hasn’t learned from history:

1. Wealthy people have too much money and power.
2. Leftist says "give us power to counteract the wealthy"
3. Government gets more power.
4. Wealthy people co-opt the government power to use it for themselves.
5. Go back to #1. Repeat until …?

[Nige]

It's like you're articulating the problem, but throwing in red herrings to fool yourself.

[Brett Bellmore]

The basic problem here is that government drives up inflation by creating money it spends itself, then tries to drive down private sector spending to fix the resulting inflation.

Maybe you can fix inflation that way, but they deliberately go about it in a way where all the economic damage lands on the private sector. Reducing government spending would be as effective or more effective in reducing inflation, but is pretty much off the table.

[dwb68]

Same as it ever was.

Driving out the private sector you say? As if the socialist left wants that to happen. But I am sure i am too cynical, they love free markets, right?

But if voters vote for Senate candidates who 1)say they will fight Biden agenda while 2) those same candidatea vote for Biden 95% of the time including all the spending, what exactly can be done. I can only conclude people dont care about inflation as much as pundits think.

[Life of Brian]

I can only conclude people dont care about inflation as much as pundits think.

When about 2/3 of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, the only real pain they feel from inflation is the short-term window between increased expenses and increased wages. And a good bit of that pain is probably offset by getting to pay mortgages and other longer-term debt with inflated dollars.

It's the savers that get pummeled, but they're a distinct minority.

[Brett Bellmore]

Short term window? Just how often do you think the average person gets a COLA, anyway? I get them once a year, I don't call that "short term".

[Life of Brian]

Shorter-term, if you wish -- my point is the COL/wage imbalance goes in the rear-view mirror relatively soon, while payments on "old" debt effectively shrink for a much longer period. Just some factors that might help explain the phenomenon dwb was noting.

[Bob from Ohio]

"short-term window between increased expenses and increased wages"

Yes, that's called buying food, clothes, having a place to stay. Just a short term window of going hungry!

And when they get laid off because the Fed raises interest rates to fight inflation?

"by getting to pay mortgages and other longer-term debt with inflated dollars"

If inflation was so good, Zimbabwe would be the richest nation in the world!

[Life of Brian]

Don't misread me as saying inflation is good. Just some thoughts about human perception and how that tends to make inflation like the leaky roof that people forget about fixing after it stops raining.

[Kazinski]

Well unsophisticated savers get punished, but most investors do fine because they invest in assets that inflate too. Well at least until the Fed raises interest rates to the point no one can make any money, and we have a long painful recession.

[David Welker]

Two points.

First, in terms of the deficit and the debt, both of these things got worse under Trump with the help of a GOP majority. I am not sure if that matters. But if it does, then fiscal mismanagement has a bipartisan origin.

Second, the current bout of inflation was caused by inflation. Either by supply-chain problems or demand-side stimulus. In the case of supply-chain problems, one could argue that those were made partially worse by pandemic prevention measures (but to a large extent, not really, no one is in control of lockdowns in China), but even without prevention measures, there would have been supply disruptions. (And I think they would have been even worse without prevention measures, but that isn't a debate I want to have.) Second, demand-side stimulus may have contributed to inflation. But that stimulus was similarly bipartisan.

[apedad]

Republicans plan legal assault on climate disclosure rules for public companies

Republican officials and corporate lobby groups are teeing up a multi-pronged legal assault on the Biden administration’s effort to help investors hold public corporations accountable for their carbon emissions and other climate change risks.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed new climate disclosure rules in March that would require public companies to report the climate-related impact and risks to their businesses.

Some opponents claim that requiring companies to publish climate-related information infringes on their right to free speech. Others (often the same ones) say that the rule exceeds the SEC’s legal authority.

The SEC proposal does not establish environmental policy or require that companies take any climate-related actions other than making more information publicly available.

The free speech and legal authority objections have been met with profound skepticism from legal experts and former SEC officials.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/15/republicans-climate-rules-legal-challenge-allow-emissions

We can blah-blah-blah whether the policy is bad or good, but on the legal question whether the SEC can make this change, it looks like they are on solid ground.

[SRG]

At this point, if the Democrats were contemplating requiring that little pigs should build their houses with bricks, the GOP would campaign for tax breaks for wind machines.

[John F. Carr]

I have watched too many "three little pigs" videos recently. Several variants, but not once does the poor wolf get to eat. I understand letting the brick pig live. He's the smartest. But the straw and wood pigs should be food and they never are. And in the one video where the wolf is immersed in a pot of boiling water, the wolf is neither harmed nor eaten.

Seriously, this has been getting on my nerves.

I need to entertain an English-Mandarin bilingual two year old without losing my own mind. Got any more realistic video suggestions?

[Brett Bellmore]

You need to go to much older cartoons if you want anything even slightly realistic in terms of harm. Disney's 1946 Peter and the Wolf is pretty good.

[Nige]

Just watch some anime, guys, there's blood and everything.

[Brett Bellmore]

Two year old, did you not pick up on that?

For a two year old, I'd recommend "Lovely Muco", my son really enjoyed it when he was younger. He got annoyed every time I referred to it as "Lovely Mucus", though. (In joke, you get it if you watch the series.)

[SRG]

FWIW the best non-cartoon version of Peter & the Wolf is this old recording, which I was gratified to find on YouTube. Boris Karloff is unbeatable as the narrator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD5doPLAxc4

[John F. Carr]

I listened to it. He is indeed a good narrator.

[Mr. Bumble]

...would that be like requiring the little pigs to buy health insurance and would Roberts find a way to justify it?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Patty Murray and 18 other Dem Senators are trying to remove the presumption of innocence in campus Title IX proceedings:

"[W]e ask the Department to remove the presumption that the respondent is not responsible for sex discrimination until a determination is made. This presumption is not required in any other type of school proceeding and perpetuates the harmful and false stereotypes that those who report sex-based harassment are being untruthful."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One solution would compel every campus authority to report every incident or report to the police -- not the campus police, the real police -- and district attorney. Why should some offenders benefit from dodging standard consequences?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I've been advocating that proposal on this blog for years, as have many others. For some reason many folks are opposed.

Serious felonies should be prosecuted in the criminal courts, not on campus.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I sense most "private" police agencies -- universities, hospitals, and the like -- should be abolished. Those who report to private interests should be nothing other than security guards. Security guards can (within reason) play favorites -- police never should.

[Hank Ferrous]

Suspect this is a control issue for campus bureaucracy. Campus police force allows universities to handle situations in-house.

[Kazinski]

I agree with that.

However, I can also see the need for campuses to discipline behavior that disrupts the learning environment, like infringement of free speech rights and sexual harassment.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It appears that the signers of this letter think that the campus adjudicatory system makes it too adjudge that people engaged in sexual misconduct. Why do you think they would view diverting cases into the criminal justice system—where the burden of establishing guilt is significantly harder than under the campus status quo—as a solution? It seems like the exact opposite of what they're trying to achieve.

[Allutz]

But then people would get due process, which is the opposite of the philosophy of campus deans.

[bernard11]

Roughly 200 Republican candidates running for Senate, House, governor, attorney general or secretary of state have indicated publicly that the 2020 presidential election was illegitimate, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

That number, though, is almost certainly an undercount. For example, according to audio the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee shared with FiveThirtyEight, Army veteran Erik Aadland, the Republican candidate for Colorado’s 7th Congressional District, told members of the Mountain Republicans Club on June 21 that he was concerned by how the 2020 elections were “undermined by fraud, how they were corrupted, and now how we have an illegitimate government in power.”

FiveThirtyEight could not independently confirm the audio’s authenticity or the circumstances of its recording, though the voice in the audio is similar to Aadland’s. However, FiveThirtyEight was able to independently confirm that Aadland spoke at the monthly meeting of the Mountain Republicans Club, a local conservative group, in Evergreen, Colorado, on June 21. His campaign did not respond to several requests for comment. We also reached out to the Mountain Republicans Club to ask about the event, but received no response.

The Republican Party is clearly a Trumpist cult. Why? What does this mean for the country?

[bevis the lumberjack]

It's awful. One party is a personality cult. The other seems completely captured by progressives and their awful policies.

We need a new party. At least one.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd argue that the opposition becoming a personality anti-cult is hardly the same thing as the other party being a personality cult. I think there's actually more cultishness in the opposition to Trump. The over the top way they treat him as some sort of bizarre combination of a total incompetent and Satanic figure, instead of just a guy whose policies they don't like.

[Nige]

Yeah, you would argue that, but it isn't as if Biden goes around whining about him in interminable ralies the way Trump did anything and ebverything that bothered him. One mention in a single speech was all it took for everyone's heads to explode, just to highlight how false the equivalence is.

[bernard11]

I think there's actually more cultishness in the opposition to Trump.

I'm sure you do.

Brett, you yourself are as dedicated a cultist as there is around.

bizarre combination of a total incompetent and Satanic figure, instead of just a guy whose policies they don't like.

Well, not Satanic, but definitely a would-be authoritarian who really doesn't give a shit about anything or anyone but himself and his bank account, who has zero respect for the country's laws, recognizes no obligations to anyone, who lies endlessly, about everything.

Someone with a history of fraud and financial misconduct - not paying his bills, Trump University, the Trump Foundation, who knows what else?

Incompetent? How many bankruptcies? The guy was a financial wreck until that TV show came along.

So yeah. Romney or McCain would have been someone whose policies, and maybe personalities, I disliked. Trump is far worse than that. He is, on his record, a loathsome piece of shit.

[Kazinski]

Well as an example of the anti-Trump cultish-ness we had a case in Las Vegas last week where an local Democratic elected official stabbed to death a reporter who had written some articles critical of the official for inappropriate workplace sexual relationships.

The Clark County Sheriff had a press conference announcing the arrest of Clark County Public Administrator Democrat Robert Telles, and a reporter asked Sheriff Lombardo:

“Do you condemn former President Trump’s normalization of violence against journalists?”

[Ben_]

Part of the anti-Trump stuff is just that Dems have the mentality of middle school mean girls.

They gang up to bully the one designated unpopular kid. Trump in this case, but it can be anyone.

Gratuitous nastiness playing to jeering, bloodthirsty crowd.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a...very telling comment.

About Ben.

[Ben_]

Ben_ is opposed to bullying, gratuitous nastiness, blacklisting, anti-American hatred, racial discrimination, and all the other leftist bad behaviors.

Ben_ thinks leftists should grow up and start acting like people who care about the civic health of their communities instead of championing destruction.

[Sarcastr0]

That you feel like this is happening to you is the telling part.

Like you are stuck in some kind of middle school drama you never really recovered from.

Because none of what you describe is going on. Trump isn't the bullied kid in the playground. Dems are not mean girls.

Yikes.

[Ben_]

I said it was happening to Trump. For the record, I am not Trump.

Normally a person wouldn’t have to offer such a clarification, but dishonest people like you keep making up stuff.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Trump is the biggest bully in politics. But when it comes to taking it back he’s a total woos. A fucking crybaby. He’s throwing his weight behind candidates base solely on whether they’re nice to him or not. Sucking up helps a ton. He has poisoned the Republican Party.

FWIW, the Democrat most like Trump in that regard is AOC. Loves to criticize, but criticize her and “OMG you’re putting me in dangerrrrrr”

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think you know a lot about AOC, unmediated through the fear and loathing of the right.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I see her freaking tweets.

You could say that my only knowledge of Trump is filtered through the media. Which means it reflects the fear and loathing of the left.

Both of them are bullies who love to dish it out but can’t take it. There are other personality traits in common as well - each is about 10% as intelligent as they think they are.

So no. I don’t look at a lot of right leaning sources and don’t need them for me to observe how awful she is.

[Sarcastr0]

So do I..."OMG you’re putting me in dangerrrrrr" does not show up.

She did retweet an example of an actual death threat she got. Not exactly simple criticism.

Makes me think you're seeing a...highly curated set of her tweets.

I don't agree with all of her - she's too idealist for me - but she's a breath of fresh air politically, and not like the whiney millennial your tracking.

[bernard11]

Whatever she tweets, she is not, by a very long shot, the most powerful person in the Democratic Party, and she in fact gets very little media coverage.

I don't recall the last time I read about her in the paper.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don't think you know a lot about AOC"

The regular media covers her constantly. She just got a big glamour write up in GQ. Good show-woman, not very bright but thinks she is.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, she's a communicator not a genius.

But she is well above average for Congress, which is all showhorses these days.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bernard is right, Trump’s idiocy is closer to very high power than hers is. In the other hand, her policy ideas are a lot more dangerous, maybe because Trump doesn’t really seem to have any.

Sarcastro, she’s the biggest show pony in congress. Attention way way beyond her intelligence or accomplishments. She thinks she knows everything and in reality she doesn’t know diddly. But she’s very self assured as to things she doesn’t understand.

[Sarcastr0]

She thinks she knows everything and in reality she doesn’t know diddly.

I know you've reached that conclusion. I don't agree with it. You've showed no work, except your fervency.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sometime after Dobbs she was complaining about women being forced to carry ectopic pregnancies (which FWIW I have yet to see an abortion law that does that). She blamed on stupid men, of course, because that’s her schtick. Specifically stupid male lawmakers from the late 1800s when a lot of these laws were written. Because “you can’t tell me that they knew about ectopic pregnancy in the late 1800s”. And of course everyone was like yasss queen because that’s how her cult is.

Well turns out that the first mention in the medical literature was written by a famous Arab physician. One that died in 1013. And there’s plenty of references to it through the Middle Ages. People had known about ectopic pregnancies for 800 years before she said there’s no way they did.

And obviously never a correction from her.

Just one example of her ignorance and arrogance juxtaposed against her absolute certainty about stuff she doesn’t know or understand.

She makes all of her cult more stupid. Sound familiar?

[Sarcastr0]

Well turns out that the first mention in the medical literature was written by a famous Arab physician. One that died in 1013.
Well, looks like she got that bit of history that I'm sure you didn't know either wrong. What a MORON!

I'm sure you'll be able to find some tweets from her that make me wince.
But that's not enough for me to declare her dumb and whatever other drama you're putting on her.

[Nige]

'Because “you can’t tell me that they knew about ectopic pregnancy in the late 1800s”'

Wow, how stupid. Unless she's referring to the people who wrote the laws, of course, detailed knowledge of female health not being a widely understood subject outside of specialised medical practitioners, if you were lucky. And if they did know, they obviously didn't care, which is worse. Bit like today.

[bernard11]

The regular media covers her constantly.

You read different "regular media" than I do.

[Ben_]

Whataboutism isn’t a defense of bad behavior

[apedad]

"Gratuitous nastiness playing to jeering, bloodthirsty crowd."

You....you're talking about Trump now, right?

[SimonP]

It's your cultish commitment to Trump that's blinding you to the fact that, yes - people on the left are opposed to Trump's incompetence and "policies," such as they were. (To refer to a former presidential candidate who ran on no platform whatsoever as having "policies" is a bit laughable.) It's not a blind anti-Trump animus.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, first, the idea that Trump ran on no platform whatsoever is at best a delusion, and probably just an outright lie. The GOP establishment refused to update the platform in 2020, in order to deny Trump any input into changes, but they had a platform, it was just the 2016 platform readopted unchanged.

It's also a lie because he told anyone who was listening what his policy positions were. Mind, late in the 2016 campaign the media finally figured out that covering his positions was helping him, and stopped doing it. But he still had them, and was talking about them.

Now, on a policy level Democrats are going to oppose any Republican candidate for President, but against Trump this was combined with blind anti-Trump animus. Though at this point I think it's just anti-Republican animus, and anybody running for President as a Republican in 2024 will instantly be regarded as a monster.

[Nige]

That's hilarious. Democrats think Trump is a crooked and dangerous demagogue who has no respect for democratic outcomes. There's an entire subset of Trump supporters who believe Democrats eat babies in Satanic rituals.

[Sarcastr0]

Owning the lib is not a platform.

From immigration to the media to investigating Hillary to ending all the executive initiatives he could, owning the libs was his guide.

It's amazing to me you think his listing of grievances in 2016 were policy positions. The media pretended 'I'll fix it' to all that was the campaign promise, but no one seemed to care when he fixed none of it.

Dems didn't like Trump because of what he stood for. Less policies than his negative, insular, tribal populism. He got people (like you, Brett) on his side with that kind of resentment politics, alongside ineffective symbolic bullshit designed to make people happy because it made the libs in their head sad. No matter if it was ineffective, or cruel, or inefficient - Trump sure didn't care!

But that populism allowed him to push what he really wanted - personal enrichment, suborning the machinery of government to fuck with his opponents (media and Biden) and avoid investigations of himself.

If it wasn't real life, I'd think this was an over-the-top remake of 'A Face in the Crowd.'

[bevis the lumberjack]

The only platform the Republicans have right now, best I can tell, is “Trump wuz robbed”.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, as best you can tell. By, you know, not looking.

In 2020 they simply adopted the 2016 platform unchanged, purportedly due to Covid, in reality to lock Trump and his supporters out of being able to amend it.

[Sarcastr0]

bevis said right now. As in 2022.

And yeah, it's all Trump wuz robbed with some groomer bullshit mixed in.

[SimonP]

Again, your obsession with carrying water for Trump is what is blinding you, here.

When the Republicans refused to "update" their platform for 2020, this was understood, correctly, as essentially not adopting a platform for 2020. Just go back and look at the 2016 platform and think about what we were going through, headed into the 2020 election. Remember COVID? The economic hit we were undergoing due to global efforts to fight it? Read in the 2020 context, the 2016 platform is either laughably anachronistic or, to the extent its policy prescriptions remained in any way relevant, a catalogue of Republican failures to govern according to their own promises.

It's also a lie because he told anyone who was listening what his policy positions were.

Which could, of course, shift depending on who the last person he talked to was, who he wanted to ingratiate himself towards, whatever thing he last saw on FoxNews, etc. Anyway, I don't deny that Trump has a tendency to blast his mouth ignorantly on any subject that happens to get under his skin - much as you do. What I question is the extent to which any of his positions really constituted what we might properly call a "policy," which to my mind implies a basic economic, legal, or political logic, a clearly-sought goal, and a coherent worldview.

Now, on a policy level Democrats are going to oppose any Republican candidate for President, but against Trump this was combined with blind anti-Trump animus.

Well, gosh - the man actively conspired to overturn his own loss in the 2020 election. Why would anyone have animus towards the guy? Such a mystery.

No, look - put up a guy like DeSantis and we can talk about someone who is spending more of his time claiming to fly migrants to Martha's Vineyard than fixing the corrupt house insurance industry in Florida, that is throwing more and more of its homeowners into Florida's socialized insurance scheme. Or on terrorizing public school teachers and university professors who teach the wrong subjects, or the right subjects the wrong way; or using state power to punish corporations for engaging in DEI training, warning about climate change, or catering to a diversifying customer base; or asserting state power over local zoning decisions; or punishing people who unknowingly and unintentionally voted illegally. After a while, you'll get so tired of making apologies for that fascist-in-waiting that you'll just write off all opposition as "DeSantis Derangement Syndrome" and turn your brain off.

Again - flooding the zone with shit. You get tired of all the criticisms, and can't keep them all straight, so you just conclude that your political opponents can't brook opposition to themselves. But the truth is just that your political representatives happen to be full of shitty ideas and nasty ways of putting them into practice. They are criticized constantly because they are constantly awful.

[shawn_dude]

So you admit, at the very least, the Democrat party is driven by policies, even if one finds them "awful."

If only we had two parties driven by policy goals, ammirite?!

One could, you know, recapture the GOP and rededicate it to real conservative-oriented policies, even if some folks would find those "awful" too. All it would take is for a majority of the party to stop voting for the lunatics, assuming the party has that many sane persons left. If not, what good will a new party do anyone if its membership is too small and ineffectual to compete with the Trumpists?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Is this directed at me? I don’t “admit” anything. Why is an admission required?

You keep trying to put me in a box I don’t belong in. Remember “well, certainly you didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020”? Like you were Sherlock fucking Holmes catching me in an inconsistency. Note that when I answered that you didn’t come back with a response because it didn’t squeeze me into the space you’re trying to make me fit.

Drop your damn preconceived political crap and listen to what people are actually saying.

[shawn_dude]

Or I have a life and don't revisit old threads after a few days.

You said "We need a new party. At least one."

I don't think this is possible because of "political crap" like conservatives not having the political power to make it happen without first bringing much of the Trump-devoted GOP back to reality. If this new party tries to calve away centrist Democrats, it will just weaken the only functioning political party we have left and still leave us with the Trumpists.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The party pushing progressive failure needs to be weakened.

[Nige]

So, at end end of it all, you're still in favour of Trumpism.

[shawn_dude]

And this is why I generally don't take what you write seriously. It follows a pretty basic pattern: You post something negative about Democrats (Hey! Look! I'm not a libtard!) and then you make a statement regarding your lack of support for Trump or whatever madness the Trumpists are up to that week, and then you double down on anti-Democrat opinions.

I can imagine it must be tough for conservative ideologues that are uncomfortable being associated with Trumpism but also don't want to be exiled from the folks they're otherwise comfortable hanging with. It's like the one straight guy at a gay event being very loudly straight so no one could possible assume he's anything but and then saying "but I'm not a homophobe" so we can all know he's the safe sort of straight guy.

Meanwhile, the "party pushing progressive failure" has elected three centrists in the last two decades and lost a lot of working class voters because the party has moved too far to the right towards corporatism. Where Sanders and Warren--actual progressives--cannot be elected beyond their northeastern states, you somehow think the current core of the Democratic party is "progressive."

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah, I figured there’d be no response.

You keep doing these GOTCHA! texts directed at me and then when it turns out you didn’t in fact get anything you just go away. Working on your next exotic trap I guess.

You’re like the Wil-e-Coyote of this message board. Beep beep.

[shawn_dude]

Beep Beep.

[Jacob Grimes]

Probably not as much as you would fear. The number of die-hard Trump supporters in the party is not insignificant. If you want to win a primary, you need their support. That means talking about election irregularities.
The 200 figure is also a bit suspect. 538 says Andy Harris of Maryland "fully denied" the results of the election and cited to his support of investigations into election fraud as proof. Others "fully denied" the election based upon that Jan 6 vote when I'd bet most meant it as a purely political gesture that had no chance of carrying the day anyway.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

News reports indicate Harris was involved in planning to subvert the election in Maryland, including at least one meeting (Dec. 21) with Donald Trump to discuss the matter. What is a "bit suspect" in this context is Andy Harris.

[bernard11]

Trump supporters in the party is not insignificant. If you want to win a primary, you need their support. That means talking about election irregularities.

And this is precisely the fault of "mainstream" Republican leaders who refuse to come out clearly and loudly and say the election was legitimate, call Trump's lies what they are, and call out those who enable him.

[Bob from Ohio]

Why do you care what they think? Biden's not going to be deposed even if every single one would be elected. People here still bitch about the Supreme Court "selecting" Bush.

They are saying what their base wants to hear. Like "defund the police" back in 2020.

[Allutz]

For decades Chicago, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and other one-party cities routinely would generate fraudulent ballots accounting for ~5-10% of their vote totals. What year did this practice stop, and what evidence do you have of its cessation?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you mean like the machine politics of the 1910s?

[Allutz]

Provably continued into the 1980s. No evidence of cessation.

[James Alp]

* Trump’s legal argument is an argument for dictatorship *
A "Daily Beast" article published Monday (read here: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/trump-latest-court-filing-attempts-153531811.html ) talks about attorneys for the former president who are arguing that requiring a president to follow a formal procedure for declassifying documents is an unlawful burden on the powers of the presidency.
“There is no legitimate contention,” they write, “that the Chief Executive’s declassification of documents requires approval of bureaucratic components of the executive branch.”
Set aside the fact that declassifying documents without telling anyone makes no sense, since classification is part of a system meant to enable executive branch agencies to control access to documents which would otherwise be public, a duty they cannot perform if declassification decisions remain locked away inside the president’s head. The real problem here is that not requiring the president to follow a formal declassification procedure—one that produces objective evidence in the form of a paper trail, such as a White House memo describing the declassification decision that was made—we would have nothing more to rely on than a president’s (or a former president’s) word to determine if a top-secret document discovered outside a secure facility was or was not declassified while the president was still in office. It would be impossible to distinguish a former president’s truthful assertion of stealth declassification from a false, retroactive, self-serving assertion of stealth declassification.
If the former president’s argument was accepted, ex-presidents would effectively retain the power to declassify documents long after leaving office.
That is why a supposed presidential power to declassify documents without notifying anyone can only exist in a system with Presidents For Life. Our constitutional system, in which a president serves a finite term and is always followed by an elected successor, has no place for the power the former president, his supporters, and now his lawyers, are claiming.
Alarms should be ringing across America right now.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, what if the executive issues an order to declassify, and the bureaucracy simply decide not to act on it? Does that mean he constructively lost his power to declassify?

Doesn't seem like it was just locked inside his head. And I'm pretty sure he was still President on the 19th.

Without knowing what the "documents marked classified" actually are, we can't rule out their all being documents he did explicitly and publicly order declassified.

[not guilty]

And how would Trump now establish the existence of an unpublished order to declassify? By testifying that he issued such an order?

[Brett Bellmore]

I literally linked to the published order, so what are you talking about?

[not guilty]

Brett, that is bizarre, even for you. The order you linked to deals with Crossfire Hurricane documents, which is not germane to the topic at hand.

You posit -- I surmise with regard to documents seized under the search warrant executed on August 8 -- that "Without knowing what the 'documents marked classified' actually are, we can't rule out their all being documents he did explicitly and publicly order declassified." How do you surmise that Trump would prove the existence of any alleged declassification order? (Other than by offering testimony or an affidavit or declaration, which Trump's lawyers are loath to do.)

[bernard11]

Bizarrely, Trump's lawyers seem to be demanding that DOJ prove the documents weren't declassified.

Of course, they aren't making the "magic brain wave declassification" argument per se in court. Wonder why not.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The order you linked to deals with Crossfire Hurricane documents, which is not germane to the topic at hand."

How the hell do you know it's not germane, when you don't know that the documents sized under the search warrant WEREN'T the Crossfilre Hurricane documents?

"How do you surmise that Trump would prove the existence of any alleged declassification order?"

How did I just prove that he ordered the Crossfire Hurricane documents declassified? He actually did issue declassification orders from time to time. Actual, formal, written declassification orders. And until you know what documents they found, you have no basis for being confident they weren't covered by one of those orders!

[shawn_dude]

Declassified documents are marked declassified. Those cover folders in the photo are still marked classified.

[Nige]

'you have no basis for being confident they weren't covered by one of those orders!'

There's one rather strong basis - Trump doesn't claim to have declassified any of the documents in any of his legal filings.

[SimonP]

How the hell do you know it's not germane, when you don't know that the documents sized under the search warrant WEREN'T the Crossfilre Hurricane documents?

So you are simultaneously arguing that the federal government is slow-walking the implementation of Trump's executive order, thereby blocking Republicans in Congress from running with those materials, and that it's entirely possible that Trump has had the documents in his personal possession this whole time, and so could have just... handed them to Congress?

Anyway, we have ample reason to expect that the materials seized at MAL go beyond anything that would have been related to Crossfire Hurricane. For instance, we know that Trump had materials about Macron's sex life, as well as secrets about a foreign government's nuclear program. We also know that Trump wanted to release far more than just the Crossfire Hurricane documents. Meanwhile, we have zero reason whatsoever to believe that Trump intended for the documents at MAL to be made public - indeed, one would infer he had no intention to make those materials public, from the way he evaded the National Archives. Right?

[bernard11]

Speaking of Crossfire Hurricane, it appears that the much-trumpeted - on the right - Durham investigation has turned up bupkes.

You guys still holding your breath over it? Expecting Hillary to be indicted or whatever?

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me get this straight: Are you arguing that he's an incoherent man-child, or that he's a Satanic Machiavelli? Or is it some sort of quantum superposition between those states?

Trump makes stupid mistakes all the time, for all that he has his moments of brilliance. But I rather expect that, by the end of his first term, one mistake he wasn't making was thinking that the Republican leadership in Congress were his allies.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, this is quite the change of scope from your original thesis of ' you don't know that the documents sized under the search warrant WEREN'T the Crossfire Hurricane documents'

Pretty sure everyone can see how this argument went for you.

[shawn_dude]

I don't think Trump really has allies. He demands loyalty, which is entirely different. You can see this in the way he selectively doled out pardons to some of the people that went out on a limb for him but not others. It is all transactional.

I also think there is room for overlap between "incoherent man-child" and "Satanic Machiavelli." The former goes to his state of mind in selecting goals and the latter goes to his methods for achieving them, neither of which require that he be necessarily effective as a rule. Trump seems to have good gut instincts for manipulating people and crowds but, if his business dealings are any indication, his rare successes owe as much to luck as anything else.

[David Nieporent]

How the hell do you know it's not germane, when you don't know that the documents sized under the search warrant WEREN'T the Crossfilre Hurricane documents?

Because Trump's lawyers declined to put forth an affidavit from Trump saying, "The only documents with classified markings that I had in my possession were documents pursuant to Crossfire Hurricane that I declassified on 1/19/21 pursuant to this particular executive order."

If that was what he had, he wouldn't be relying on the Sekret Telepathic Declassification argument in the first place!

[bernard11]

No. You didn't link to "the order."

You linked to one order that dealt with Crossfire Hurricane materials. That says nothing about other materials, though it does demonstrate that Trump, or his staff, knew how to declassify things.

[bernard11]

Doesn't that prove the opposite of your claim?

The letter makes clear that Trump knew there was a procedure for declassification, and followed it.

[Brett Bellmore]

My claim would be that,

1) Trump clearly did order some classified documents unclassified, and not in his head, either.

2) Documents become declassified when the President orders them declassified, not when bureaucrats respond to the order. Those documents were declassified from the moment he issued the order.

3) Therefore, without knowing WHAT documents "with classified markings" were found in Trump's possession, you can't know that they were actually classified, or just the result of some bureaucrats failing to hop to it.

Now, you may chose to argue with point 2, but at that point you're in the realm of colorable arguments, and can't say that Trump had any intent to remove actually classified documents, or would have been unreasonable in thinking the documents unclassified.

[Nige]

If he didn't make sure the documents had actually been declassified, or that some record existed of his ordering it, then tough shit, he stole classified documents, and the best you can say is he did it through incompetence.

[Brett Bellmore]

The documents had actually been declassified by virtue of him ordering them declassified. The above link to his order shows that record.

[not guilty]

The linked order is not necessarily germane to documents seized on August 8. Those having responsibility for the Crossfire Hurricane documents presumably carried out the order and removed classification markings from the documents subject to that order.

[Nige]

No, it links to an order for *one* set of 'certain' documents in a single binder to be declassified, subject to review by relevant intelligence agencies, whose redactions he accepts. There's no indication those documents were found in Mar A Lago, and if they were, he still wasn't entitled to have them because they're government documents.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's no indication they weren't found in Mar A Lago, either.

And, again, I gave you one example of a declassification order by Trump.

[bernard11]

"One example?" I thought it was "the order."

Where are the others?

[Nige]

Yes, if Trump can produce proof like that relating to all the documents marked classified discovered in Mar A Lago, then all he has to worry about is the fact that it was still a crime to have those documents, and the statutes quoted have nothing to do with whether they were declassified.

[not guilty]

Brett, why do you suppose that Trump's lawyers failed to submit any orders regarding classification status in support of their pleadings? Why do they carefully avoid any averment that Trump in fact declassified anything?

When evidence under the control of a party is not offered by that party, the logical inference is that production of such evidence would not support the party's contention.

[EscherEnigma]

I'm morbidly curious. What's your excuse for why neither Trump or his lawyers are breathing a word about Crossfire Hurricane?

I mean, if thats what the docs are†, then that memo seems a pretty ironclad defense. So why aren't they making it?
________
†Ignoring all the reasons we have to believe that's not what the docs are.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Not a single filing of Trump's has claimed that he declassified anything related to the MAL search warrant.

Not one.

If it mattered in the least, then he or his lawyers would have submitted a sworn affidavit attesting to such an order.

They have not.

[not guilty]

Trump's lawyers have the unenviable task of making chicken salad from chicken shit.

[Brett Bellmore]

And then spending the rest of their life the target of a vendetta for merely being willing to work for him.

[bernard11]

Depends what you mean by a vendetta, and what work they do.

I'd say Powell and Giuliani, for example, deserve a strong negative reaction, including whatever happens in the Dominion lawsuits.

I'd say the same about Eastman. The guy was planning to undermine the election in service to Trump. Yeah. Fuck him.

[Brett Bellmore]

An example of what I mean by a vendetta.

[Randal]

Hahaha lol, did you actually read that article before linking it? It's not a "vendetta" to properly sanction attorneys who engage in malpractice. That's like saying Houston has a vendetta against rapists, since it insists on prosecuting them. It's also pretty normal for American institutions to decide to sever ties with known rapists.

[bernard11]

I don't know the details on the others, but Eastman deserves whatever happens. He wasn't so much representing Trump as devising a fraudulent scheme to overturn the election.

So too Mitchell. She was pushed out not for her representation but for participating in a call urging Georgia officials to commit felonies.

[Sarcastr0]

Eastman openly told someone to break the law, Brett.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Has Prof. Volokh withdrawn or modified his endorsement of John Eastman’s character and record yet?

UCLA deserves better. One bad hiring judgment should not precipitate this much damage.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Which attorneys, specifically, do you feel that characterization accurately describes?

[shawn_dude]

Assuming that's their biggest regret. They may regret not getting paid.

[Nige]

That's one way of avoiding pointing out how many of Trump's lawyers completely trash their professional reputation in the course of working for him.

[David Nieporent]

If the former president’s argument was accepted, ex-presidents would effectively retain the power to declassify documents long after leaving office.

Moreover, let's suppose someone was being prosecuted for selling classified info to China. The government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a former president didn't declassify the information in question. A former president who might not even be a alive anymore.

[John F. Carr]

I recall reading about a prosecution for trespassing in an apartment building. The courts decided to put the burden on the prosecution to prove that no resident let him in. That is in practice impossible. Not guilty.

[M L]

Biden May Buy Oil Just Below $80; Democrats Stymied Trump at $24

The Biden administration is considering replenishing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when oil dips below $80 a barrel, just two years after Democrats blocked former President Donald Trump from filling the reserve at a fraction of that price.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-may-buy-oil-just-212325051.html

[Jimmy the Dane]

Trump had to be stopped.

Biden on the other hand can be trusted.

If it costs more money, so be it.

Or at least that is what the leftists say....

[shawn_dude]

If only we could all use future hindsight to make the right choices in the present.

[EscherEnigma]

Now to McConnell insisting that February was too close to November in 2016, then saying that September was sufficiently distant from November in 2020.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You still butt-hurt by that?

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty long-term high-impact brazen lie, so yeah.

I know you can gin up a new liberal outrage every 2 minutes, but we here in reality stick with what matters.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Get over yourself. You know leftists would have done and will do the EXACT same thing next time tables are turned. Stop clutching your partisan pearls and pretending like the left just all isn't about the abuse of raw power, but then crying foul when turnabout happens.

[Nige]

So you're defending the Republican's actual pursuit of raw power using a hypothetical pursuit of raw power by the Democrats, which is apparently more real than the Republican's actual acts?

[Sarcastr0]

Do unto others as others might, maybe, have wanted, if they had the chance, based on your own speculation, to do unto you.

[bernard11]

Republicans before Dobbs:

"Leave abortion to the states."

Republicans after Dobbs:

Let's have a national ban.

Big fucking surprise.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I know you expect the Republicans to fight with one hand tied behind their back, but what did you expect. The left has decided to make it a national issue so it is going to be fought out on that stage. If Biden were to back off and say, "this is not a federal issue, I'm not doing anything...." then I would think the Republicans would be more than happy to leave it to the states.

[Sarcastr0]

Telling the truth about your policy plans is not fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ironic comment considering your steadfast support for our Liar in Chief.”

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not a huge Biden fan, I just think most of the claims he's lying around here are tendentious at best, and backed by nothing but emotion at worst.

[Ben_]

Yours is an extremely dumb comment. "Republicans" is not an individual. Policy preferences are individual and they vary from person to person. Please be less silly in future.

[Jimmy the Dane]

And you called my comment "extremely dumb".....
You should re-read yours....

[Ben_]

I called bernard11's comment extremely dumb. I didn’t read yours. Bernard11 likes to make very cliched grumpy partisan comments.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Republicans after Dobbs"

Graham isn't "Republicans". Bills that won't pass get introduced all the time.

Unlike your side's abortion on demand mono-position, GOP is not monolithic, some want a national ban, most others don't.

[IsaacDanielcm]

Remember, these are the people that think a gay man is a hero for barebacking another man in front of his adopted son.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is the audience the professors who operate this white, male, bigot-friendly, right-wing blog have cultivated. What a bunch of losers.

[SimonP]

Exactly right. Republicans love to put up bills that will never pass. That's why they were caught so flat-footed when they had the votes to actually repeal Obamacare, and had to scramble for a governing strategy after they unexpectedly won the White House in 2016. They thought they'd just ride the grievance gravy train for another four years (at least) under Hillary.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Right after Dobbs the Democrats put up a show bill to legalize abortion nationwide but refused to remove the legality of abortion right up to the point of birth, which might have picked up some R votes. In a world where “abortion rights are popular with voters” that particular provision is unpopular to the tune of 80%+.

Sometimes it’s your side that puts up bills that they know have no chance. In this case they intentionally torpedoed it.

[SimonP]

"My side"? Listen, buddy, just because I think the Republicans are a bunch of fascists doesn't mean I'm happy to support Democrats. I don't view them as being on "my side," either, unless we're speaking strictly in terms of, "in favor of the continued existence of the republic" kind of "side."

Right after Dobbs the Democrats put up a show bill to legalize abortion nationwide but refused to remove the legality of abortion right up to the point of birth, which might have picked up some R votes.

It's such a funny way of putting it. "Refusing to remove the legality of" means ""refusing to ban". Strange that you should use that circumspect language.

You're right, the bill in Congress would have prohibited states from banning abortion after fetal viability, in cases where the continued pregnancy would pose a risk to the mother's life or health. So it wasn't so much that the bill "refused to remove the legality" of abortion as it permitted only bans that had a "health or life" exception. Apparently, agreeing with Republicans that some mothers should die or be permanently harmed by their pregnancies is what we call "negotiation."

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ok, so I did the same shitty assuming with you that Shaun did with me. Shouldn’t do that. Sorry.

As I understood it at the time the right to abortion through the entire period was unrestricted in that bill. No requirement that life or health be at risk.

[John F. Carr]

Not a ban and not all Republicans. One Republican proposed a 15 week national limit, sending much of the party scurrying away like uncovered roaches.

[bernard11]

sending much of the party scurrying away like uncovered roaches.

Yes. Now that they face the general election. Bet they wouldn't have scurried so fast during the primaries.

To support that note how many GOP candidates are now running from their own previous abortion positions.

[M L]

Graham should call it the "European Abortion Rights Bill"

[Aunt Teefah]

Who knows, if he included public funding of abortion procedures like in Europe, he may even get some support for it.

[M L]

Oh, I'm sure. The Democrats will say, hey, you know what, 15 weeks seems like a reasonable compromise, that's what they do in Europe. And it avoids killing pretty highly developed humans in the womb who are starting to learn language and Mom's voice. And all the Republicans and Democrats will say, let's work together and be pragmatic.

[Aunt Teefah]

I'd say that's about as likely as the Republicans saying, you know what, many people are too poor to have any meaningful choice as to reproductive care given the cost of the procedure, we should have a reasonable compromise like they have in Europe and do taxpayer funding of abortion up to 15 weeks. Lmao.

My point is not to say whether such a compromise would pass or not, just to illustrate how totally fraudulent you guys' claim that "it'll be just like in Europe" is.

[M L]

Who pays the $350 to get the baby chopped up is actually not all that central to this issue.

Actually, if you're that hard up, there are Fortune 500 companies, billionaires, and public interest groups who, for some reason, are dying to make sure you are able to eliminate that growing little offspring and will pay for travel and everything.
https://abortionfunds.org/need-abortion/

[Aunt Teefah]

It kind of is central to the issue of whether your proposed regime is similar to those in Europe, actually, since one of the central features of European healthcare is that it is publicly funded and free at the point of service. Without that, to claim that "we're just doing what Europe does" is dishonest in the extreme.

[M L]

Your argument is dishonest in the extreme. Trying to shift the conversation to an entirely different issue because you don't want to address the one at hand. A very common but often transparent tactic.

By pretending the issue is "healthcare" generally, rather than the exact point at which an unborn human can be killed for convenience, you have broadened the scope by a factor of a million or more.

As I said in the other thread, it's like if Congress was going to ban most movie theaters, and your response is "but who will pay for the movie tickets?"

[SimonP]

Did he propose a "health or life of the mother" exception, after the 15-week point? That would be closer to the European approach.

[OtisAH]

Oh this is cute. Look at all the shitheads pretending they’re not salivating over the national abortion ban. Today it’s “Not all MAGA,” likely typed out by taking five minute laugh breaks between the words. But if MAGA can take congress they all, each and every single one of the little turd blossoms, will be shouting “elections have consequences” while they dance in the aisles.

[shawn_dude]

Correction: they'd high-five in the isles. You know, like they did when they voted down a law to support veterans exposed to burn pits.

[Kazinski]

A national ban?

The only proposal I'm aware of is Lindsey Grahams proposal which would allow abortions up to 15 weeks.

That's not a ban.

But I don't think the Federal Government has authority to ban or allow abortions, its a state police power, babies aren't commerce, at least not yet.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a ban after 15 weeks.

Come on, everyone was on the same page, no need to retreat into semantic games.

[Kazinski]

Semantic games?

Are you claiming France bans abortion?

I don't think anyone would claim they did, but they only allow it up to 14 weeks, after changing the law earlier this year from 12 weeks.

I think its semantic games to say the proposal bans abortion, when it regulates it to allow it for any reason up to 15 weeks.

[gormadoc]

It is rather telling that the European Commission hemmed and hawed over more countries in the Russian sphere for years but changed its tune now that it recognized Russian power has eroded. There are good reasons to include or not include them but waffling back and forth over corruption was clearly a pretense.

[shawn_dude]

Sweden and Finland had corruption issues? Any evidence of that?

And rather than consider NATO's moves, consider that Azerbaijan's resumed testing of Russia's support for Armenia. Or Tajikistan's cold shoulder after Putin propped up their authoritarian government. Better yet, keep an eye on Georgia and what it might do to regain its own occupied territory. Then there's India, Iran, and China's vulture-like salivating over the choice pickings they're getting from a desperate Russia.

[gormadoc]

The European Commission and NATO aren't even close to the same thing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think the reason so many people on the Left want to be serfs to a corrupt and incompetent State is because they are some different species of human that craves hierarchy and bootlicking?

Empirically the State is horrible at nearly everything, yet people worship the members of the institution. It makes no rational sense.

[Ed Grinberg]

"Enemies of all true life, out-of-date liberals who are afraid of their own independence, lackeys of thought, enemies of individuality and freedom, decrepit advocates of death and rottenness! All they have to offer is senility, a glorious mediocrity of the most bourgeois kind, contemptible shallowness, an envious equality, equality without individual dignity, equality as it's understood by lackeys or by the French in '93." (source)

[Sarcastr0]

'Empirically' does not mean what you think it means.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What do you think I think it means?

I mean it like this:

You can observe programs run by the State and see that they are inefficient, wasteful, corrupt and expensive. I can't think of a single program or project run by the State that isn't at least one of, and most are easily 3 of the 4 if not all 4.

[Sarcastr0]

Empirically does not mean 'in the judgement of BCD.'

But yeah, government is inefficient - because it's doing stuff where market efficiency will not give the desired result.

Market should be the default, but there are some jobs it doesn't do well -
foundational science
large public works
caring for the sick, old, and infirm among us
ensuring that we're a bit safer than caveat emptor
addressing broadly needed items like water, food, shelter, and health care.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But yeah, government is inefficient - because it's doing stuff where market efficiency will not give the desired result."

The question, of course, is desired by who? And the answer is always, "The government itself."

[bernard11]

This is also the question for the market, which also weights preferences, in its case by the wealth of individuals.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, in this Republic of ours, *we are the government.*

This is why contracting the franchise is so immoral.

I'm glad you've caught up!

[Sarcastr0]

Also why political spending isn't the same as speech.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We are definitely not the government.

The government is its own socioeconomic class,

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If your desire is to allocate your resources in the most efficient manner to help the most people then letting the people in government do it is immoral.

However, if your objective is to create a jobs program for overpaid and undereducated bootlickers and payoff your political clients and serve far fewer people, then government programs are your moral choice.

[Sarcastr0]

I gave five examples where market efficiency was not desirable.

Did you miss them?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No when you said we shouldn t allocate healthcare, food, water or shelter resources efficiently I thought you were joking.

I guess you're just evil.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha, you don't want to allocate necessities efficiently, you allocate them effectively and equitably.

You want efficient allocation of necessities? Check out Dickensian England. To the rich, all luxury. To the poor, an early grave.

Market efficiency is not what you want.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Healthcare, food, shelter, and water should doled out like 60% to whites, 13% to blacks, and 27% to hispanics and orientals!

lmao good one.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think it's just my judgement that government projects go over budget, take longer than planned, filled with wasteful spending, often filled with corrupt carveouts or useless payoffs?

Lmao wtf is wrong with you.

Can you name a single project done on time and on budget with no corrupt set asides or payoffs?

[Sarcastr0]

I think your post about budget and schedule overruns is a helluva retreat from your original thesis of 'Empirically the State is horrible at nearly everything,'

On time and on budget?
Do you think the containment of the USSR was handled to expensively?

But here's some stuff off the top of my head:
-Government nonprocurement grants, by definition.
-Arts and cultural/historical preservation
-Army Corp comes i on time and under budget regularly.
-Our patenting enterprise pays for itself.
-The Cassini Probe was efficiently built by NASA.
-Energy Star ratings are a great example - huge impact for it's cost.

That's the issue with being an ideologue - you make extreme statements and the world is never as simple as your simplistic worldview allows.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is there no waste, fraud or corruption in non-procurement grants?

Is there no waste, fraud, or corruption in government programs for arts preservation?

And you're supremely ignorant to prop up the Corp of Engineers as your model of efficiency and lack of corruption.

The government spent $3.5B on one spacecraft. How do you think that compares to the progress being made by companies like Space X?

It's hilarious how much you love and bootlick your hierarchy.

[Sarcastr0]

You said "name a single project done on time and on budget with no corrupt set asides or payoffs"

I did so. No new goalposts.

Non-procurement grants generally go to basic scientific research. Because there is no specific value proposition, waste is not a coherent subject. Corruption is not something you get to assume.

Space X is acting as a government contractor, so not sure your plan citing them.
====================
I would say you're the bootlicker. A licker of the market.

I say both markets and government have their issues.

You declare one is perfect and the other always bad. And move your goalposts when counterexamples are given. Who is the crazy one here?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"You said "name a single project done on time and on budget with no corrupt set asides or payoffs"

"I did so. No new goalposts."

You didn't list a single project. You listed categories. WTF. Then you declared some made up axioms that "waste is not a coherent subject" and "you can't assume corruption".

This is your tautology, the Federals can't be corrupt because Federals are not corrupt axiomatically!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Check that, you did list one specific project. Cassini.

[apedad]

New York City Man and Alabama Woman Plead Guilty to Attempting to Provide Material Support to ISIS

Today in the Southern District of New York, Arwa Muthana, 30, of Hoover, Alabama, pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, aka ISIS, a designated foreign terrorist organization. On Friday, her husband James Bradley, aka Abdullah, 21, of the Bronx, entered a guilty plea to the same charge.

(In May 2020), Bradley further expressed his desire to conduct a terrorist attack in the United States and discussed potentially attacking the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York.
Bradley explained that if he could not leave the United States, he would do “something” in the United States instead, referring to carrying out an attack.

In June 2020, Bradley reaffirmed his interest to UC-1 (Undercover person) in attacking a military base, and that doing so would be his contribution to the cause of jihad. In January 2021, Bradley mentioned to UC-1 another university in New York State where he frequently saw Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadets training. Bradley stated that he could use his truck in an attack, and that he along with Muthana could take all of the ROTC cadets “out.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/new-york-city-man-and-alabama-woman-plead-guilty-attempting-provide-material-support-isis

Since James is so anti-US, maybe he can join the Proud Boys after he gets out.

[Kazinski]

I'll bet his FBI handler has a Proud Boy contact on speed dialer to hook him up.

[SRG]

To any textualists out there - where in the Constitution have the president or Congress the power over immigration (not naturalisation)?

[Bob from Ohio]

The limit on banning the slave trade until 1809. If they lacked the power, no need to put the limit in.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Wouldn't prohibiting the slave trade fall by an exercise of the foreign commerce power?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Migration or Importation of such Persons "

Migration of persons is not commerce.

Technically the clause does not say "Africans" or "black slaves" either.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The animating concern of that clause was to limit Congress's ability to restrict the slave trade. And Congress's ability to restrict the slave trade lies in its enumerated power to regulate foreign commerce. Why does the euphemistic phrasing imply a broader, unenumerated power?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why does the euphemistic phrasing imply a broader, unenumerated power?"

Text is text. They meant to apply it to slaves but the text doesn't say that, its broader.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, and the text imposes a complete ban on Congressional prohibitions before 1808. It doesn't grant permission to impose any bans Congress wants after 1808.

[Kazinski]

I hope you aren't claiming immigration isn't commerce.

Johnson's dictionary:
CO'MMERCE. n.s.
"Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that the foreign commerce clause is a much better textual hook for immigration power than the slave-trade-ban-moratorium.

[Brett Bellmore]

Article 1, section 9, first paragraph: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

What point would there be in saying Congress couldn't prohibit before a set date something it had no power to prohibit in the first place?

Secondly, were immigration not a power of the federal government, then it would (10th amendment!) be a power of state governments, which would be entitled to police their own borders.

The most reasonable position, I think, is that this IS a power reserved to the federal government, either as an implied attribute of sovereignty, or under the commerce clause, and the migration or importation clause limited this power. Rather than forbidding exercise of a power never granted.

[SRG]

Art 1 S9 was concerned with the slave trade, the idea being to restrict slaves to those already in the US - if anything it supports my point because it required a specific clause.

I agree that immigration would be an implied attribute of sovereignty - it seems absolutely obvious. But it's not in the text...

[Bob from Ohio]

"if anything it supports my point"

No it doesn't.

You cannot do X until Y occurs. That means you already have the power to do X, we are just limiting when you can exercise the power [so we can get this thing ratified].

[SRG]

You cannot do X until Y occurs. That means you already have the power to do X,

Except that the power only applies wrt persons that the states want to to admit.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was mostly aimed at the slave trade, but it wasn't written to only apply to the importation of slaves. "Migration" is not importation.

They deliberately wrote the Constitution to not refer to slavery, but the words they chose still mean something.

[M L]

"What point would there be in saying Congress couldn't prohibit before a set date something it had no power to prohibit in the first place?"

The problem with this argument is that the bill of rights was also seen as completely unnecessary, as the federalists maintained that Congress would have no power in the first place to do anything that would run afoul of those amendments. But some people felt it was necessary to be redundant and underscore certain things.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The bill of rights was not “seen as completely unnecessary” by everyone. Supporters of ratification initially made that argument, but Madison eventually promised support for adding a bill of rights to the Constitution via amendment if the Constitution was ratified. As an example of why those asking for a bill of rights were correct, consider the 8th Amendment. It's hard to see, in the absence of of the 8th Amendment, how the Constitution could be understood to have delegated to the Federal government the power to punish criminals but not to impose “cruel and unusual punishments.”

It makes complete sense to conclude that the supporters of the 8th Amendment believed that the Constitution gave the Federal government the power to pass criminal laws and punish people for violating them. Otherwise there would be no need to pass an amendment banning punishments that were cruel and unusual. Even if they were being deliberately redundant, if they thought the government had no power to punish at all, they would have banned all punishment, not just cruel and unusual punishment.

Brett Bellmore is using a method of interpreting law that is standard practice, and it's standard practice because it makes sense.

[M L]

It's safe to say there is a strong argument that the Constitution did not grant the federal government any power over immigration. Ilya Somin is one person who maintains this position.

Of course that means it is reserved to the states, and the states have authority to regulate/limit the permanent migration of persons from other states or elsewhere.

[SRG]

And that also explains the "uniform Rule of Naturalization (sic)". "Uniform" would appear surplus if Congress already had powers over immigration.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not really, naturalization and immigration are separate issues.

[Kazinski]

Well lets do a thought experiment here, how robust a right is unfettered immigration if you have no right to naturalization or a work visa?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's lackey Jeffrey Clark, in response to a petition for professional discipline, makes the curious argument that a federal statute prohibits the District of Columbia’s Rules of Professional Conduct from applying to Department of Justice attorneys. He argues that attorneys barred in the District of Columbia can gain a license to practice by swearing to abide by the Rules, but, if they work for the Department of Justice in the District of Columbia, they are not bound by the Rules. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZFjanFcjrxq_IpliyO1WDLImwBoQz-ww/view

Where does Trump find folks like this?

[OtisAH]

He doesn’t. They’re drawn to him. He’s a big ol’ corrupt Orange bug light, which is particularly apt since they all burn up if they’re around long enough.

[SRG]

They may also be suffering from one of the many coaching fallacies - concerning a really difficult player. "I know all other coaches have had problems with this player, but I'm a better coach than they are so with me it will be different".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Where did Trump find folks like this?

At the Federalist Society

[IsaacDanielcm]

Kavanagh voted with the Pedophile John Roberts to lift the stay requiring Yeshiva to recognize homosexual student groups.

Kavanagh sucks. Why exactly did conservatives go to bat for him?

[IsaacDanielcm]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/14/politics/supreme-court-yeshiva-university-lgbtq-student-club/index.html

Basically, Roberts and Kavanagh are so obsessed with "process" and "percolation in the other courts" that they refuse to right obvious wrongs.

[MoreCurious]

He supplies the beer.

[SimonP]

Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh are all still getting a sense of "how to justice."

Kavanaugh, like Roberts, is more institutionally-inclined, but prefers outcomes along the same lines as Alito and Gorsuch. So, again like Roberts, he'd prefer to kick the matter back to the state courts, with the strong intimation - coming here from Alito - that the New York Court of Appeals will get slapped down if they don't come out the "right way." Thus, Kavanaugh gets what he wants while preserving the appearance of some kind of procedural regularity.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Discrimination against LGBT people is a long constitutional tradition.

[bernard11]

Discrimination against LGBT people is a long constitutional tradition.

Deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions, you could almost say.

[IsaacDanielcm]

That's because most of them are degenerates. Society used to recognize that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What would be left of this blog if the bigotry and backwardness were removed?

[apedad]

It would be horrible.

Rev., like it or not, we need to hear their voices (and hey maybe sometimes they're right...maybe...).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigots have rights, too, and should be heard.

But this blog has become mostly bigotry -- racism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, Islamophobia, white nationalist, white supremacy -- and backwardness.

[John F. Carr]

Insurance risk pools are forcing police departments to change policies related to high speed changes and use of force.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/police-misconduct-insurance-settlements-reform/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Insurance requirements constitute an oft-overlooked method of promoting responsible conduct.

[SRG]

^^^ The rev hath spoken, and lo! It was very good.

[VinniUSMC]

Are you sucking up in hopes that the Rev will shove something down your throat later?

Not even Pepperidge Farm remembers the last time Artie said anything "very good."

[SRG]

Fuck off, cracker

[bernard11]

Good.

This forces the community to internalize the costs of these chases.

[M L]

Or:

Bad law and verdicts, lying media and settlements are forcing insurance risk pools to force police departments to change policies.

[bernard11]

Care to be specific? No doubt some verdicts are excessive, but these chases do produce some pretty terrible cases.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Rather than promote the CLE courses I teach, I direct attention (particularly the attention of those confronting continuing legal education compliance deadlines) to Rock' n Roll Law.

It appears the Stones-based presentations are not currently available, but the Beatles program looks interesting.

[David Welker]

Very cool!

[M L]

List of things Ron Paul wasn't right about:

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'll go first.

The racism!

[shawn_dude]

We can start here: https://www.politifact.com/personalities/ron-paul/. He's only marked "True" or "Mostly True" 38% of the time.

[M L]

"Politifact" LOL

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, Politifact IS the nation's foremost opinion checker.

[Michael P]

That's the usage of "check" that we see in ice hockey, right?

[SRG]

The gold standard

[M L]

Ron Paul was correct that a monetary system in which the government can print unlimited money is a system that transfers wealth from the middle class to the wealthy and government employees, enables the government to prosecute endless wars around the globe at great cost, and to generally spend recklessly with the effect of taxing the people indirectly outside of the political accountability of normal taxation.

[Sarcastr0]

About when, in American history, do you think the US government had the right spending per capita?

[Kazinski]

In the Coolidge Administration.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. A fan of dogfood-eating elderly dying of preventable diseases, it seems.

Better than M L who in the past has cited 1850 as his ideal per-capita funding level.

[bernard11]

What does any of that rant have to do with the gold standard?

Here's the thing. Governments on the gold standard can be just as irresponsible fiscally as governments not on the gold standard. This is because the gold standard is not divinely enforced. Governments can go off it, or devalue, any time it suits them.

What you are positing is a fiscally reckless government that pays no attention to long-term sustainability, but, if it were only on the gold standard, alas, would be a model of fiscal prudence, and feel itself bound to adhere to that standard, even when the inevitable depression rolls around.

[Kazinski]

The problem with the gold standard is that there is no relation to the growth in the gold supply and the economy.

We are seeing now the results of a mismanaged money supply that is out of sync with the economy, too much money, chasing too few goods.

Probably even worse would be a rapidly growing economy with a stable money supply that's not keeping up. Then you will have deflation which will definitely cool the economy, and put in other systems in place like bartering.

[SRG]

But the government does not print unlimited money and in practice cannot, so Ron Paul is criticising a system which doesn't exist. He is as qualified to talk about economics as any medical doctor.

[Kazinski]

What do you mean the government can't print unlimited money?

Its happened before and will happen again, Venezuelan inflation averaged 3700% Annually from 1973 to 2021, and hit a peak of 344509.50% in Feb 2019.

I mean I suppose its limited by the number of trees in the rainforest and the number of zeros you can fit on a bill. But that kind of inflation is caused by the government expanding the money supply faster than the economy is growing.

[SRG]

Venezuela is not the US - and if Venezuela were on the gold standard, I am pretty damn sure that the gold would have mysteriously evaporated from the vaults over time.

[EscherEnigma]

The best way to raise his son to be an upstanding gentleman of fine moral character.

[Aunt Teefah]

List of things Rand Paul's neighbor wasn't right about:

[bernard11]

Paul is a racist, antisemitic, homophobic asshole.

[VinniUSMC]

If your real name is Paul, and you're talking about yourself, then you might be right. Otherwise, not so much.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, antisocial, bigoted, faux libertarian right-wingers think Rand Paul is just dreamy!

Obsolete gape-jaws from Kentucky consider him one of their own.

Everyone else considers him a particularly lousy culture war casualty, ready for replacement.

[apedad]

Hey - anyone hear from DaivdBehar lately?

Maybe Prof. Volokh axed him after all the, "Eugene you idiot....murderer....thief.....rent-seeking (something)...."

[SRG]

The ABA spiked his thorazine

[SimonP]

I had grown so accustomed to simply ignoring his comment threads that I'd failed to notice that they'd stopped.

[Kazinski]

He got muted a long time ago. But I could still tell it was him if there were 3 muted comments in a row at the top of a thread.

I started muting everyone who replied to him too, there is no point in seeing the back if you aren't seeing the forth.

[Craig Johnston]

It would be a better muting system if it automatically muted the thread following a muted commenter. I don’t want to mute the people who, although they generally have interesting comments, succumb to temptation and reply to a useless post by a commenter I’ve muted. (My system for muting involves not seeing any on-topic, thoughtful posts whether I agree with them or not.)

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Sometimes it's fun to see the back and guess about the forth.

[Moderation4ever]

The John Durham investigation is winding down with nothing to show for three years work. A judge has tossed Trump's RICO lawsuit against Hillary Clinton. Looks like the Mueller investigation, the Senate report on Russian election interference and the Steele Dossier have held up to scrutiny and are still the gold standard on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

[Jacob Grimes]

Couldn't help but notice that you didn't say "gold standard on Trump's collusion with Russia."
All of it was a complete waste of time with nothing to show for it, save a few prosecutions for crimes related to the process of the investigation itself.

[SimonP]

You don't care that Russia actively tried to swing the 2016 election (and appears to have been successful)? Setting aside Trump's involvement, that's a pretty concerning thing, don't you think?

Anyway, the best we can actually say about collusion is that Trump had a funny way of obstructing justice whenever investigators got close to that question. So the Mueller Report didn't establish that he had actively sought to collude with the Russians to win in 2016, no. But some of us can connect the dots, given what the Trump Team did do, and the big blanks left by people not cooperating with investigators.

[M L]

Russia posted this on Facebook: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/11/02/us/politics/02dc-ads-lgbt-united/02dc-ads-lgbt-united-articleLarge.png?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale

We are supposed to be concerned, frightened, turn the world upside down about this?

Many foreign countries actively tried to swing the 2016 election against Trump. Many foreign countries even participated in spying on the Trump campaign. Does that concern you?

[David Nieporent]

Russia also hacked into the DNC. Remember that?

[M L]

A dozen foreign countries cooperated in spying on the Trump campaign. Remember that?

Mueller said "apparently" they did. Because in reality, any competent hacking is generally not traceable to the perpetrator, and any breadcrumbs left behind may be intentional.

Besides, Debbie Wasserman Shultz didn't even let the FBI examine the server for evidence, after multiple requests. Too bad. But you know, sometimes the FBI just has to say, Oh well, forget it, when people refuse to cooperate. Other times it's a raid with guns. Oh well.

[David Nieporent]

A dozen foreign countries cooperated in spying on the Trump campaign. Remember that?

No.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" A dozen foreign countries cooperated in spying on the Trump campaign. Remember that? "

Delusional, bigoted, and ignorant is no way to go through life, M L.

That is nothing replacement won't solve, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

Russia has been trying to actively swing US elections since there WAS a Russia. The fact remains that their efforts were spitting into a hurricane compared to the scale of domestic efforts to swing the election, AKA "campaigning".

I notice you're not concerned about Chinese efforts to swing the election; You really think there weren't any, or is it just impolitic given the current President's family connections?

[M L]

Look, you can literally have Chinese spies on your staff, you can even have sex with them.

You can do millions of dollars of "business" with Russia, China, Ukraine . . . Qatar, whatever. And not real, actual business like Trump was in before he entered politics, but the political grift kind of "business." None of it matters and it's all totally legal, as long as you are with the bipartisan political establishment but especially leftist Democrats.

[Nige]

'And not real, actual business like Trump was in'

Bankruptcies? Money laundering? Cheating vendors? Fraud? A reality show?

[SimonP]

I mean, Russia hacked the DNC, timed releases of embarrassing records to distract from Trump's many scandals on the campaign, and sought to coordinate their efforts with the Trump campaign. Based on what we know, it would appear that the Trump Team was simply too incompetent to capitalize fully on what Putin was offering. But they probably tried more than we know.

I am, of course, concerned about Chinese attempts to insinuate propaganda into our public discourse and sway elections. I am not sure what specific efforts you have in mind, though.

"The current President's family connections" are not really that remarkable, in my view. Hunter's leveraging of his status to engage in and profit from international investments is not really unusual in my line of work; what's been alleged about him strikes me as just business as usual. I'm a little more concerned by what Kushner, Mnuchin, and Thiel are doing.

[M L]

"Russia actively tried to swing the 2016 election (and appears to have been successful)"

How delusional can you be?

First, Russia didn't try to swing the election, they just tried to make some posts on Facebook to amp up the rhetoric on both sides, to contribute in some small way to destabilization and polarization.

Second, hypothetically even if Russia did estimate that a Trump victory would be favorable to them, that calculation proved catastrophically incorrect as Trump was tougher on them, no surprise that Russia's crystal ball is broken seeing what they are doing now.

Third, "and appears to have been successful." That's quite hilarious. Yes, some Bernie memes in broken English posted on Facebook swung the election!

[Sarcastr0]

they just tried to make some posts on Facebook

Weird they did all the hacking and coordination with Trump campaign folks about releasing it.

[Nige]

'as Trump was tougher on them,'

Sure he was.

[Moderation4ever]

No, I did not say Trump collusion with Russia, because that was never the real issue. The fact that Trump tried to block the reports because his ego would not allow him to accept that he did not win outright. Remember that the Mueller investigation started because the former President wanted to stop the investigation and fired Comey. The Democrats did not start the investigation, Jeff Sessions, Trump AG started the Mueller investigation. All these investigations were not hoaxes they were driven by the former President's ego. John Durham investigation and the Hillery Clinton lawsuit were just more ego and in the end nothing came of them.

[SRG]

There's a reason that process crimes are crimes, you know. And it's not just to persecute people you want to go after.

[M L]

A Washington DC jury said Susmann was not guilty of something. What a surprise!

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/31/politics/sussmann-verdict/index.html

"Barr and Durham have publicly questioned the legitimacy of the Russia probe, but Durham hasn’t yet backed up those assertions with criminal convictions."

As if legitimacy is synonymous with all that which is not criminalized under the vague vagaries of the federal code (as selectively interpreted by the DOJ and a DC jury of course).

Rather misses the point that the surveillance state is legal. Members of the NSA spied on their spouse and ex-lovers. So what? The intelligence community surveils members of congress. DOJ investigates and arrests dissident political figures.

[Sarcastr0]

In Soviet Russia, straws grasp you!

[SRG]

My Trumpsucking ex-colleagues had been saying, "wait until Durham is done" from the time of his appointment. I predict that they will now say that he was in the tank for Hillary and they will entirely forget that they were so supportive of him at the beginning.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's funny. Basically every conservative I know dismissed Durham as an apparatchik just running out the clock within months of his starting the investigation. I don't personally know anyone who thought he was doing anything but tracking down and burying any loose ends.

I mean, if the investigation was going to mean anything at all, it would have to have been completed when the DOJ was still under Trump's command. Otherwise no matter what he found, there weren't going to be any consequences. So the mere fact that he didn't dig in and get out a report before Jan 20th was enough to demonstrate he was just going through the motions.

In fact, Trump famously blew up when informed by Barr that Durham's report was to be expected "some time during the Biden administration".

[Nige]

You are a world class championatf hedging your bets and using arbitrary benchmarks to confirm the dodginess of outcomes you don't like.

[Kazinski]

I would not say there was nothing to show for it, there is some important details that he's come up with that I'm glad were exposed.

One that came out this week is that Steven Danchenko was a paid FBI informant. So the FBI was paying both Steele and Danchenko for making up shit about Trump for the FBI to investigate.

[Moderation4ever]

But Mr. Danchenko became an informant in 2017 under the Trump administration. This was all past the Steele Dossier.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wasn't past the investigation of the Steele dossier, though.

[Nige]

Not sure the source on that is rock solid.

[ReaderY]

Abortion is a quintessentially local matter. However regarded, whether as a medical procedure or as a crime of violence, it has nothing to do with any genuinely legitimate federal interest. Indeed, whether regarded as a matter of morals or as a personal decision, whther as a quintessentially state or quintessentially private matter, whatevef it is it isn’t federal.

The fact that the commerce clause has been interpreted in ways that permit the federal government to address it illustrates only that the commerce clause has been overextended to the point of endangering the union by getting Congress involved in every matter that touches on people’s emotions.

At the very least, Congress ahould not be quick to impose some soet of national compromise solution. It should leave things to the states to play out. It should at most address only genuinely interstate aspects, such as interstate travel for purposes of abortion, whether to forbid or protect. And it might be better off waiting for consensus to develop to address even that.

[EscherEnigma]

Pull the other, it's got bells.

The only reason Republicans are complaining about Lindsey's stunt is that they think it'll cost them politically. They've supported it every previous time, and once they're no longer heading into an election where this is a losing issue, they (and most likely you) will suddenly think it's a fine federal issue again.

Just like every other question of state vs. fed, politicians favor whichever level they think they can win at (whether "winning" means getting it passed, or just getting them votes to stay in office). Pretending there's any principle in the matter is laughable.

But we do agree on one thing: abortion is a local decision. As in, local to a woman and her doctor. Anyone else should GTFO. But somehow I expect you have no interest in that kind of local control.

[bernard11]

However regarded, whether as a medical procedure or as a crime of violence, it has nothing to do with any genuinely legitimate federal interest.

I don't understand, then, what it has to do with any legitimate state or municipal interest.

If politicians in DC have no business regulating abortion, why do those in state capitals have such business? I can't think of a single reason.

[ReaderY]

The federal government has no regulatory interest in domestic violence as such. It only has an interest in violence that is sufficiently connected to an enumerated federal regulatory power, such as interstate commerce.

But this does not mean that a state has no interest in domestic violence. Traditionally what a man did with his wife was nobody’s business but his own, it was considered a private matter, outside the purview of the state. Indeed, a man traditionally had a right not only to correct his wife with fist or stick, but also to initiate a pregancy with his wife, and he did not require his wife’s or anyone else’s consent to do so; his reprodictive freedom of choice was his and his only.

But the fact that both intrafamilial pregnancy initiation and domestic correction are not interstate commerce and hence outside the purview of the federal government does not automatically make them outside the purview of the state.

Because a state has a general police power,, it has a right to re-examine these intimate aspects of private intrafamilial relations and reproductive choice and freedom, deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition of choice as they are, stick its moralizing nose into traditionally private intimate family business, characterize these aspects of choice as “domestic violence,” and prohibit them.

[EscherEnigma]

... You seriously work up this morning and decided "I'm going to defend marital rape as a state's rights issue today", huh?

[ReaderY]

Not in the least. My Devil’s Advocate position is very clearly defending it as a personal right. The argument is that it has at least as much claim to be part of the tradition of personal privacy rights as abortion, and the argument that the state has no business (no right) to interefere in it is at lrast as grounded as the similar argument about abortion.

In both cases, something that was (merely arguably in the case of abortion, unquestionably in the case of marital rape and wife-beating) traditionally regarded as a personal matter not the government’s business has suddenly (in the 19th century in the case of abortion, well into the 20th century in the case of wife-beating and marital rape) become the government’s business.

A personal right enforcible against states is pretty much the opposite of a state’s right.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it wasn't so much that marital rape was considered to be a right of men, so much as that marriage was considered to be a standing consent to sex such that rape within a marriage was thought to be not a thing.

[bernard11]

The federal government has no regulatory interest in domestic violence as such. It only has an interest in violence that is sufficiently connected to an enumerated federal regulatory power, such as interstate commerce.

We are using the word "interest" differently. I use it to mean "concern." You use it to mean "Constitutional authority."

Domestic violence is plainly a concern of government, of society. We have set up our government so that this cannot be addressed at the federal level, and must be handled by states. There is no particularly compelling reason for this, but that's the law.

So when you say the federal government has no interest in abortion I read it as "the federal government has no business being involved in abortion," not "According to the Constitution the federal government has no business dealing with abortion."

IOW, I read it as "the federal government has no business regulating abortion." Hence I ask why state government does have such business.

You might say I speak normatively, and you positively.

[ReaderY]

You repeatedly use terms like “plain” and “obvious” to assert that no reason need be given. But opponents of abortion say that it’s plain and obvious abortion is a concern of the government, and you don’t accept their word. If you don’t accept the word of people who think it’s plain and obvious and instead demand a reason, why shouldn’t other construe your own repeated reliance on “plain” and “obvious” and repeated regusal to articulate a reason as a concession you have no reason?

On the other hand, if “plain” and “obvious” is a good enough reason for you, why shouldn’t it be a good enough reason for opponents of abortion?

All but perhaps 2 justices at any one time in the court’s history since Roe accepted that states have a rational basis for opposing abortion, because it involves the destruction of human life, and human life is a matter of obvious rational concern. This is why the court consistently held that refusing to fund abortions, which required only a rational basis even under Roe, was constitutional.

[ReaderY]

That is, to use your distinction, under Roe the Court merely held that states lacked the power to directly prohibit abortion, much as the federal government lacks power to directly regulate domestic violence. A large majority completely accepted that states had every reason and right to be concerned about it. A state could use its spending power to address it and other matters of concern in the same way the federal government can use its spending power to address matters it can’t prohibit directly.

[Ben_]

Maybe SCOTUS Dems will start to support limiting the commerce clause to interstate commerce.

[Bored Lawyer]

Computer had a disaster today, based on an automatic update to Microsoft Windows 11. Had to redo the OS, and seemingly lost all my files. (Most of the work files are uploaded to the cloud, personal ones not.)

Morals of the story:
1. Do not permit automatic updates.
2. Backup all your files periodically.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've been using Carbonite ever since I started using hard drives that were too large to backup to portable media such as CDs. Last time I backed up to media it took a dozen CD's, and I said never again.

But I'm thinking of just installing a NAS server out in the backyard, and letting my computers back each other up. I figure if I use proper power isolation any accident that would take out both of them would probably leave me not caring if the data survived.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does anyone know what Jan Stawovy's screen name is at the Volokh Conspiracy?

Thank you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You can probably find out if you ask his FBI handler.

[M L]

This is over 2 years old:

Hidden Over 2 Years: Dem Cyber-Firm's Sworn Testimony It Had No Proof of Russian Hack of DNC
By Aaron Mate, RealClearInvestigations
May 13, 2020

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why is no one investigating the origins of COVID?

[Moderation4ever]

Let me go out on a limb here and say at this point it is probably irrelevant. There have been a number of investigations and the results suggest that both the wet market and the lab leak theories are possible. There is nothing to suggest that a more definitive answer is possible.

What is probably more important is for governments of the world to realize is that a highly infectious agent can move quickly in mobile societies and that it can have very significant impacts.

Is the origin of the last pandemic as important as being ready for the next one? I would say no.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A new paper in the Lancet suggests it came from a US lab.

If it has human origins, it is important to know that right?

[M L]

We should be ready . . . to hold a large music festival like they did for the last pandemic.

https://www.aier.org/article/woodstock-occurred-in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic/

[Brett Bellmore]

"Is the origin of the last pandemic as important as being ready for the next one? I would say no."

If a house catches fire due to a pile of oily rags in the garage, is it important to know to be ready for the next house fire?

Yes, maybe you'll convince people not to pile oily rags in their garages, and you won't GET the next house fire.

Same thing here.

[M L]

As Vanity Fair reported last year, the reason is because it could open a "can of worms."

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins

[Nige]

Because it's just a mild flu and a sniffle so why bother?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative
blog has operated for

THIRTY-SIX (36) DAYS

without using a vile racial
slur * and has operated for

THREE (3) YEARS

without imposing (new)** viewpoint-driven,
partisan, and hypocritical censorship.

* so far as we are aware; we could have missed one or two
** previously imposed censorship remains in effect

[mydisplayname]

Some sources say the most popular sandwich in America is the "George Floyd" -- a half pound of blackened beef smothered in Southern white gravy. Is this true?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The police officer who murdered George Floyd was a southerner?

I mean, it would have been a great guess . . . but it wasn't the answer we were looking for.

[Michael P]

It's interesting that people claim the FBI wouldn't collude with Facebook to illegally siphon up private messages because it would be bad for them if they got caught, while the FBI's parent agency is openly issuing subpoenas over model legislation and social media posts: https://lidblog.com/doj-tramples-constitution/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What's worse than an evil vile subhuman Democrat?

A Democrat with authority & power.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wow the rich, generous Democrats at Martha's Vineyard called in the National Guard to get rid of the invaders.

unreal.

[OtisAH]

Idiot.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you think there's been so much coverage of those 50 illegals in all White Democrat MV and a quick military response, but nothing anywhere else?

[OtisAH]

Plenty of coverage of each of the stunts. It hits harder now because we’ve learned these folks, who are here legally seeking asylum, were lured under false pretenses onto planes and shipped to a community that was not forewarned of their arrival and which does not have the same availability of resources and services that a city has. Today we even learned of various games DHS agents played in this and probably during the other stunts, but that’s another subject.

But that’s how I’d respond to someone worth responding to. For you it’s far more simple. “Because you’re full of shit and an idiot.”

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How much do you know about the countless numbers of secret Biden flights of illegals inland to red parts of the country?

Those areas weren't forewarned.

Nothing?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How much do you know about the countless numbers of secret Biden flights of illegals inland to red parts of the country?

Those areas weren't forewarned.

Nothing?

[apedad]

Massachusetts called in the National Guard on Friday to deal with the “humanitarian crisis” that locals claim was set off by just 50 migrants being flown to Martha’s Vineyard by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — before the deep-blue state shifted the new arrivals to Cape Cod.

Three buses rolled up to St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Edgartown to take the mostly Venezuelan migrants on the first leg of their journey from the elite island of multimillion-dollar mansions — including a seven-bedroom home owned by former President Barack Obama — to Joint Base Cape Cod on the mainland.

The National Guard members will supplement work already underway by the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, Gov. Charlie Baker’s office said in a statement.

“Our Administration has been working across state government to develop a plan to ensure these individuals will have access to the services they need going forward, and Joint Base Cape Cod is well equipped to serve these needs,” the governor said.
~~~~

BCD, your inability to grasp the real world is the only unreal thing around here.

[ThePublius]

apedad, your inability to grasp humorous hyperbole, sarcasm, and wit is the only unreal thing around here.

The only factual error in BCD's comment is that it was Republican (in name only) Governor Baker who called out the National Guard.

Do you really think that was necessary for 50 (illegal) immigrants? Del Rio, Texas, had 15,000 in one day!

[Flooded]

The stuck pig level of shrill coming from the Dems and media are a sure sign that this one hurts bad politically. The propaganda campaign to shout it down with this level of faux moral outrage only exacerbate the hit due to the transparently apparent hypocrisy. I'll wager that those in the middle will be the opposite of persuaded as an electoral issue. Brilliant move by these governors to expose the this insanity at the border...

[Ben_]

It was a humanitarian crisis. Rich liberals were being shamed.

Now that the migrants are sent off to somewhere where they can displace poor Americans, the problem is solved.

It was a harrowing time for Martha's Vineyard residents though. Some of them thought they might be asked to let migrants stay in their (now vacant) summer homes.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Did you see those facebook comments? So freaking delicious.