Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Nige]

I hereby declassify this thread just by thinking about it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, it's less classy already.

[Nige]

Race you to the bottom!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Winning!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Whose permission does the President need to declassified something and who defined the process he is required to follow?

[Nige]

Well, so long as there was a process which generated some sort of paper trail he can use as proof, he'll be fine, unless the criminal statutes he's being investigated under have nothing to do with the classification status of the documents!

[not guilty]

The criminal statutes cited in the search warrant do not distinguish between classified and unclassified documents. The status of the documents is not an element the prosecution will have to prove.

The classification markings on the documents do have evidentiary significance. Trump's disregarding the classification status is persuasive evidence of a culpable mental state.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Where are those rules and who has the authority to subject the President to them?

[David Nieporent]

Where are those rules and who has the authority to subject the President to them?

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, if Congress enacts a statute, the President is subject to it, so long as it doesn't purport to regulate him on some power of his own office. I don't think classification would fall under that exception, though.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think classification would fall under that exception, though.

Why not? Is this inherently executive for some reason?

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess I was unclear: I mean that it's not inherently executive. Purporting to regulate the President on some power of the office would be things like, for instance, enacting a statute purporting to regulate how a President goes about issuing pardons.

Classification power is statutory, and what the legislature gives, it can take away.

[Harvey Mosley]

You were clear. I'm sure that it would have been obvious to Sarcastr0 had it been posted by someone on his side of the political divide.

[Voize]

Dept. of Navy v. Egan:

[The President's] authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

Making a violation of his rules a crime, however, does require Congress to act.
Or, as it did in 18 U.S.C. §793, Congress can define crimes that deal with risks to national security and are independent of a document's classification status.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Congress passed legislation that defined the President's process for declassifying material?

[Don Nico]

S_0,
In the case of National Security Information, it is inherently executive because it derives from an Executive Order based on POTUS' role as Commander-in-Chief.. However, Restricted Data emanates from an act of Congress; therefore it is not inherently executive.

[gVOR08]

De facto, nobody can enforce rules on the prez. The ex-president, however…

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Dare question the power of the Q?

[John F. Carr]

Disaster After Trump Announces He Has Already Declassified Area 51 In His Mind

[Randal]

Turns out the praying football coach, who was never fired in the first place, also doesn't want his job back anyway.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/the-story-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-keeps-getting-more-surreal/

[not guilty]

I suspect that Coach Kennedy got a taste of grifting, and decided that he likes it much better than coaching high schoolers. How was an unemployed high school coach able to afford the services of Paul Clement? And how much of the crowdfunding take wound up in Kennedy's pocket?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've never personally understood people who are victimized by an employer, and want their job back. I mean, it's one thing if it was just by one abusive dude in management, who got fired, so you might anticipate a return to normal working conditions.

But if it was official, coordinated action against you? You've got to anticipate your work life going forward will be a living hell of petty retaliation and a continual effort to manufacture a defensible reason to get rid of you again.

Just take the money and move on, don't return for another serving of the same.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yep

[Sarcastr0]

“As soon as the school district says ‘Hey, come back,’ I am there, first flight,” he said.

And yet: he never reapplied to work the 2016 season.

Also, he never had a good money case: he was put on paid leave near the end of the season after holding a series of prayer sessions on the field with students and state legislators. He still got paid for his full assistant coach contract, about $5,000.

I'm not too unhappy about collusive lawsuits, but this guy does seem to have had his eye on the grift train for a while now.

[SimonP]

It's even more obvious when you look at the actual history, not the highly abstracted fact scenario that the Court considered.

He is the one who insisted on praying on the 50-yard line, ostentatiously and publicly. He refused any accommodation that actually served his interest in engaging in a "private, quiet" prayer. Jesus told him to pray on the football field right after the game, or else it didn't count, apparently.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Jesus actually told him the opposite, but he wants to participate in the right’s version of virtue signaling.

[OtisAH]

Your comment would be better placed in a thread discussing someone who was victimized their employer.

[Brett Bellmore]

Take it as a general comment concerning people suing their employer for 'wrongful' termination, if you like.

[Kazinski]

I'd never heard this story before:

Normal everyday working stiff suffers an injustice, decides he's not going to knuckle under and fights the injustice, takes it all the way to the Supreme Court and wins, then decides to be an activist and keep fighting for the cause rather than go back to his 5k a year part time job.

If someone shopped it as a movie script they'd say 'nah its a cliche, they've done that one too many times before'.

[Randal]

That's all basically fine, I agree. The end of the article is the interesting part. There are so many ways in which the Supreme Court majority made up a bunch of facts not in evidence (contradicted by the evidence, really) so that they could decide the case they wanted to decide rather than the one before them.

Rather than sticking to the facts (which probably would've resulted in a DIG), the majority wove a false narrative of conservative victimization (sound familiar?) so that they could rise to the occasion and slay the fantasy liberal dragon.

It's exactly the sort of thing that Kagan was talking about. The court isn't acting like a court, it's behaving as a bunch of partisan hacks taking their cues from Tucker Hannity-Pirro, inventing cases wholesale in order to amplify one side the culture war. The decision isn't even going to matter since it doesn't have any bearing on real events or situations. It was just red meat for the base. Really a gross new low for SCOTUS.

[bernard11]

What cause?

Plus, there was no injustice.

Other than that, fine.

[Ridgeway]

It is easier to get in early on these when traveling in Europe.

Here is a fun (I think) topic.

Name great, but lesser-known, movies by decade.

I'll give a few:

1940s: Out of the Past. My favorite film noir.
1950s: I'm All Right Jack. One of the funniest movies I have ever seen,
1960s: Zulu. Not the standard "cowboys and indians."
1970s: Friends of Eddie Coyle. The granddaddy of all the "lowlifes in Boston" movies that have been popular since Matt Damon and Ben Affleck broke onto the scene.
1980s: Tender Mercies. Robert Duvall at his best.

[Michael D]

Zulu is a very enjoyable movie and the only one from your list I know with certainty I have seen.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I'll second Out of the Past, even though I generally don't like Robert Mitchum; I'm All Right, Jack. Don't know the others.

[Ridgeway]

MItchum is a bit of an acquired taste. Once you "get" him, though, he is great.

[Kazinski]

He's incredible in The Friends of Eddie Coyle (spoiler alert: Eddie doesn't have any friends).

The most amazing thing about the book and the movie is its basically the plotline of Whitey Bulger's career: hood in with the mafia, killing people, running rackets and protected by the Feds because he's giving up other hoods, and setting up other people to take the fall.

But Bulger didn't start informing for the FBI until 1974, George Higgens published Eddie Coyle in 1970. Higgens was a former US Attorney in Boston, either he had incredible foresight, or it was long-standing practice for Boston Feds to condone even murder as long as their snitches were giving up good collars to boost the Fed's careers, as happened both in the book, and in real life in Bulger's case.

[BrianL.]

1949 - The Third Man, starring Orson Welles. I thought this was a well-known film, but I've been surprised by how many people I've mentioned it to never heard of it. Good story and great b & w photography.

1950 - In a Lonely Place, starring Humphrey Bogart. Great film, didn't even know it existed until recently.

2001 - Mullholland Drive. Don't know how well-known it is, but it's my favorite David Lynch film.

[Ridgeway]

Mulholland Drive is a good suggestion. The only issue with it was that it was intended as the pilot to a TV series, so there are a lot of loose threads to be cleaned up in the end, and Lynch is only moderately successful at doing so.

Third Man is great, but it is already pretty famous.

[Paladin_44]

Certainly agree with Tender Mercies. Tess Harper was excellent in this one too. A great Beresford movie.

[SRG]

"I'm all right Jack" is one of the great British comedies.

I grew up with "Zulu" - superb, though not hugely accurate. It's not lesser known in Britain, fwiw.

The book "Friends of Eddie Coyle" by George V Higgins is a very good read, though Higgins has a peculiar style. Almost everything is described via dialogue.

[Ridgeway]

It (FoEC) basically reads like a screenplay. I think it actually works better as a movie for just that reason.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has had a bad week. Trump sued in federal court in Florida, asking for appointment of a special master to review documents seized pursuant to a search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago residence. Upon Trump’s recommendation, Judge Aileen (Evidence? We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence!) Cannon appointed Senior Judge Raymond Dearie to serve as special master. (A Google search of Dearie + no-nonsense yields about 1,630,000 responses.) Is Team Trump learning the significance of the maxim, be careful what you ask for?

Trump has been claiming out of court that he declassified some of the documents in question; his lawyers have been hinting at declassification, but have avoided representing to the Court that Trump has in fact done so. In a filing with the Court on Monday, Trump’s lawyers disingenuously cavilled:

[T]he [special master’s] Draft Plan requires that the Plaintiff disclose specific information regarding declassification to the Court and to the Government. We respectfully submit that the time and place for affidavits or declarations would be in connection with a Rule 41 motion that specifically alleges declassification as a component of its argument for return of property. Otherwise, the Special Master process will have forced the Plaintiff to fully and specifically disclose a defense to the merits of any subsequent indictment without such a requirement being evident in the District Court’s order.

href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.97.0_1.pdf" rel="nofollow ugc">https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.97.0_1.pdf

This dancing around the Maypole regarding whether documents remain classified is trifling with the Court. Contrary to what Trump’s counsel have suggested, declassification (if it occurred notwithstanding lack of evidence thereof) affords no defense to the criminal statutes referenced in the search warrant.

[not guilty]

Team Trump is finally before a jurist who pays attention to the burden of proof and the necessity of supporting claims with admissible evidence. That portends ill for Trump and his lawyers.

Trump appears to claim — thus far without submitting supporting evidence — that certain seized documents may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. The burden of proving that a privilege applies rests not with the party contesting the privilege, but with the party asserting it. The party must assert the privilege as to each record sought to allow the court to rule with specificity.

If and when Trump claims that his communication with his attorney(s) regarding his mishandling of government documents is protected by the attorney-client privilege, inquiry into whether the crime-fraud exception to the privilege applies is appropriate. That should be especially true of communications regarding Trump’s non-compliance with the grand jury subpoena last spring. Trump’s attorneys (including one attorney of record in the pending Florida lawsuit) are potential criminal co-defendants.

Executive privilege — which again Trump has not yet asserted — is another kettle of fish. Executive privilege is an incident of the constitutional separation of powers among the different branches of government. Trump, as a former president, has a long row to hoe asserting such privilege against the National Archives Records Administration and the Department of Justice — both agencies of the executive branch. To the extent it can be asserted at all by a former president, the generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a criminal prosecution. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 713 (1974).

A neutral and detached magistrate found probable cause to believe that crimes had been committed and that, as of August 5, 2022 evidence of such crimes would be found at Mar-a-Lago. That should stand as a prima facie demonstrated, specific need for incriminating evidence. Trump’s pleadings in the pending civil suit identify no defect or infirmity in the search warrant of the manner in which it was executed.

I suspect that Donald Trump and his lawyers are experiencing an acute case of assholus constrictus.

[Martinned]

Yes, that's the irony of the whole situation. Trump got extremely lucky by ending up in front of possibly the worst judge he appointed in his 4 years, and he used that good fortune to press for a special master who wasn't nearly as much of a hack.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree here. Judge Dearie seems to be no nonsense get the job done person. Not the type you want when you're looking to delay and drag things out.

[Bored Lawyer]

I have been before Dearie. That's exactly what he is.

[ah....Clem]

The obvious question that presents itself here is why on earth did Trump's team nominate Judge Dearie to be the special master given his reputation of no-nonsense efficiency and adherence to the law?

Makes me wonder if Chris Kise, having pocketed the $3M advance is angling to have Trump fire him immediately. Sheer speculation, of course.

[Bored Lawyer]

I have seen so many lawyers make so many stupid mistakes, that I can only speculate. Someone speculated that since Dearie was one of the FISA judges that the DOJ lied to, they thought he would be more skeptical of the DOJ. Who knows what silly thoughts lurk in the minds of lawyers. Even well-paid ones.

[John F. Carr]

He may be the most DOJ-skeptical judge that the government would consent to.

[Brett Bellmore]

The logical answer would be that they think the FBI genuinely collected some stuff they shouldn't have, and expect Dearie to agree with them. I mean, the FBI HAS admitted to having gotten attorney/client privileged communications and other stuff they never should have taken, and that's just what they've admitted to.

[Sarcastr0]

That logical answer doesn't really track with their submitted arguments, Brett.

[ah....Clem]

Conventional wisdom was that the whole special master thing was to drag things out for as long as possible, which has been Trump's litigation style for decades. Delay, appeal, appeal the appeal, contest every single document, etc.

Nominating Dearie would seem to be anti-thematic. One would think that Kise would know the Trump playbook and attempt to follow it. Puzzling that he apparently didn't.

[David Nieporent]

I guarantee that Trump is going to blame, and turn on, Kise and Trusty soon.

[not guilty]

Trump's legal team includes at least one potential criminal co-defendant and a registered foreign agent for the (hostile) government of Venezuela.

[shawn_dude]

To extend that argument, having Dearie on your list at all, a name the DOJ might agree with, expedites the special master process. If delay was his goal, Trump would have been better off nominating two unacceptable persons and used the ensuing negotiations to delay further.

[David Nieporent]

No, that's wrong on many levels, with the most fundamental one being your claim that they "never should have taken" these things. That's not how it works. When executing a search warrant, law enforcement is not required to, and does not, review each individual document or piece of evidence to decide whether it might be privileged before carting it off.

[not guilty]

Brett, the existence vel non of a privilege must be shown by evidence. The burden of establishing the existence of a privilege as to any particular document is on the party claiming the privilege. It is not up to the party opposing assertion of a privilege to disprove it. As Judge Carter opined in the Eastman litigation, the party must assert the privilege as to each record sought to allow the court to rule with specificity. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf, p. 13.

Trump's pleadings in the Florida lawsuit do not identify any particular document(s) as to which Trump asserts attorney-client privilege. The pleadings do not aver the existence of a client relationship with any individual attorney(s). The pleadings are unverified -- unsupported by affidavit or declaration -- and Trump has declined throughout this litigation to furnish any sworn affidavit, declaration or admissible documentation supporting his claims. Trump simply has not made a colorable assertion of attorney-client privilege.

Trump's pleadings refer generally to a presumption of executive privilege as to some documents, but Trump has not asserted privilege as to any particular document(s). There is no averment that the holder of the privilege -- President Joseph Biden -- has asserted any claim of privilege. In any event, a generalized assertion of executive privilege based upon a general need for confidentiality must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a criminal prosecution. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 713 (1974). Since the documents were seized pursuant to a search warrant based upon a judicial finding that federal crimes had been committed and that evidence of such crimes would be found at Mar-a-Lago, the government has shown a preliminary demonstrated, specific need for evidence. A generalized assertion of executive privilege by a former president is accordingly unavailing.

[not guilty]

Judge Dearie has now set a timetable for Trump to assert any claims of privilege. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.106.0_4.pdf We will see whether Trump is just blowing smoke.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"...and other stuff they never should have taken..."

Brett, Numerous people, numerous times, have explained to you (and provided indisputable evidence) that the warrant allowed the FBI to take anything stored with the documents, as well as the things stored nearby those documents.

You might consider asking yourself why, in light of being corrected more times than anyone here can enumerate, you continue to put forth the same, tired bullshit.

Are you simply incapable of learning when you're wrong and applying new information to your worldview?

[Moderation4ever]

Adding to this is that Judge Dearie has now told the Trump lawyers to put up or shut up regarding accusation of planted evidence. Again, I would say that Dearie is no nonsense and will not put up with these shenanigans. He will not have one narrative for the public and a second for the courts.

[Ben_]

Yeah, the walls are closing in on Trump. This time for sure.

[shawn_dude]

Maybe. He might just end up with an ankle bracelet, imprisoned in his South Florida mansion.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Canadian high school teacher having her ability to teach questioned because of the size of her breasts.

Shocking.

[Ridgeway]

I have an armadillo in my trousers. Actually it is a cucumber wrapped in aluminum foil, but that does not affect my ability to teach.

I'm moving to Canada!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Trans teacher with prosthetic breasts.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm pretty sure he's having his ability to teach questioned because of his habit of dressing in drag and wearing comically large fake breasts.

And because it's got his students so disturbed they're boycotting the class.

[Drewski]

Wow, so edgy and cool, and not at all like a bigoted old man gradually losing his impulse control. Soon I expect you'll be hurling racist slurs at service staff for imagined slights, assuming you don't already do that.

[Martinned]

Congratulations, you're the target audience of the NY Post!

[Sarcastr0]

Perfomative assholery now, Brett? That was never your posting style before.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've remarked before on this tactic, where people on the left simply up and declare saying true things they find inconvenient to be obnoxious, and then demand you go along with their lies.

He's a guy dressing like a woman and wearing comically large fake breasts. And it's freaking his students out.

I know you'd like us to pretend that he's a real woman being discriminated against because of the size of real breasts, but that's a lie. He's a mentally disturbed guy whose insanity has his students scared.

[Nige]

It's not a lie that she's a trans woman, you just refuse to accept it. That's okay, the Nazis couldn't accept it either, it was just more Jewish cosmopolitan decadence. Now it's lefty lies to freak out and groom the kids.

[Brett Bellmore]

The "she" is a lie. A "trans-woman" is a man pretending to be a woman, so it's no lie to say he's a "trans-woman", it just doesn't make him a "her".

If you were remaking 1984 today, O'Brien would be complaining that Winston was being an asshole by refusing to say he saw five fingers.

[Nige]

Trans people exist, they're not a lie. They're not doing it for fun, they're not doing to to annoy you, they're not doing it to corrupt the children, it's who they are.

[David Nieporent]

Trans people exist, they’re not a lie.

Few people dispute that there are people who sincerely think they are members of the opposite sex. That does not mean they actually are.

And this particular teacher obviously is doing it to annoy. If an actual biological woman sought breast enlargement to that degree, unless that woman was a porn star we would conclude the woman was seriously mentally ill. (From my extensive research, I do not even think there are many porn stars with breasts that large.)

[Nige]

So the problem isn't that she's trans, it really is the size of her breasts.

[David Nieporent]

In this case, yes. As a liberal columnist said, this is at best a fetish, and at worst trolling. Not only does she have what are effectively beach balls stuffed in her shirt, but she has giant 'nipples' on them:

When it comes to the Ontario teacher, it’s easy to fall into a philosophical sinkhole: Surely it would be acceptable for a cisgender woman teacher to wear a padded bra and to have breast enhancement surgery, cosmetic or post-mastectomy. And, insofar as any breasts on a transgender woman are the result of artifice of some kind, is there a particular size past which they become obscene?

And people do not choose their gender identities. Is it fair to say that a transgender teacher really chose to have large breasts, any more than that a young cisgender girl chose her own physique? Are those who balk at the Oakville teacher engaged in body shaming?

But then you return to planet Earth and see the images of a teacher with what are rather obviously pornographic prosthetic breasts. Breasts that would, no matter a teacher’s assigned sex at birth, make the news. This is not like when (as happened in my own school days) an oblivious teacher showed up for class with a shirt with buttons misaligned.

Gender identity is not a choice. However, showing up to teach in cartoonish fake breasts is one. It’s a choice to wear what is effectively a fetish outfit while teaching, in a way that is visible to all. Whether done as a stunt or a sincere expression of sexuality, if anything qualifies as inappropriate, that would be it

I don't like linking to the Daily Fail, but the pictures speak for themselves:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11224383/High-school-defends-transgender-teacher-large-prosthetic-breasts.html

[M L]

The Daily Mail pics . . . !!!

Stunning and brave.

[Nige]

That was certainly... a choice.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Those are what she identifies as her breasts.

I can't believe that a bunch of men are presuming to decide what kind of breasts a woman is allowed to have.

Such misogyny.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That was certainly… a choice."

Being trans is a choice now, eh? I suppose you would like to send her to conversion therapy.

[Nige]

I wasn't talking about her being trans.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So having large breasts is a choice?

[Nige]

Thanks to modern medicine.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Gender identity is real, folks.

Not accepting that a man who identifies as a woman is truly a woman is transphobic.

And not accepting that a man who identifies as a woman with large, cartoonish breasts and protruding nipples is not truly a woman with large, cartoonish breasts and protruding nipples is also transphobic.

[Sarcastr0]

TiP doesn't know what gender is, but he's sure angry about it.

[Nige]

Not accepting a trans woman is a woman is transphobic, your opinions on breasts are a whole other thing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Not accepting a trans woman is a woman is transphobic, your opinions on breasts are a whole other thing."

Um, breasts are a part of a woman. That's not an opinion.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"TiP doesn’t know what gender is..."

It's a synonym for sex.

[Nige]

‘That’s not an opinion.’

OK, so you have no opinions about breasts, that also is a whole other thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not saying they don't exist. And I'm sure some of them aren't doing it for fun, and none of them are doing it to annoy me. They may be "trans", whatever the hell that means, what they aren't is the opposite sex.

I mean, anorexics exist, they'd not doing it for fun, but that doesn't mean that they're actually obese, and everybody is obligated to pretend that they are.

Dysphorias are real, they can be terrible, but they're dyphorias, not the truth.

[Nige]

So we've established they exist, what a relief. Everything else is just you being an asshole about it. I guarantee calling trans women she and trans men he will never, ever in a million years cause the tiniest fraction of the threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of anyone that the current Republican push to criminalise trans people does.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, I totally do not care that you characterize my not agreeing to play along with a lie as "being an asshole". It's just a stupid tactic, like calling anybody who objects to racial quotas a "racist".

[Nige]

Because it's not a lie, it reflects something far more nuanced and complex than just someone 'pretending to be a woman.' Calling it a lie is you being an asshole.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "They may be “trans”, whatever the hell that means, what they aren’t is the opposite sex"

Maybe this explanation will help:

Sexuality is comprised of two elements: First, the biological plumbing / physical traits we all know and cherish. Second, the corresponding sexual traits hard-wired in the brain. In the vast majority of cases these are in sync, but with some people they aren't. But the second element isn't less real for being invisible to Brett Bellmore's eye. Remember : This isn't a case of human whimsy; the same sexual confusion sometimes occurs in other animals in nature.

And why is this even a problem anyway? My natural inclination is to treat a "trans person" with the same consideration and courtesy as anyone else. It's exceedingly rare there's anything approaching a problem, Rene Richards forty-odd-years ago notwithstanding. Why the Right's hysteria on the topic, flailing between seething outrage and knee-slapping good-old-boy yuck yucks?

[M L]

It was never a problem or an issue at all, until the left become even more insane and started making it a problem.

They started doing it in Charlotte, North Carolina just a few short years ago, where they passed a law taking away property rights, forcing all property owners to allow men into their women's bathrooms. Thus, they removed it from the sort of natural state of private ordering, where nobody had heard of it being a problem or issue since the dawn of time. Imagine, an entire fake civil rights movement where there wasn't even a problem. Anyway, from there it spread like wildfire or a bad case of herpes, all the way up to SCOTUS and now permeates federal law a few years later.

[Sarcastr0]

natural state of private ordering

Right outta the 1950s.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Following Mr. Bellmore's cue:

Brett Bellmore is an antisocial, autistic loser of culture war, a misfit and malcontent in modern America.

Brett Bellmore is a birther-class racist who chooses to live in can’t-keep-up backwaters with his mail order bride.

Brett Bellmore is a disaffected right-wing bigot.

Brett Bellmore is a distillation of the target audience of a white, male, faux libertarian, conservative blog with a vanishingly scant academic veneer.

By all means, let’s ditch the political correctness and tell it like it is.

Carry on, clingers . . . you know (and live) the rest.

[Santaxd]

And you're a disgusting faggot.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And you are Prof. Eugene Volokh's favorite commenter.

Everybody has a role here!

[Sarcastr0]

This wasn't inconvenient. It was you posting not any kind of argument, but trolling.

I'll survive; I'm strong. It's just not like you.

[Michael P]

Joining QA in the "every accusation is a confession" crowd, S_0?

Remove the pole from your eye, and then you may see clearly enough to realize that Brett wasn't actually doing what you always do.

[Sarcastr0]

You think I post performatively?

[OtisAH]

Sheesh, S, you’re here everyday but you often miss the patterns. When you introduce new terms like nutpicking or performative, guys like Pee, that BCD idiot, et al., start using the term in that rubber v. glue fashion they perfected on the playground a few years ago. It doesn’t matter if it’s used correctly, they just use it.

Try this next week: drop a new term or phrase in a couple comments. Any will do. Even a nonsense word. Repeat on Tuesday and Wednesday. By Friday, these dopes will be spitting it right back at you regardless of context or sense.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I have noticed the cargo culting of new terms around here. How could I not, with the fad of saying I was strawmanning being quite a thing for a bit there.

Kinda adorable, if you take the right attitude about it. Like kids trying on their parent's shoes.

[OtisAH]

“Strawman!” That’s the one I couldn’t remember. “Begging the question” might be another. Anyway, maybe not next week but sometime down the road I hope you’ll consider introducing a nonsense word just for fun. I recommend some portmanteau that kinda looks familiar for best results.

[Randal]

How about "cargo cult" itself! That's a great one.

As in, the most hysterical of all is the cargo-cultish use of "gaslighting" to describe Sarcastr0's posts. There's no one left using that term around here who knows what it means.

[Bwaaah]

OMG, S. That's so dripping that I can't help but degrade myself with this analogy: That's like Adolph Hitler asking, "Do you think I'm being a tad harsh with the Jews?"

[Sarcastr0]

Could you explain what you mean by preforming, then? Because I think I'm just saying stuff I think via these comment fields.

[Randal]

Sarcastr0 is the least performative poster around. It makes me a little sad actually! So many missed opportunities.

[Sarcastr0]

🙁

[Michael P]

That's a really good example of you engaging in performative assholery, dude.

[Sarcastr0]

Saying Brett's posting performatively is itself performative?

Could you walk me through your thinking there?

[Hank Ferrous]

It is endemic to your in-group. In your case, w/o drama & hyperbole, you really have very little but risible assertions and accusing the out-group member of what your group is doing. As Otis says, your misuse of terminology is amusingly carried across to others who share your viewpoint, making for entertaining reading.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Those are not fake, Brett. Those are her natural breasts.

What's fake and unnatural is the amab body she was incorrectly born into.

[Gasman]

Shop teacher fired for not consistently demonstrating use of required safety equipment when using miter saw; safety goggles, and hearing protection.

[Brett Bellmore]

No kidding; I was cutting some 1/4" aluminum plate on my miter saw, for a robot component the other day, and just as the cut was finishing it caught on the blade, and that piece just disappeared. I still don't know where it ended up, I was doing the cut outdoors to avoid having to sweep aluminum shavings out of the garage. It's somewhere in the lawn, I assume.

Those things can fire a part out fast enough to do major injuries.

[YepThatGuy]

Couldn't help but nod and smile at that one. I was (stupidly) cutting with my tablesaw a 1' x 1' piece of half inch plywood to use under a jack or something similar -- I can't recall. No need for accuracy and was just cutting about 4" off one end as the final cut, so I didn't use a fence or guide. As I got to the end of the cut, the blade bit and fired the plywood square about 75 yards across the street like Satan's frisbee. Thank goodness the only injury was to my ego. Happy Thursday Open Thread, all!

[Stephen Lathrop]

A further caution to anyone unaware—and too many people are unaware—the most dangerous tool in the shop is a grinding wheel. Especially the pneumatic ones. Do not take the guards off of those. They can kill you. That grinding disc can shatter, and big fragments can go right through you.

[Kazinski]

What's the difference a between dressing in Blackface and a man dressing as a woman?

[David Nieporent]

I mean, the obvious difference is that there's no historical tradition of men dressing as women for the purpose of denigrating women.

[Bob from Ohio]

"no historical tradition of men dressing as women for the purpose of denigrating women"

Other than "drag shows" of course. "Drag queens" are certainly a mockery of women, wigs and makeup and outfits exaggerated for effect.

A drag show and a minstrel show are the same thing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Women were kept off the English state until the 17th century or so, so female parts were played by men. And it certainly wasn't unknown to denigrate women.

[Sarcastr0]

And it certainly wasn’t unknown to denigrate women.

The weakest of teas.

[Sarcastr0]

“Drag queens” are certainly a mockery of women, wigs and makeup and outfits exaggerated for effect.

Certainly, you don't know what drag is.

[Nige]

Blackface is intrinsically racist, drag shows are not intrinsically misogynist.

[Bob from Ohio]

"drag shows are not intrinsically misogynist"

Says you. I say differently.

[Sarcastr0]

There's a whole history and current cultural issue about minstrelsy and black face, but when it comes to drag there's just you insisting by yourself.

[Bob from Ohio]

"when it comes to drag there’s just you insisting by yourself"

"drag shows as misogyny" in google About 1,340,000 results (0.38 seconds)

Here's an example:

"However, the core concept of drag as it is understood today – as an exaggerated overperformance of masculinity or femininity for comic, dramatic or satirical effect – has gendered implications. More specifically, drag is often used as a means for cisgender, queer men to perform a caricatured, hypersexualized and stereotyped femininity that ultimately hurts women.

Hard conservative author:
"Lily Zheng '17, is a weekly columnist for The Stanford Daily, a Social Psychology major and co-president of the student group Kardinal Kink. Her weekly column revolves around consent culture, queer and trans identity, social justice and activism."

Or from UK

"Drag Queens on primetime TV is no storm in a D Cup! They’re grossly offensive to women
JULIE BURCHILL Writer and Commentator
February 23, 2022"

So its not just me
[though I never knew I was a radical feminist until now]

[Sarcastr0]

Really reaching for some deep cuts there, eh?

You have admitted you are all about lying for political gain, so it's not even you.

[Nige]

Yeah, a lot of transphobes are suddenly finding drag mysoginist.

[Nige]

You say a lot of things.

[Bob from Ohio]

So do you.

[Nige]

You take that back.

[Stephen Lathrop]

When the Justice Department indicts Trump, where will it happen, and what crimes will be charged? Might there be multiple indictments, with some brought in D.C., and others elsewhere?

Suppose for the sake of argument that the Justice Department knows or has reason to suspect strongly (documents still missing) Trump has particularly critical nuclear secrets in his possession. It does not know where exactly they are, or what he might have done with them. What, if anything, is the FBI empowered to do about that? Does it have resources sufficient to match an emergency at once so critical and so hard to particularize? What would the FBI do in a like case if the suspect were not Donald Trump?

[not guilty]

I would expect prosecutions to be brought in the District of Columbia. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), an offense begun in one federal district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.

With regard to the attempt to block Congressional certification of the election results, the violation of statutes most easily proven IMO are 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001 (false electoral slates) and 1512(c)(2).

Regarding the mishandling of governmental documents, the criminal statutes referenced in the Mar-a-Lago search warrant are 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071 and 1519.

[John F. Carr]

Document-related cases have to be brought in Florida because the acts took place there, the documents were there, and the (alleged) crimes started only after he left DC and was no longer president.

If somebody mails a false document from Arizona to DC with the intent to influence Congress in session in the Capitol, is venue properly in DC?

[Brett Bellmore]

"If somebody mails a false document from Arizona to DC with the intent to influence Congress in session in the Capitol, is venue properly in DC?"

Not really relevant here, as there wasn't any mishandling in DC, since he was still President when the documents left there. The argument would be illegal retention, but that happened in Florida, not DC. No part of the alleged crime happened in DC, at all.

[John F. Carr]

I was making two separate points. The document cases go to Florida for the reason you said. Venue for the election cases could be more complicated because some potential defendants never set foot in DC.

[not guilty]

If somebody mails a false document from Arizona to DC with the intent to influence Congress in session in the Capitol, venue is indeed properly in DC. Per 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), "Any offense involving the use of the mails, transportation in interstate or foreign commerce, or the importation of an object or person into the United States is a continuing offense and, except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district from, through, or into which such commerce, mail matter, or imported object or person moves."

The subpoena to the custodian of records that Trump refused to comply with was issued by a D.C. federal grand jury. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22272913-220830-exhibits#document/p11/a2144460 Resistance to that lawfully issued subpoena was part and parcel of Trump's crimes. The subpoena called for production of documents in D.C. Trump's lawyer Evan Corcoran corresponded regarding that subpoena with Jay Bratt of the Department of Justice and Debra Wall of the National Archives, both of whom were located in D.C.

[not guilty]

In addition, Christina Bobb's fraudulent certification that all responsive documents had been produced would have been transmitted to D.C.

[David Nieporent]

Not necessarily. It was my understanding that she hand delivered it to the agents when they came down to pick up the subset of classified documents he admitted unlawfully retaining. (But I could have mixed up the facts, I suppose.)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"(But I could have mixed up the facts, I suppose.)"

You did not. She handed the false statement to the agents along with the Redweld envelope containing approximately 38 pages of classified documents when they arrived in response to the subpoena.

[shawn_dude]

Does intent come into play here? If he packed them up as part of his move out of DC and intended to move them to Florida and keep them there after his term ended in a few days, then the crime may have begun in DC.

Also, removing certain kinds of material from specific locations may also be problematic. So if he knew top secret compartmentalized information could not leave the Whitehouse and boxed it up to send to Florida, any infraction happened the moment the box crossed the property line.

[Nelson]

The compartmentalized documents are the ones that he has to worry about, I think. The restriction, as I understand it, is unconnected to classification. He could declassify all of them, but they would still be subject to the compartmentalization requirement and could not be taken to Mar-A-Lago, period.

[DrCoke]

"Compartmentalized" does not refer to a physical compartment or location. It does not mean documents could not be taken from the White House to some other place. Compartmentalization refers to documents that are not automatically available to someone who possesses the clearance level for those documents. That is, I have a TOP SECRET clearance. The documents are marked TOP SECRET. However, I am not allowed to read them, because they are additionally "compartmentalized". The "compartment" is an additional marking in addition to TOP SECRET. In addition to the Need To Know, and having the clearance level (i.e. TS), one has to specifically granted access to the compartmentalized material by being "read in" to the program. A typical example is a program whose very existence is classified. The President, of course, is not subject to any of this. As Command In Chief, he automatically has access to all classified information, at all levels, in all compartments. And he can take that material and sit down and read it anywhere he pleases. And he can summarily declare that it is declassified. I myself have declassified many documents marked TOP SECRET. The process, for me, a total nobody with no special powers like the President, was to magic marker over the words TOP SECRET on each page, and to sign a paragraph boilerplate on the cover page saying I hereby de-classify this. Trump probably did not even need to actually do that in order to declassify documents.

However, I don't have any idea what evidence will or will not be required if he needs to prove he declassified something. It quite possibly is just his word that does it.

[DrCoke]

To clarify: a "compartment" is an abstract thing. They have names that appear on the documents. Like "TOP SECRET - STABLEGENIOUS". Even the fact that there is a STABLEGENIOUS compartment might itself be classified! 🙂

[DrCoke]

[Nelson]

"In addition to the Need To Know, and having the clearance level (i.e. TS), one has to specifically granted access to the compartmentalized material by being “read in” to the program."

This is what I was referring to. The President is obviously one of the people who is included, but is the ex-President? Whether Trump could declassify the documents would be irrelevant if he was no longer included in the "need to know" group because he was no longer part of the government, correct? And if he isn't included in that "compartmentalized" group (if that's what it's called) any longer, he shouldn't have those documents, correct?

I don't have any personal experience with this, so I'll bow to your expertise.

[David Nieporent]

Presidents typically give security clearances to ex presidents, because ex-presidents can often provide useful advice to current presidents, about world leaders, recent events, etc., and the ex-presidents may need confidential information in order to give useful advice. But it most certainly is not automatic, and is done only at the grace of the current president.

Absent such consultation — and for obvious reasons, nobody is interested in consulting with Donald Trump — the ex-president does not have a need to know anything, and is not entitled to any such access.

[DrCoke]

Point is: According to Trump, the documents are not classified. He declassified them when he was President. Question is: Oh, really?

(My clarification was about people seemingly thinking “compartmentalized” meant “cannot be removed from some particular physical location” (ie. the White House). Although that's moot anyway. No security clearance needed, because the document were UNCLASSIFIED since he took them. Says Trump.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Democrat DOJ will indict only in DC so they can guarantee a Democrat judge and a Democrat jury.

That way they won't have to try for the conviction, it will be automatic.

[not guilty]

Well, Trump is not doing so well with the Eleventh Circuit judges on the panel whom he appointed. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/11th-circuit-stay-in-mal-search/47da7e465ec35ca1/full.pdf A total bench slap.

Why do you surmise that jurors in D.C. would be less conscientious than jurors elsewhere?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Partisan bias.

[Michael P]

Recent history.

[Sarcastr0]

What recent history?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They jury in the Sussman case. Surely you heard what they did.

[David Nieporent]

Acquitted someone for whom the evidence of guilt was incredibly flimsy? Yeah, we heard.

[grb]

By all descriptions, Durham's final trial now underway is even more flimsy. He's not the most corruptly partisan special counsel - that will always be Brett Kavanaugh's farcical "investigation" of the Foster suicide - but Durham looks to be the biggest joke of all time.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Federals will not police themselves.

[bernard11]

Wait. I thought Durham really had the goods.

I mean, I didn't really keep up with his investigation, but there were commenters here saying so, and breathlessly awaiting his report.

Was I misled?

[mulched]

He was totes meeting with Baker cuz he was a good citizen even tho he billed the hours.

[David Nieporent]

Why do you surmise that jurors in D.C. would be less conscientious than jurors elsewhere?

It's a nudge nudge wink wink "They're black" argument.

[Brett Bellmore]

More of a, "Only 6% (Rounding up!) of the jury pool would be Republicans" argument.

[Martinned]

Wow, it's almost as if giving unreviewable power to random citizens isn't a great idea...

[Mr. Bumble]

No, more like an all white Southern jury deciding the fate of a black defendant.

[bernard11]

You have no idea WTF you are talking about.

[shawn_dude]

Exactly! Which is why gerrymandering is a popular GOP election tactic.

[Bob from Ohio]

"nudge wink wink “They’re black”"

Blacks are no longer a majority in DC. Try again.

[M L]

"Why do you surmise that jurors in D.C. would be less conscientious than jurors elsewhere?"

Well, it is the most politically biased jurisdiction in the world with something like 99% of residents hating Trump. That's exactly why the case would be brought there, as you know.

[Sarcastr0]

That's quite a claim. Care to back it up?

[bernard11]

No backup.

It's just the cultists preparing their retreat in case is convicted of something in DC.

Typical trollish M.L./A.L./B.B. comments.

[Moderation4ever]

To be double sure the prosecutors should look for a Hispanic judge and the former resident noted (June 2016) he cannot get a fair trial from a Hispanic judge.

[Nelson]

"The Democrat DOJ will indict only in DC so they can guarantee a Democrat judge and a Democrat jury.

That way they won’t have to try for the conviction, it will be automatic."

So your assertion is that Democrats are incapable of being impartial? That only Republicans can do that, so a Republican can only be fairly tried by a jury of Republicans?

That doesn't sound insane at all.

[John F. Carr]

On one hand, the current administration may be overreacting to the actual danger to national security. On the other hand, anybody other than Trump would have been crushed like a bug long ago.

I think as ex-President he was entitled to a polite request before formal legal action was taken. My understanding is he got that and more.

[Bob from Ohio]

"anybody other than Trump would have been crushed like a bug long ago"

Or Hillary Clinton.

[Nige]

Not through lack of trying.

[not guilty]

Eleven Republican state attorneys general, led by Ken Paxton of Texas, have submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of their respective states in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the matter of the search of Mar-a-Lago. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000183-5bb6-da48-a3e3-fbb798e20000 It is difficult to discern the point of this submission, which appears to be a mishmash of random grievances against the Biden Administration and the Department of Justice arising out of unrelated cases or issues -- kvetching for its own sake.

Leave of court for filing of an amicus brief is not required of a state per Rule 29(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. That is fortuitous for Paxton and Company, because the content of the brief suggests that the states would have difficulty complying with Rule 29(a)(3), which requires a motion for leave to file to state the movant's interest and the reason why an amicus brief is desirable and why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Doing that probably hurt Trump’s case. If I were his lawyer I would have called them and told them to stay mum.

[not guilty]

I doubt that the Court of Appeals will pay much attention to that amicus brief.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many of Paxton's colleagues will file briefs supporting his criminal defense?

Would it be illuminative to check that ranking of states by educational attainment against the list of states participating as friends of the court.

[bernard11]

Is this anything other than ass-kissing?

[Bwaaah]

Yes. It's rallying your base and fundraising, to name but a couple of others.

[bernard11]

OK.

Whatever the motivation, it's still ass-kissing.

[David Nieporent]

Eleven Republican state attorneys general, led by Ken Paxton of Texas, have submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of their respective states in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the matter of the search of Mar-a-Lago.

False. They have submitted a MAGA fundraising letter masquerading as a brief.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Paxton is my attorney general. He himself is under indictment for several financial crimes and has been for several years and probably should be in prison by now. He's a real piece of work.

But either way, how the hell is the Mar-a-Lago raid his concern and more importantly, what the fuck is he doing using my state's resources to stick his nose in it?

[Kazinski]

There's been several GOP Senators that have requested a Special Counsel to investigate Hunter Biden.

I'm not a big fan of special counsels but certainly it seems if special counsels are going to be a thing when political influence could rear its head then this case certainly qualifies.

If they do appoint a special counsel, or Hunter gets indicted to you think Joe will pardon Hunter? I don't think.anybody seriously thinks he's running for re-election.

[Martinned]

I always wonder why they stop at Hunter. Why not ask for a special counsel to investigate Jill Biden as well? After all, it must be some kind of crime to use the title dr. when you don't have a PhD? #sarc

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why not ask for a special counsel to investigate Jill Biden as well? "

NY AG sued Trump's kids too. Any outrage about that?

[Nelson]

Not really. They're born-on-third-base trust fund babies on the grift, just like their father.

[Nige]

Wasn't a Hunter Biden investigation started under Trump's DOJ, and hasn't it been ongoing for three years now?

[Kazinski]

Yeah so you wonder if its being impeded by political pressure.

[shawn_dude]

Or, just spitballing, it was started for political reasons and, as a result, hasn't been able to find anything really damning. Remember, Trump was busted trying to extort a foreign leader into making up a fake investigation into Biden. Perhaps this was plan B.

Having said that, Hunter does seem to be a pretty grimy fellow who's made very questionable choices in his life. If there is anything in his past that surfaces, it doesn't necessarily implicate his father in anything. You'd still have to build evidence for that rather than just guilt by shared DNA.

[Kazinski]

Well there have been 150 suspicious activity reports generated by financial institutions regarding the Biden’s business dealings:

“The Biden Administration changed the rules to severely restrict Congress’ access to suspicious activity reports in the dark of night and with no explanation. Hunter Biden and other Biden family members have racked up at least 150 suspicious activity reports for their shady foreign business deals.”https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/release/comer-blasts-the-treasury-department-for-refusing-to-provide-the-biden-familys-suspicious-activity-reports/

There will be a new Republican Congress in January, and the current Democratic Congress has set lots of new precedents about the availability of financial records to Congress.

[shawn_dude]

I'd comment that I'm perfectly fine with having financial oversight for rich people, which Biden supports in his attempts to beef up the IRS and aim them more towards people with actual money to hide. But, I seriously doubt the GOP's ability to provide legitimate oversight given the way they handled Hillary's email and the whole Benghazi thing. It'll just be a three-ring circus and I'll tune out if it's being run by the usual clowns.

[Moderation4ever]

If there is going to be a Special Counsel, why not address all relatives of political figures? Do you think that Hunter Biden is alone in trading on a father name? What about looking into Congress, Judges or political appointees and their relatives?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm quite sure he's not alone in it, he's just probably the grossest and most public example.

But alone in it? Hardly. The political class are our new aristocracy at this point, they can openly do stuff that gets us peons put in jail.

[jb]

In terms of actually trading on his name for profit (as opposed to his suspect ways of spending his free time), what has Hunter done that's grosser than Kushner?

[Nige]

Public example of what? Being targeted in a grossly incompetent frame-up job by Republican rat-fuckers? Just the latest, surely. Would you say this is as bad as, say, the Hilary face-carving video or Kerry's swift-boating?

[Krayt]

None of that was as bad as a black somber screen with "30 Million Unemployed" on it, the natural result of bipartisan COVID shutdowns, if you're going down the distorting story path.

[bernard11]

he’s just probably the grossest and most public example.

Jared Kushner? $2 billion?

[Michael P]

Hunter's problems are not only trading influence, but also drugs, felony weapons violations, promiscuity, and dragging his father and the Secret Service into his peccadilloes. After all, he's going to hold 10% of the indictments for the big guy.

[Kazinski]

Well I think the big hook is taxes.

[shawn_dude]

"Promiscuity" ?!!

You're going with that? Remember the guy who likes to "grab them by the pussy" and pay off porn stars he had sex with while his most recent wife was pregnant?

Making an argument that someone is a bad person based on their sexual morality, post-Trump, is a pretty funning thing for a conservative to do.

[Darth Buckeye]

The Dems just need to wait out the statute of limitations. Then Hunter's legal team can move to dismiss any criminal complaints.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

Sometimes I think about how bad it must suck to be named Karen, and how unfair it seems. You’re minding your own business and living a good life, and then WHAM!, somehow, someway, your name is turned into a pejorative meme. If any of you are named Karen, or know someone who is and you’ve discussed the issue with them, I’m curious whether it has really affected them, or whether it’s not really a big deal to them and they don’t feel discomfort when giving their name at Starbucks or to a customer service rep. Do they avoid asking for a manager even in situations where it’s otherwise warranted?

It also seems a bit racist against white women. There’s no way polite society and corporations would go around using Sheniqua or some other black name as a shorthand for a stereotypical loud/angry black woman. But Karen is widely used and referenced.

(A whole other post could be made on how customer service employees have brilliantly made asking for a manager to be an obnoxious act that may get one shamed in social media, even if the customer service was terrible and the company would want you to speak to a manager.)

(Sorry for any typos. Too tired to proofread, and VC lacks an Edit option.)

[Kazinski]

Too tired to read the blurb about the new edit function too?

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

Hadn’t seen that before. But I’m too lazy or disinterested to proofread, so a short window to edit won’t make much of a difference to me.

[Martinned]

Isn't the first time...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/unpopular-baby-names_n_5a77ded7e4b01ce33eb452c6

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes it’s pretty clearly a racial pejorative against white women.

It it’s the good kind of racism so it’s ok.

[Sarcastr0]

It's very popular among white women as well, though.

I agree that it indicates a race, and something of a stereotype regarding a subset of that race.

I avoid using it - though one of my best friends is named Karen, so that was necessary from the break.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

Would love to hear whether it’s been just a mild annoyance to your friend, or whether it’s actually affected her life more significantly.

[Sarcastr0]

Mild annoyance - more rueful than anything. At least so she's shared with me.

But she's also like 38 and pretty professionally set. I'd imagine it'd be worse for some.

[shawn_dude]

"There’s no way polite society and corporations would go around using Sheniqua or some other black name as a shorthand for a stereotypical loud/angry black woman. "

Yeah, they do, actually. I've heard it often enough that this exact name you've chosen was the first thing that popped into my head when you went for the white victim card.

The "Karen" meme will pass long before white racists stop using the names of Black American women as shorthand.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

Really? I said “polite society and corporations,” not nimrods or racists online or at a backyard BBQ. I’ve seen customer service training videos for major chains/companies, and advertisements, use the “Karen” stereotype. It’s ok to joke about Karens in the workplace. What’s a similar example with Shaniqua or whatever? Further, my post wasn’t meant to play a victim card, rather I was hoping that people named Karen or who have family or friends named Karen would give some insight re: how (if at all) the Karen meme has affected their lives. I’d find it very interesting to know whether most Karens simply shrug it off and don’t think about it, or whether it’s made them give different names at Starbucks, etc. or at least made them less likely to raise problems with customer service, or whether any have went so far as to consider changing their names? It’s just a Thursday open thread, so I thought it’d be the type of random topic that this thread was created for. YMMV, of course.

(And now I see that there’s a short window to edit. But I’m still too lazy to proofread.)

[Nige]

I suspect, and I think it's already happening, that it will be co-opted as a way of dismissing any woman who speaks up about anything.

[shawn_dude]

The whole thing is bad, regardless. The sorts of people that might use "karen" to dismiss women in general are likely already doing it via other means. In some ways, if it gets watered down to just "woman with opinion," it likely means it's already on the way out. It's easy to think misogynists are tolerated if one hangs out on Reason, but in polite society, that stuff is still frowned upon. Well, in pro-choice states, at least.

[Kazinski]

Looks like the Fed is putting the hammer down the economy on interest rates. Now the average mortgage interest rate is above 6%.

I think this recession could go even longer than the Great Recession, because Congress and the Whitehouse don't seem to be getting the message. Interest rates hit 19% during the late 70's early 80's, I remember my boss at the time getting an 18% mortgage on a townhome with a 40 mile commute because it was all he could afford. I don't think we will get there but it's going to get worse before it gets better, at least 7-8% on mortgage rates.

[Commenter_XY]

Kazinski, I am old enough to remember the early 70's. It remains to be seen if history will rhyme. I will say that inflation hits the poorest and those on fixed incomes (like retirees) the worst. Inflation is pernicious and very, very dangerous to retirement. If you're a FIRE type, pay attention.

I don't think we have had an inflationary period that took less than 5 years to resolve since 1900. Specifically, in a year where inflation rose by more than 5%, it took no less than 5 years to fall back to the rate before the inflationary period began. Using April 2021 as the start point, we have another ~4 years to go (mid 2026). The inflationary period in the 1970's (actually started late 60's and extended into the late 70's, early 80's) took ~11 years to resolve.

Hope inflation falls back to the 2% target really soon. The country is suffering. Inflation is not political - it affects us all. But it hits the poorest the worst. That is the part that bothers me the most.

[Dan Schiavetta]

70s inflation was finally crushed by Paul Volker at the Fed, which cranked the prime rate to over 20%. Carter tried to get him to ease up but the President can’t control what the Fed does. The benefits were reaped by Reagan.

[Krayt]

Who was in full accord and said "Stay the course."

[Dan Schiavetta]

Reagan only said things that were easy to say, and he only did things that were easy to do.

[gormadoc]

like ur mom

[Hank Ferrous]

Rimshot!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Reagan was several orders of magnitude better than what we've had for the last six years.......

[shawn_dude]

Reagan had full on dementia during his second term.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Even if true, he’s still several laps better than our last two, one of which appears to have dementia in his first time.

[shawn_dude]

Biden doesn't appear to have dementia, not that I'm a doctor, but I remember Reagan. Neither does Trump. Both are old, and old people tend to lose words but that isn't dementia.

I prefer Biden to Trump. Mostly because Biden has calmed things down, treats our allies as allies, treats diplomacy with respect, and doesn't try to treat his office chair as a throne. Also, glad to no longer have the 3am tweets driving the news narratives every day and the nepotism. Biden isn't perfect, but at least he's treating the office of the President with some respect.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes

[Kazinski]

Easy things like ending the cold war and freeing eastern Europe from a 45 years of communist domination.

[Martinned]

I think that inflation expectations are still firmly anchored in the levels we've seen near constantly in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. That's a lot of history for people to just forget. So you'd expect inflation to return to where people expect it to return to, unless there are business cycle issues or exogeneous cost shocks that prevent that from happening. So put me down for the first round of monetary loosening in the summer of 2024.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know, looks to me more like the Fed is putting down the feather, gently. They won't put down the hammer until the midterms are safely past.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The average mortgage interest rate should approximate six percent. That is roughly what I arranged 35 years ago for my first mortgage, and similar to what I arranged 25 years ago when I purchased my second home.

Rates have been inappropriately low for many years, in my judgment. Lenders and savers should be rewarded.

I also remember interest rates north of 15 percent. I hope and expect we will avoid that circumstance.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, it never ceases to surprise me on how similar our outlook is on the most mundane topics = Rates have been inappropriately low for many years, in my judgment. Lenders and savers should be rewarded.

My first mortgage was 12%, and I thought it was a incredible deal.

[bernard11]

Rates have been inappropriately low for many years, in my judgment. Lenders and savers should be rewarded.

And on what do you base this judgment? Medium and long term rates are largely set by market forces. What makes them "inappropriately low?"

[John F. Carr]

An economist blames low interest rates on the rise of the information economy where the profit of a business is not so strongly connected to the capital invested in it.

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/205-john-quiggin-on-interest-rates-and-the-information-economy/

[Krayt]

I’m guessing it’s because banks' business model is fee-based now, more than letting you share in profits as a depositor as done historically.

You don’t even earn inflation rate on your interest income, much less inflation rate + paying taxes on your interest income.

[bernard11]

That's plausible. It's pretty much market forces, though.

Low demand for capital pushes down interest rates.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Those market forces are influenced by factors and entities beyond the lender-borrower relationship. Interest rates have been pushed to remarkable lows by a number of factors, including government policy, for many years. I believe those policies have been to large degree severe and unwise (although not catastrophic).

[bevis the lumberjack]

The fed kept its target rate at zero for the entirety of the Obama presidency, and then again in late Trump early Biden. That’s unprecedented.

If banks can borrow at virtually 0% and loan to us at 2%, they’ll do that all day long.

I agree that rates were way to low for too long.

[bernard11]

Sure, but there is no difference between that and borrowing at 6% and lending at 8%.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes there is. Much, much lower demand for loans. So the economy overall piles up a shit ton less debt. And the banks ROC is lower, as well as their cashflow.

[bernard11]

True, if you ignore inflation expectations. But they are at least part of the reason for the difference.

What you want to consider is the "real" rate - the rate net of inflation. If that's low you get the loan demand.

[Kazinski]

No Bernard.

Mortgage rates now are below the inflation rate, but the housing market isn't taking off, its cratering. If you have guaranteed inflation adjusted income stream sure, but most people don't have that.

That's why raising rates dampens economic activity even when real rates are negative. That's why we are either in a recession or on the cusp of one.

[Kazinski]

Borrowing at 6% even with a 2% spread ups the risk dramatically. Your borrower can be late making payments, you can't.

[Commenter_XY]

Re: NYS charges against POTUS Trump

My question. In bringing the case, NY AG James alleges deliberate and intentional ‘mis-valuation’ of properties to obtain loans. Whether that happened or not remains to be seen. However….How will this affect NY commercial real estate market, more generally? I see a looming drop-off of development activity, unrelated to inflation.

Meaning, real estate developers will be less likely to attempt to develop NYC properties since their loans will be based on the valuation of their holdings and therefore subject to prosecution if NYS decides to prosecute.

I don't see how this case goes forward without very serious consequences to NYC and NYS commercial real estate development.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You just need to be "friends" with AG. Maybe get them some Yankees tickets.

[Sarcastr0]

Though this appears to be the foundation for you post, I have thus far seen nothing that indicates this is going to make previously normal activity criminal fraud.

We'll see as this develops. But the jump that this would be in any way determinative of decisions to develop in NY is...a stretch at this point in time.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think this AG deliberately avoided criminal fraud, because of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and opted for civil fraud for the lower standard, just to have even a shot at getting a conviction.

But even so it's a long shot, Trump wasn't doing anything that wasn't totally routine.

[Nige]

So you're admitting he's been committing fraud?

[Bwaaah]

Years ago, an accountant told me that a business should have three sets of "books": one for management, one for the shareholders, and one for the government.

His point was good, but still off. A business should have one set of books, and any number of statements based on those books, each appropriately compiled for its intended purpose and in accordance with the applicable laws and accepted practices.

So, when I tell somebody "how much money I made last year," that number may be my $100,000 gross income when I'm talking to my biographer, and it may be a loss of $20,000 when I'm talking to the IRS (and including all legally applicable deductions).

That there would be two "different answers" to the "same question" is not an inherent contradiction at all. (They aren't, strictly speaking, the same questions.)

[not guilty]

The New York Attorney General is not authorized to bring criminal charges, and the District Attorney in Manhattan weenied out. It remains to be seen whether the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York will pick up the ball and run with it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Some years ago the Republican candidate for AG ran on the death penalty issue.

[Sarcastr0]

1. No, Brett, not charging something as criminal doesn't mean you're somehow admitting you've got nothing.

2. Trump wasn’t doing anything that wasn’t totally routine. Do you have any evidence of this? You're saying it a lot, but I don't think you've provided an iota of evidence of this.

[Moderation4ever]

Agree and especially to your number two point. Readers of these comments are continually told that the real estate market is corrupt and that everybody does this. It is worth noting that AG James did not just point out differences of opinion. Cases where one person says the value is $1000/sq foot while another says it is $2000/sq foot. She showed cases where the square footage, a physical measurement, was falsified. Cases where property was evaluated based on uses that were specifically prohibited in the property's deed. The real estate market may play a little loose, but I doubt they are as corrupt as Trump.

[David Nieporent]

I think this AG deliberately avoided criminal fraud,

As always, you invent conspiracy theories to cover your own ignorance. The AG deliberately avoided criminal fraud because the AG doesn't have jurisdiction over criminal cases in New York.

But even so it’s a long shot, Trump wasn’t doing anything that wasn’t totally routine.

And… now you're just making shit up.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Trump wasn’t doing anything that wasn’t totally routine. "

How many New York City real estate development deals have you conducted?

Have you ever paid for a Manhattan hotel room?

[OtisAH]

Like fraud, robbery, burglary, murder, drug-peddling, embezzlement are also crimes and civil violations that are quite routine.

[SimonP]

Brett, it really undermines any impression you're trying to give people of being a thoughtful person when you so reliably parrot the talking points being distributed throughout the rightwing feversphere. I'm hearing exactly the same point all over the rightwing internet - which is funny, because it's so trivially incorrect, as others have pointed out.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have practiced law as a partner in a large law firm, representing entities such as Merrill Lynch Business Finance and Lehman Brothers with respect to development and businesses across the country, including in New York, and I would be hesitant to opine about what is "routine" or "standard" in the New York City real estate development context.

Volokh Conspiracy fans such as Brett Bellmore, though, are confidently offering insights on New York real estate transactional norms . . . from their two-screen command centers in gape-jawed, double wide backwaters such as South Carolina, Utah, Idaho. Montana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

How many of these Q-level experts would have been able to open an account at Merrill Lynch, arrange a $100,000 financing from anyone in New York, or purchase a house worth as much as a decent BMW?

[bernard11]

Trump wasn’t doing anything that wasn’t totally routine.

Said with the confidence of someone who is a NYC real estate insider. Oh. Wait, you're an engineer in SC who has no idea what's routine and what isn't.

[bernard11]

Brett,

One of the claims is that Trump owned some rent-stabilized apartments that an appraiser valued at $750K.

He claimed to the bank that they were worth $50 million.

How on Earth can anyone claim this is "routine," or just a normal difference of opinion, or even a mildly inflated valuation?

You can't, and anyone trying to do so is either a complete fool or a liar.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, as you say….we will see. It will not take long. NYC commercial real estate developers are not known for their patience. To me, this case illustrates the difference between ‘can’ and ‘should’. The question of whether you ‘can’ bring a case to court is very different whether you ‘should’ bring a case to court. Time will tell. I envision commercial real estate developers (the heavy hitters) passing on NYC (and NY more generally) commercial real estate development projects just to mitigate litigation risk. Tell you what...ask Amazon what they think of developing commercial real estate in NYC.

What I would say to you is that expectations, business climate and regulatory compliance play a significant role in deciding upon the utility and profitability of commercial real estate development. It is not just the commercial real estate development itself, it is the array of economic activities that spin off from commercial real estate development that are going to be negatively affected as well. There will be unintended (and quite painful) consequences for lower and middle class NYC residents in particular.

You are very badly mistaken to think this case will have a limited impact on decisions to develop commercial real estate in NYC (and NY).

[Martinned]

O no! What would New York city do with only one Trump Tower???

[Sarcastr0]

The thing is, Commenter - time won't tell. The real estate market in NYC is already screwed up for a bunch of reasons. Real life is complicated; I don't expect to be able to untangle this from a number of other contributing causes in any kind of phenomenological way.

[David Nieporent]

I envision commercial real estate developers (the heavy hitters) passing on NYC (and NY more generally) commercial real estate development projects just to mitigate litigation risk.

The financial risk is much greater, given what covid has done to commercial vacancy rates in NYC. NY is already litigation and regulation heavy; I doubt this suit is even a microdrop in the bucket.

[Commenter_XY]

Good point, David = The financial risk is much greater, given what covid has done to commercial vacancy rates in NYC

[OtisAH]

Oh, yes, of course. If/when Big Baby loses this suit real estate development in one of the most highly desirable cities to live and work in the world will collapse. Everybody will be way too frightened.

[jb]

NYC office occupancy is at 40%. I think commercial real estate developers are going to be avoiding the city because there is currently no market for their product.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, I think everybody understands that this is TrumpLaw, and nobody unconnected to Trump has anything to worry about. So the consequences for the NY real estate market will be minimal.

Indeed, I expect the consequences for Trump himself will be minimal. A suit predicated on subjective valuations being fraudulent, brought by somebody who didn't suffer any damages? This is more political PR than an actual legal proceeding, she made a campaign promise to sue him, before she had any basis for a suit, and now she's acting on it.

[Nige]

Brett's all like, yeah, we knew he was a fraudster when we voted for him, so why bother?

[Brett Bellmore]

If it's standard practice, is it fraud? Again, these are subjective valuations placed on property, until the property is sold you have no basis for claiming they're wrong, and even then the case for claiming them fraudulent rather than wrong, in a market where values change radically with market conditions, is pretty sketchy.

Given what's happening in NYC real estate at the moment, she could level similar suits against most of the owners of commercial property in the city. But is she?

Nope, just Trump.

[Nige]

He kept two sets of books, Brett, one with fraudulent evaluations, one with actual evaluations.

Why not start with a big, public, high-profile case? You just don’t want him to be picked on cause he’s Trump.

*all hail the new edit function*

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I don't want him to be picked on "because he's Trump", which is exactly what is going on here: He's being sued for being Trump. They could literally sue thousands on the same basis, but won't, because they're not Trump.

[Nige]

Don't think of it as him being picked on because he's Trump, think of it as him being picked on because he's been engaged in massive quantities of fraud.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, I don't see any reason to share your partisan delusions.

[OtisAH]

Fucking hilarious.

[Sarcastr0]

Nige is indeed indicting Trump before seeing the case and specifics of the evidence here. Though given Trump's patterns, it's understandable.

You are doing the same thing, though - absolving Trump based on no evidence or understanding either of what he did or of what's standard practice in NY.

If he's a delusional partisan, I'd hate to think what you are.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm noticing that the AG ran on charging Trump before she had any facts to justify a charge, which makes the suit presumptively political. Maybe she'll be able to make a case, but if she can I'll be surprised; People have been going after Trump for years now, and they generally come up empty in the end. Nailing him has proven harder than *I* ever would have guessed.

She's trying to prove that subjective valuations amount to deliberate fraud, in the absence of damages. Does that strike YOU as a solid case?

[David Nieporent]

I’m noticing that the AG ran on charging Trump before she had any facts to justify a charge,

1) Not a charge. A lawsuit.
2) And yet, she did not bring this suit once she was elected. In fact, this is 3½ years later. Which tells you that there was an actual investigation, rather than just fulfilling a campaign promise after taking office.

[Nige]

Oh how soon we forget Trump U.

[Martinned]

Also standard practice...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

or Donald J. Trump Foundation (RIP) . . .

[grb]

Trump U & the Foundation raise a point : Both hummed along for years until someone actually dug into them, discovering gross fraud as the inevitable result. I suspect that’s the case with any long-term endeavor by Trump. Like many other criminals/losers, he consistently goes well out of his way to take the illegal & self-destructive path. That by itself solves the classified documents mystery, which is pretty inexplicable otherwise.

Here’s a telling little detail : A few years back, some of DJT’s financial information leaked out. Reviewing it, someone discovered Trump had used his Foundation to pay little Don Jr’s seven dollar Boy Scout fee. Can you imagine that? Anybody else would have just reached for their wallet, but this supposed billionaire just HAD to cheat. He really can’t help himself. Criminality seems to be an integral part of his self-image.

[bernard11]

Nah, I don’t see any reason to share your partisan delusions.

None so blind...

[bernard11]

They could literally sue thousands on the same basis, but won’t, because they’re not Trump.

Please name five of these "thousands," and give us the fact on each.

Or are you just talking out your ass about crap you know nothing about?

[Sarcastr0]

standard practice

That's making quite an assumption about a number of things you have not done any work to establish.

[bernard11]

Brett, the "subjective" business doesn't work with valuations that are ten times or more what independent appraisers say.

You're in such a fucking hurry to defend Trump you won't even look at the facts, and instead just parrot what you read on some cult site.

[bernard11]

Brett,

again, these are subjective valuations placed on property, until the property is sold you have no basis for claiming they’re wrong, and even then the case for claiming them fraudulent rather than wrong, in a market where values change radically with market conditions, is pretty sketchy.

The difference between $750,000 and $50 million is not a subjective matter, no matter how often you repeat that.

And yes, there is plenty of basis fro claiming that valuations are wrong. Have you ever heard of market prices, etc.?

Stop being a Trump cultist. What you are saying is incredibly stupid.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It is not a 'subjective evaluation' to claim your 10,000 sqft penthouse is actually 33,000 sqft and to inflate its value accordingly.

Maybe Brett, you should actually fucking educate yourself on the topics you like to comment on before doing so. I cannot remember the last time (if ever) you came into a comment thread and actually cited facts instead of partisan fluff.

[David Nieporent]

It's also not an issue of "subjective valuation" if you report its value entirely differently to taxing authorities and banks. One can say that a property is worth $2M. One can say that it's worth $200k. Either one might be justifiable. But both can't be at the same time.

[John F. Carr]

I agree if I'm trying to develop or run a business in NYC I can maintain customary levels of honesty. This case is not part of a crackdown on fraud. It is a reminder not to draw attention to yourself. Trump is the guy who flips off a cop while going over the speed limit then complains he was singled out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except substituting “had the nerve to run for office” taking the place of “flipping off a cop”.

This is an example of why big cities "flip", and go all Democratic: Once the Democrats are in charge, they make not being a Democrat legally perilous. Only now, they're trying to take that model national, and make being a Republican and running for federal office similarly perilous.

They WILL go after whoever gets the Republican nomination in 2024. Count on it, they'll find some pretext.

[Martinned]

Sure... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-etUhjXgMbA

[Ed Grinberg]

Just like Putin's Russia.

[Nige]

Good thing Republicans don't 'go after' Democrats running for office.

Have you considered NOT voting for people who commit fraud?

[bernard11]

Take your meds.

[bernard11]

Did "they" go after McCain? Romney? Pence?

is it just impossible, in your mind, that Trump did anything wrong?

[David Nieporent]

This is not a suit predicated on "subjective valuations," Brett. You should stick to topics you know something about. If there are any.

[Moderation4ever]

"consequences for Trump himself will be minimal"

Don't forget that he brought his children into this mess. What kind of a father would lead his children into this kind of legal danger?

[Nige]

If they’re all committing fraud, and this stops them committing fraud, then surely that’s a good thing. If New York’s real estate market is based on fraud to THAT extent, then it needs to stop.

[Krayt]

People go into government to be corrupt and get in the way, to get paid to get back out of the way.

This is the purpose of government, from those who seek the power, since the first loincloth picked up a thick branch and walked down to a dirt crossing and demanded two trading farmers pay their fair share.

Any patter about government benefits is misleading and the cost of doing business to secure power so you can skim.

In short, corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is government operating as designed, by those who infect us.

I first realized this around 1990, when India had massive college student protests. The government had set aside half of new government jobs for the lower castes.

But why would students protest against that? In the US they'd protest for it. So I asked some Indian guys I worked with.

"You go into a government job so you can be corrupt and make a nice life for your family. If you can be the guy who approves new buildings, you've got it made. The standard fee is 10% of the cost of the building."

It wasn't for years, though, before I realized this wasn't just a sickening side effect of government power, but the purpose of it all along.

[Krayt]

"Are you saying government has no use?"

Nope. I'm saying all those good-sounding ideas are the lingo used to get you to grant this or that individual power, then their fortunes mysteriously climb.

[Nige]

That level of blanket cynicism is very helpful when it comes to defending a particular politician who turns out to be corrupt.

[Ben_]

Elections and government by the people are supposed to mitigate this somewhat. If people see they are being poorly served, then can vote a new government.

To counteract it, you do what Democrats do: divide the population into warring factions so you can lead one faction against the other.

Then you can be sure that government can carry on with no intention to serve the public in any way. Voters vote their tribal leaders. Serving the public disappears as even a campaign pledge, replaced with fearmongering about the other.

[Sarcastr0]

People go into government to be corrupt and get in the way, to get paid to get back out of the way.

As usual, fuck you. I nor any of my colleagues are like that.

[bevis the lumberjack]

People get into government because they want to tell people what to do. The elected offices anyway. And a lot of the staff officers as well.

[Sarcastr0]

The elected offices anyway

That's quite a different cohort than government generally.

But it's also wrong. I worked on and off in the House for about 18 months. And while I agree that I never saw a statesman, I saw plenty of motives beyond power tripping. Which makes sense, since Congress would need to act to have power.

The glory seemed more common. To go down in this elite cohort that appears in the history books. Also popular was...being popular. Being in the House was a material example of such. Quite a few seemed miserable, but compelled to keep running and winning lest they feel like quitters/losers.
I'm sure some were into the power, but I never met them.

Always remember - these days we elect showhorses, not workhorses. Popularity, not power tripping.

Not sure that's better, but I wanted to set you straight. Also, I can't speak to the Senate.

[bernard11]

their loans will be based on the valuation of their holdings and therefore subject to prosecution if NYS decides to prosecute.

And this is bad because?

Are you saying banks making unsound loans to developers is a good thing?

Are you saying bank fraud shouldn't be prosecuted?

[Bored Lawyer]

Valuations are notoriously subjective things. Banks, in my experience review them pretty thoroughly, and certainly should. So unless there is some lying about some material facts (e.g., the rent roll is doctored, the appraiser is bribed), I think fraud is not going to be easy to prove.

(When I refinanced my house, the bank appraiser refused to value my house more than 2/3 of what I was told by a real estate agent it could fetch on the open market.)

[bernard11]

Valuations are notoriously subjective things.

Sure, but when you are talking about valuations which are multiple of an appraiser's number you are well beyond reasonable differences of opinion. (In your case, I'd say the difference lay in the differing incentives faced by the bank and the agent.)

I agree bank fraud will be hard to prove, though in Trump's case he apparently included in his valuations houses he proposed to build on properties where such building was prohibited, among other things, like claiming he had a 30,000 sq. ft. apartment in Trump Tower, when it was only 10,000 sq. ft.

Still, it's hard to be sympathetic to Deutsche Bank, since they surely have the ability to conduct their own valuations and chose not to. Had Trump defaulted on some of the debt the case would be stronger, I guess, though I suppose it's still bank fraud. You could argue that the bank would have charged a higher rate on the loans had they known the facts. Still, WTF were they doing?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd assume that what they were doing was doing business with a major and reliable customer.

[bernard11]

a major and reliable customer.

Reliable? Just because he paid them doesn't mean he hadn't left a trail of unpaid creditors, which they should have known about.

If a guy with his record comes in for a big loan you need to check what he says pretty carefully.

[Bored Lawyer]

“Still, WTF were they doing?”

Banks can be stupider than lawyers.

Way back when I first started practicing, our firm represented some casinos (owned by none other than Trump). One case involved a bank clerk at Citibank who over a period of five years embezzled some $ 10 million (in relatively small amounts, $ 50k here, $ 25k there), took the bus down to Atlantic City and gambled it all away. Of course, as she was a big spender, she got plenty of freebies, champagne, hotel rooms, etc.

Most of it was cash, and the bank did not notice for years. Then she decided to issue herself bank checks. Ten of them. Citibank was still clueless.

The eleventh check was caught by a NJ State police reviewing them, it looked funny to him, and she was caught and prosecuted. The bank then sued the casino for return of the funds. After some litigation (naturally), the judge threw out the claims as to the cash, but there was some theory under the UCC whereby the checks might be recoverable, so he denied summary judgment on that. We then settled. I recall editing one of the briefs, the senior associated entilted the Facts section “The Citi Sleeps.”

So, yeah, banks can be monumentally stupid, too.

[Commenter_XY]

That was pretty funny = “The Citi Sleeps.”

[David Nieporent]

Re: NYS charges against POTUS Trump

Nit. This is a civil suit, so the term "charges" is inappropriate. "Charges" is a term typically used for criminal cases. (I won't deny that people sometimes talk loosely — as you yourself did! — so I'm sure you can find examples of people using it your way, but it is misleading.)

[Martinned]

You corrected that but not the "POTUS"???

[Commenter_XY]

What is a better way to say it, David? If it is not charges, is it 'violations of civil law'?

I'm fine with the nit. I learn! 🙂

[Bored Lawyer]

"Allegations" are generally what things in civil complaints are called.

[Commenter_XY]

Allegations it is! 🙂

[Darth Buckeye]

I wonder if there is a defense for selective prosecution.

[shawn_dude]

Love to see that here. Trump would have to prove that his exaggerations in square footage and 50x over-valuations are the norm by ratting out other fraudulent real estate peers. It might be the single biggest thing he ever did to assist law enforcement.

[Voize]

The law the AG invokes (§63.12) provides

Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages […]

which would apply to anyone engaging in a pattern of fraud or other illegal business practices.

[John F. Carr]

If we want to make people other than Trump more honest, how about a law requiring that the local taxing authorities be provided with a copy of the appraisal whenever there is a recorded mortgage? If the assessor in Manhattan learns that Trump's run-down tenements are actually luxury apartments when a bank is involved, the tax bill might go up.

[Martinned]

Just do what they do in Scandinavia and put everybody's tax return on the internet.

[M L]

Of all the transparently political persecutions, this one seems pretty funny:

"The banks! Won't somebody think of the poor Wall Street banks! Trump defrauded those poor, sophisticated banks. Sure, they assented to the valuations and sure, they conducted their own due diligence as always. But that dastardly Trump outsmarted them because orange man bad!"

What's the damages anyway?

[Ben_]

There are no damages for most of it. The lawsuit was timed to survive until after the election.

After a 3 year investigation, no indictment. Just a lawsuit full of contentious allegations that will probably be mostly dismissed in December or early next year.

[John F. Carr]

In most states a criminal prosecution would be brought by a county prosecutor, not the state Attorney General. An indictment could be coming.

[Ben_]

Anything could happen. But this was the best they could do before the election.

[shawn_dude]

Since he allegedly undervalued property in order to minimize taxes, the damages would at least be the difference in taxes between what he paid and what he should have paid had he used accurate valuations.

[Bob from Ohio]

"sure, they conducted their own due diligence as always"

No bank pays a single bit of attention to a developer's claimed value.

Its why banks get appraisals.

[M L]

Exactly.

[Sarcastr0]

Lack of reliance seems a great defense, if it's true!

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a political suit. James campaigned on getting Trump:

“I will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate president,” James said in a video during the campaign. “I believe that this president is incompetent. I believe that this president is ill-equipped to serve in the highest office of this land. And I believe that he is an embarrassment to all that we stand for.” She went on to say Trump should be indicted on criminal charges and charged with obstruction of justice.
She even pulled Trump into her victory speech, saying her win “was about that man in the White House who can’t go a day without threatening our fundamental rights.”
“As the next attorney general of his home state,” James said, “I will be shining a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings, and every dealing, demanding truthfulness at every turn.” Politico article today

Back when Trump was president, you used to say you cared about "norms" a lot. Bad that Trump said "lock her up" about Clinton and many other norms being broken by the GOP. This is no different.

[Sarcastr0]

So this is a real life trial, and it'll have real life due process. Of course you assume running against Trump means automatic bad faith, but there is a system here that must be dealt with.

Trump shooting his mouth off criminalizing his political opponent for populist purposes has no such system.

I've not convicted Trump yet. On the other hand, you've convicted the prosecutor. Seems like you're the one with the pre-judging problem here.

[Bob from Ohio]

As expected, deflection and whataboutism.

Your norm act was a sham, as I said at the time.

[Sarcastr0]

I distinguished the two things just now. Because your comparison was nonsense.

You responding by pretending I didn't do so is typical, but not very effective.

[Nige]

Trying to lock Clinton up WAS a GOP norm.

[Sarcastr0]

ML comes out for you can't defraud banks, and if you do it's actually cool and good.

Fucking MAGA Communists, man.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why is that Democrat who followed Bidens orders and murdered that Republican child for being a Republican walking free?

[not guilty]

What in the world are you talking about? Who murdered whom, and what did any orders from Biden have to do with it?

[apedad]

He’s talking about this: https://www.foxnews.com/us/north-dakota-man-freed-50k-bond-fatally-striking-republican-extremist-car-records-show

Any violence should investigated and appropriate prison terms issued for guilty people.

Not sure about "murder" but definitely a homicide.

As far as following Biden's (sic) orders..... ***chuckle***

[not guilty]

Thank you. The answer to why the accused is out is that he has made a $50,000 bail bond. He is not charged with murder, but with criminal vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an accident involving death. (But the initial charges do not preclude a more serious offense being charged in the future.)

I suspect that BCM is getting his information about orders from Biden from that noted source, Otto Hizass.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Let's engage in a thought experiment. Imagine Trump makes the following speech.

"Muslims represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. The Muslims don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security. They’re a threat to our very democracy. They refuse to accept the will of the people. They embrace, embrace political violence. They don’t believe in democracy. This is why in this moment, those of you who love this country, Democrats, Independents, Mainstream Republicans, we must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving America than the Muslims are destroying America. Muslims look at America and see carnage and darkness and despair. They spread fear and lies –- lies told for profit and power. Look, as your President, I will defend our democracy with every fiber of my being, and I’m asking every American to join me."

Then imagine following this speech, a devoted Trump supporter decides to run over a young Muslim teenager, because he's Muslim.

What would you say?

[Martinned]

That discriminating against Muslims is not the same thing as discriminating against extreme-right wingnuts.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Discriminating" = "inciting to vehicular homicide".

[Sarcastr0]

1. It was an irresponsible speech.
2. Trump is not ordering people to kill anyone.
3. Killing Muslims for their religion is really bad, and the Trump supporter chose to do that.

But Martinned has the proper reason why your analogy does not apply to Biden's speech - Biden is not describing a faith, and explicitly said he wasn't talking about a party. He's not talking about any large demographic group.
He is talking about a small group with a particular viewpoint. A viewpoint he is describing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, "MAGA Republicans", like Hillary's basket of deplorables, is most Republicans or just a handful, depending on what they need at the moment.

You complain that they're demonizing a whole party? It's just a handful. Then they define being a "MAGA Republican" so that it sucks in most of the party.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, “MAGA Republicans”, like Hillary’s basket of deplorables, is most Republicans or just a handful, depending on what they need at the moment.

Or, maybe, your telepathy is wrong again and it's you who have the elastic definition of what MAGA Republicans means.

Biden explicitly said he wasn't talking about all Republicans. You're ignoring that because you want him to be as openly partisan as you believe him to be in his head.

As to my definition? That's what Biden was doing! The ones that see America as a place of darkness and despair, who don’t believe in democracy, who are fine with lying because nihilism.

You're dumb as heck a lot and certain but wrong on a lot of things, but that's not you. There are plenty on this very Conspiracy who are that nihilistic and America-hating, though.

[defaultdotxbe]

And Trump explicitly said he wasn’t taking about white supremacists when he said “very fine people” and yet folks have no problem ignoring that to hear what they want to hear. Do you think there is no one out there wanting to hear that Republicans must be stopped at any and all costs?

[bernard11]

Who was he talking about?

Who are these "very fine people" who show up for and participate in a neo-Nazi rally?

[VinniUSMC]

Who are these “very fine people” who show up for and participate in a neo-Nazi rally?

You could try reading more of the quote than just the "very fine people" snippet that morons like you prefer to trot out. But, I don't expect you to have the capacity to engage in such honesty.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro, weren't you just complaining that a certain twitter account was "funneling violence" against Boston Children's Hospital by criticizing it?

Can't say I'm shocked to hear more "Our violence is speech, their speech is violence" coming from you.

[Nige]

Probably because of the way the twitter account was funneling violent threats against Boston Children's Hospital.

[wreckinball]

Ha. Well that's different!

[Sarcastr0]

If Biden mentioned particular people, and their address, your analogy might hold a drop of water.

[Ben_]

The feelings of the people at that hospital matter to Sarcastr0. The ND thing is just a murdered American, not something as important as feelings.

[Nige]

Clinton and Biden were at pains to only criticise a subset if Republican voters as deplorables and extremists. You wailed it was hate speech against all Republican voters. Trump calls Democrats and liberals sick and vile all the time. Meanwhile, good luck of you're a Republican running for office who doesn't think the election was stolen, but each one is only a fringe figure not representative of the whole. Also Lindsey Graham doesn't represent Republican voters because his abortion ban isn't harsh enough. Also Mitch McConnell has the party voting in lockstep against every Democrat Bill, but he doesn't represent Republican voters because he's too bipartisan.

[Armchair Lawyer]

How big is that "subset"? How many Trump voters are "MAGA Republicans"? 5%? 10%? 95%?

[Nige]

He didn't specify.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I see. So as long as it's 99% of Trump voters, it's still a "subset."

[Nige]

When you really, really need to bend over backwards to draw an equivalence, sure.

[David Nieporent]

What would you say?

I would say, "Why are you pretending this is a hypothetical, when Trump repeatedly demonized groups and then his supporters acted on that?"

[Armchair Lawyer]

Because they exact words are hypotheticals.

[bernard11]

I missed the part of Biden's speech where he urged the armed audience to go and march on Republican headquarters and "fight like hell."

Also the part where he said this nutball in ND was "very special," and he "loved him very much."

[Brett Bellmore]

"As far as following Biden’s (sic) orders….. ***chuckle***"

Eh, it's at least as much following Biden's orders, as the January 6th riot was following Trump's orders.

[Nige]

Yeah I remember Biden urging people to get into their cars and run people down, who could have foretold such consequences?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if Biden had urged people to do that, rather than urging them to do criminal stuff like shooting guns into the air or shooting people through doors, you'd have a point. But, of course, Trump didn't tell anybody to break into the Capitol, as you well know.

[Nige]

He didn't tell them to shoot guns in the air or beat up cops and security guards, he told them the election had been stolen and this was their chance to take it back. All that other stuff happened because that's the sort of thing that happens when you storm a Capitol to overturn an election.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Brett - absent a few hotheads no one thought Trump passed the Brandenberg test on Jan 06.

But that doesn't mean he doesn't really suck for riling folks up like that, especially after being told they were armed and responding that it was okay because 'they're not here for me.'

Sociopath stuff.

[David Nieporent]

But, of course, Trump didn’t tell anybody to break into the Capitol, as you well know.

Yeah, he did.

And when he found out they had listened, he was ecstatic, as you well know.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Yeah, he did."

What words did he use? Exact words if you please.

[bernard11]

of course, Trump didn’t tell anybody to break into the Capitol, as you well know.

Whether he did or not, he certainly cheered them on, and told them how special they were , and that he loved them.

Doesn't sound like he disapproved, exactly.

[Michael P]

All the people who cried about "stochastic terrorism" are oddly quiet about this instance of it.

[Nige]

Probably because nobody is actually defending it as an act of anything, unlike, say, Jan 6th. Defending the indefensible generates a lot of noise.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm worried about stochastic terrorism. But I don't know anyone who lays that at Trump's feet as the but-for cause.

[bernard11]

Oddly quiet?

I never heard about this until now. I don't keep up with ND crime reports.

I'd say put the guy on trial and if he's guilty - it sure sounds like he is - put him away.

Unlike some here, I don't approve of deliberately hitting people with your car.

[Sarcastr0]

Unlike some here, I don’t approve of deliberately hitting people with your car.

This is important to note. Posters here were really into making it legal to *run over* protesters blocking a road, on the off chance an ambulance may need access.

Nice to see most of the other side around here not quite so eager to continence murder in their political zealotry.

[bernard11]

Indeed, Brett himself has defended Fields, the Charlottesville murderer, IIRC.

[Harvey Mosley]

I still think you should be able to run over someone who is illegally preventing you from getting out of the area. You shouldn't have to worry about being the next Reginald Denny because some idiots think blocking a road is a good idea.

And if an ambulance is blocked hopefully it was responding to a loved one of one of the protesters.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A bunch of sick evil monsters in here defending Biden and his murderer minion.

These people want us dead.

[Ben_]

What do you think about the fact that your news media deliberately hid this from you, so you never heard about it?

[Sarcastr0]

You think a hit and run being a local story is a coverup?

Pretty bad job if it was, because you heard about it. As is always the case for these stories the right claims are a media coverup and then shouts to the rooftops.

[Ben_]

I heard about it because my media don’t try to hide news from me.

I was asking him about his thoughts on his media hiding news from him.

[bernard11]

Nothing.

The Boston Globe does not routinely cover ND crime.

[Ben_]

Only when it serves a leftist propaganda goal. Then they cover it.

[bernard11]

Where do you live, Be?

Do you read the Globe on a daily basis?

Or is that just grievance-based bullshit?

[apedad]

Hey BCD, you know the federal Hate Crime Acts law does not apply to political views, right?

Only actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability are protected under the law.

So should political views also be protected and attacks based on a person’s political view be prosecuted?

Before you answer though, you should check with your buddies in eastern Oregon (and elsewhere), since THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY’RE PLANNING ON, i.e. attacking certain people because of their political view.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The kid was murdered and you're arguing it should be okay because it was over his political views.

You evil Leftwing monsters have trapsed throughout history murdering people left and right and this is why. You're totes cool with it.

[Darth Buckeye]

Why is this case different than the Charlottesville case where a right-wing driver ran over a left-wing protestor? What are the facts?

[Ben_]

1. this case shows premeditation.
2. This is directly after the Biden’s celebration of hatred towards Republicans. This murderer thought he was doing what he was supposed to do.
3. There’s a news blackout on this case. None of the MSM propaganda outlets have mentioned it at all (unless that changed recently).
4. The usual people who put on morality plays about how speakers must constrain their rhetoric because one of the special people might get harassed of suffer hurt feelings? Those people don’t care. This was just an American murdered right after Biden's fearmongering. It’s beneath their notice. But be careful to avoid microaggressions!

[David Nieporent]

1. this case shows premeditation.

There is nothing in this that shows premeditation. So we can stop you right there.

[Ben_]

Are you deliberately lying? Waiting for someone and chasing him through town in a vehicle to finally hit him in an alley clearly shows premeditation.

It will be interesting to see your response so we can all tell for sure whether you are deliberately lying.

[David Nieporent]

Waiting for someone and chasing him through town in a vehicle to finally hit him in an alley clearly shows premeditation.

Those are certainly facts you made up.

[Ben_]

That’s a lie. I guess that answers it. You intentionally lie.

[Ben_]

I have now seen a few mentions of this incident in MSM propaganda outlets, so the news blackout is now incomplete.

CNN mentioned it. CBS did too but edited out the motive to hide that bit of information from you:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/shannon-brandt-vehicular-homicide-cayler-ellingson-says-he-hit-teen-after-political-argument-north-dakota/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=182553078

[Nige]

The killer comes across pretty badly in that report so I've no idea what you're complaining about. He was drunk, got in an argument, claims he felt threatened but he also chased the guy? Left the scene, came back, left again? He definitely belongs in jail.

[Ben_]

"I’ve no idea what you’re complaining about"

Are you stupid?

My complaint: "CBS … edited out the motive to hide that bit of information from you"

Now do you have an "idea", since I directly stated it twice?

[David Nieporent]

I have no idea what you're complaining about because CBS did not "edit out the motive" at all.

[Ben_]

Yes, they did.

[Nige]

They reported enough of the story to make YOUR assertions about the motive suspect, no wonder you don't like it.

[Nige]

Yeah, stating it twice doesn't make it any less of a lie.

[Ben_]

So you do have an idea about it. Congrats. Even you can understand simple sentences if they are repeated enough times.

[Nige]

I was being nice, I guess, now I know you did it because you're a liar.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The Charlottesville protest and counterprotest were already major national stories, with lots of violence already, so it is unrealistic to expect the Charlottesville murder and the North Dakota homicide to be covered in the same way. (I use murder and homicide not to make one less, but because there was a conviction in one and, so far, the defendant hasn't been charged with murder as far as I know.) Using the difference in media coverage as proof of bias or something worse is extremely weak.

The alleged actions of the man in the North Dakota incident are horrific and I hope he never sees the light of day again if he did what is alleged. Political violence should be denounced by everyone in this country.

[Ben_]

And what about Biden's celebration of hatred a while back? Any concerns about that now that there’s been a homicide?

[Nige]

I understand your major goal here is to link this to Biden. Good luck, I guess, unless he was physically there urging him on, it's going to be a tough sell to anyone other than true believers.

[Ben_]

Understood. You’re totally cool with Biden celebrating hatred, regardless of the ultimate death toll. (Or quietly hoping for more homicides.)

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck off with this, asshole.

Someone says 'You're X is a bad argument and you come back with 'then I presume you must love X?'

No, that's not what they said. Don't be a fucking troll.

[Nige]

Biden didn't celebrate hatred, and this death had nothing to do with him.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden’s celebration of hatred a while back? Any concerns about that now that there’s been a homicide?

Ben going in for the speech is violence push.

No cause championed by leftist strawmen is too crazy for Ben not to pick up and use for his own dumbass arguments!

Because the ridiculous and offensive arguments of yesterday are the important issues of today when your only principle is convincing yourself you're a victim!

[Ben_]

Thanks for making it clear to everyone that you don’t care about anything that follows from speech.

We all know you just say whatever and have no principles. But now we can specifically see that in the context of violence following hateful speech.

Next time you pretend to care about it, we can all remember this time when you made it clear you don’t.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Biden didn’t celebrate hatred. He argued for democracy and to stand against undemocratic forces. I am not sure why you believe arguing for democracy and against fascism and authoritarianism became “celebration of hatred” but, regardless of the reason, not only is your equivalence wrong, it’s evil.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about denouncing violence political or otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

No shortage if examples of the liberals around here doing that.

But of a derth of the right doing so.

You OK with denouncing Jan 06's violence?

[Ben_]

For the record, walking around taking pictures is not "violence".

The shoving and brawling and breaking stuff done by a few people is bad behavior. It’s somewhat violent, but nothing compared to what the government thugs did.

[OtisAH]

Like. Clockwork.

Hilarious.

[Ben_]

Yeah, some of us don’t like leftists telling lies. So corrections are in order.

The approval of liars is not requested, nor wanted.

[apedad]

Oregon Man Pleads Guilty for Planned Parenthood Property Destruction

Devin Friedrick Kruse, 27, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

According to court documents, on Nov. 23, 2021, Kruse broke five security cameras, a window, and a sign at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grants Pass. Three days later, on Nov. 26, 2021, Kruse returned and threw a concrete block through the clinic’s window, tore down an intercom system and broke several light bulbs. Kruse later admitted to damaging the facility because he was angry at Planned Parenthood for killing unborn children.

Misdemeanor violations of the FACE Act are punishable by up to one year in federal prison. Kruse will be sentenced on Jan. 5, 2023 by U.S. District Court Judge Ann L. Aiken.

As part of his plea agreement, Kruse has agreed to pay restitution in full to Planned Parenthood as identified by the government prior to sentencing and ordered by the court.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/oregon-man-pleads-guilty-planned-parenthood-property-destruction

You know who else has to pay because of this idiot?

We do.

I'm guessing hundreds of thousands of dollars OF OUR TAXES were spent on all the infrastructure (e.g. facilities), personnel, and resources used to prosecute him.

Simply because he's an idiot.

[Commenter_XY]

Hey apedad.....I am trying out a new brisket recipe this year for Rosh Hashana (Rum & Coffee brisket). I'll report back. 🙂

[apedad]

Speaking of coffee rubbed meat, I actually made this last night: Coffee Rubbed Pork Tenderloin with Horseradish Cream Sauce (I didn't make the horseradish sauce though).

https://livelytable.com/coffee-rubbed-pork-tenderloin/

I cook a lot with cast iron and this came out AWESOME.

Maybe the best pork dish I've ever made.

[Commenter_XY]

My problem is that I can't use cast iron on my range. I would love to use cast iron.

[apedad]

Everything is done in the oven for this one.

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe Commenter_XY needs to rethink the 'no cast iron' rule.

[bernard11]

Why not?

[Brett Bellmore]

I mean, I've got a glass top range, came with the house, and I use cast iron on it. I don't think there are actually any cooktops you can't use it on.

[Commenter_XY]

I worry about scratching the glass surface. The manufacturer (GE) specifically recommends not using cast iron on the stovetop.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've been using cast iron on a glass cooktop for going on 5 years now, and no damage to speak of. Possibly because it's all OLD cast iron. The bottoms have any sharp edges worn smooth.

[shawn_dude]

You can actually sand/grind cast iron to smooth it out. You can also get an enameled cast iron pan (le Creuset, for example) or a nice carbon steel pan. I have the Lodge carbon steel and it's a bit rough so I'd avoid that for a glass topped range. The Made In line of carbon steel gets great reviews.

For induction glass topped ranges, you can use the rough pans no problem by dropping a silicone film between the pan and the glass. They make silicone disks especially for this.

[OtisAH]

I tried making brisket with a coffee rub once. To this day I have no idea how I messed it up that badly…

[Commenter_XY]

Hope I do better...not to worry, I'll be reporting back to apedad. Stay tuned next Thursday.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Meanwhile, they somehow just can't find all those people who committed vandalism and arson against pro-life pregnancy clinics...

[Sarcastr0]

I presume that you condemn this vandalism goes without saying. Much like how just about everyone condemns the asshole using his car as a weapon below, even if you want to pretend Biden is into it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Biden engaged in quite hateful, threatening language towards certain Americans.

Then some of his supporters took him up on that language.

[Nige]

A reminder that Biden expressed concern about extremists undermining democracy, in the context of Trump and his supporters denying the outcome of the election, and Trump routinely calls Democrats and liberals sick and vile.

[Michael P]

Not everybody has condemned the asshole using his car as a murder weapon. Somebody in this thread rationalized letting the attacker out on bail on the basis that he was only charged with a minimum set of sustainable charges, and only had a $50,000 bond.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you know that 'it goes without saying' means?!

[Michael P]

You've criticized people here for not explicitly condemning acts where the condemnation should go without saying.

[Sarcastr0]

When people go straight to the whattaboutism, I ask them to first condemn the thing they're deflecting from, yeah.

But that's not the same as 'Not everybody has condemned the asshole using his car as a murder weapon.'
No shit.

If you have a particular person in mind, talk to them. But in the meantime, especially given how many liberals here have condemned this guy, and how few on the right are willing to do the same, maybe quit with the general gestures and intimations.

[not guilty]

"Somebody in this thread rationalized letting the attacker out on bail on the basis that he was only charged with a minimum set of sustainable charges, and only had a $50,000 bond."

I wasn't rationalizing anything. I was responding to BravoCharlieDelta's question about why the accused person was "walking free." Obviously, he is at liberty because he made a bail bond. BCD claimed that he had murdered someone; I pointed out that no murder charge is currently pending, with the caveat that the present charges do not preclude a more serious charge being brought in the future.

Reading comprehension. Try it sometime.

[David Nieporent]

I think a lot of people — not unique to conservatives, but expressed more by conservatives — do not grasp the concept of bail. They think bail is meant to keep people in prison.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think bail is supposed to keep people from skipping town before the trial despite the fact that you let them out on the street. I think what confuses some people is why somebody who deliberately ran someone over would be ALLOWED to be out on bail.

[Mr. Bumble]

Unless you were a J6 protester. No bail for you.

[Sarcastr0]

Except for all the ones who got bail.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Explaining the facts as to why the person was released on bail and "rationalizing it" are two different things.

[Commenter_XY]

I also want to say to VC Conspirators who are members of The Tribe.

L'shana Tova Tikoteiv Vetichoteim
(May you (immediately) be inscribed and sealed for a Good Year (and for a Good and Peaceful Life))

Make 5783 a good year!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Matzo tov!

[bernard11]

Thanks, XY.

The same to you.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Nostrovya!

[Darth Buckeye]

Mazel tov!

[SRG]

Thanks! And the same to you and all other tribespeople here.

Though as a Bad Jew, on Monday morning I'm going to the Met dress rehearsal of Lady MacBeth of Mstensk. rather than what I would normally do, which is not go to shul. I used to blow the shophar at my parents' small shul, fwiw.

[bernard11]

How did you learn to blow the shofar?

Do you play trumpet or some other horn?

[SRG]

I knew how to get a sound out of a trumpet though I couldn't play it, so it was easy enough. It can be tricky - you blow it slightly out of the side of your mouth, and there's no large mouthpiece - and in some weather conditions it can be a real bugger to get a sound out.

FWIW in the Temple, the shophar had a gold mouthpiece which made it much easier to blow, and it was accompanied by two "trumpets" - probably Gabriel trumpets or buccinae - which would blow the same notes as the shophar, but then the players would stop before the shophar so that at the end of each blast you'd just hear the shophar. Also, from the Mishnah description, it didn't have to be a ram's horn and the horn which best fits the description is an oryx horn.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Man admits to running down and killing a teenager, claiming he was a "Republican Extremist"

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/09/man-admits-running-down-and-killing-teenager-claiming-he-was-a-republican-extremist/

I mean...this is a tragedy. A young life has been snuffed out by a nutso who took the works of our president seriously. Biden's words have consequences.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden’s words have consequences.

Jan 06 wasn't Trump's fault, but this somehow is Biden's fault. I'm not sure you can thread that needle, chief.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, I'm at the point where I hardly care which standard we settle on, but can we just have one? Either Trump's guilty of the January 6th riot, Bernie's guilty of the House baseball shooting, and Biden's responsible for this, or none of them are guilty of what other people did.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Trump and Republicans are always wrong. Democrats are always right.

[Martinned]

Correlation does not prove causation, but yes.

[Armchair Lawyer]

LOL....

[Sarcastr0]

Not addressing your own double standard, eh?

[bevis the lumberjack]

You're doing the mirror image of what he's doing and chiding him for what he's doing.

[Sarcastr0]

Not true at all, bevis.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/22/thursday-open-thread-102/?comments=true#comment-9713714

Yes, Brett – absent a few hotheads no one thought Trump passed the Brandenberg test on Jan 06.

But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t really suck for riling folks up like that, especially after being told they were armed and responding that it was okay because ‘they’re not here for me.’

Sociopath stuff.

If there is a comparable thing Biden did I'm letting him off for, let me know. But I think this lays out quite well how Trump and Jan 06 are not the same as Biden and this chucklehead.

[bevis the lumberjack]

If Trumps rhetoric set off Jan 6 and Biden’s rhetoric set off this guy that’s the same thing, the only difference being scale.

And everything I’ve seen said this guy claimed he did it because the guy he killed was a MAGA extremist. You know, the exact language Biden used in his Blood Red speech to describe those who were dangerous to democracy. Hell of a coincidence, huh?

[David Nieporent]

No. Everything you've seen is that the guy claimed he did it because the victim threatened him.

[bevis the lumberjack]

At first he was openly saying that he ran him over because he was a MAGA extremist. Then he got a lawyer who convinced him he should STFU and come up with a better story. “Self defense” is the better story.

The guy was running away from when he was killed. Clearly the self defense claim is garbage.

[David Nieporent]

At first he was openly saying that he ran him over because he was a MAGA extremist.

I don't think there's any evidence he ever said that. The police report — which was the first thing he said, before he would've gotten a lawyer — says nothing like that.

It reports, "The reporting party identified as Shannon Brandt stated he struck the pedestrian because the pedestrian was threatening him. Brandt stated that the pedestrian called some people and Brandt was afraid they were coming to get him. Brandt admitted… that he hit the pedestrian and that the pedestrian was part of a Republican extremist group."

Very different than the claims people here are making.

Elsewhere in the police report it says, "Brandt admitted to striking the pedestrian with his car because he had a political argument with the pedestrian and believed the pedestrian was calling people to come get him."

[Nige]

You can directly link Trump, his rhetoric, and the Jan 6th invasion in space and time and in commuications between individuals and groups - there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to link Biden to this guy.

[bernard11]

True.

This is all trolling BS.

[Nige]

Brett doesn't care, he's just passionately committed to the principle that completely different things be treated exactly the same or it's NOT FAIR.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm committed to not pretending they're completely different because Trump.

[Nige]

You're committed to pretending they're the same because Trump. It's what happens when your political philosphy has been reduced to nothing but whataboutism and spite.

[Bored Lawyer]

You are threading the needle the other way, though. Typical gaslighting.
Hint: they are both deluded jerks who should be put out to pasture.

[David Nieporent]

The problem is that Armchair Lawyer and ilk are lying by omission. The guy did not say, as they pretend, that he was running the guy over because he was a Republican extremist.

Reading their takes, that's what one would reasonably think: the driver said, "That guy's a Republican, so I'm going to kill him."

He actually said that he ran over the guy because the guy was threatening him. (It's not 100% clear from the news stories whether he's claiming that he inadvertently hit the guy while trying to get away, or whether he's admitting that he deliberately hit the guy because the guy was threatening him.)

[Nige]

From the link:

'Court documents say at 2:35 Sunday morning, 41-year-old Shannon Brandt called 911 to report that he had hit a pedestrian because he was threatening him. Brandt told State Radio that the pedestrian was part of a Republican extremist group and that he was afraid they were “coming to get him.” The pedestrian has been identified in a GoFundMe page as 18-year-old Cayler Ellingson.'

Yeowch, that's some egregious lying about the whole thing there, guys.

[Ben_]

Not sure whether David is deliberately lying here.

If you want information instead of deliberate lies or useful ignorance, here’s a news story:

https://notthebee.com/article/leftist-runs-down-and-kills-18-year-old-conservative-kid-in-north-dakota

"Ellingson's mom said that the teen called her and asked that she come and get him because Brandt was chasing him through the small town with his SUV, but by the time she arrived, it was too late. Brandt had run down and murdered her son."

[Ben_]

Here’s a story that links to all the primary sources so you can read them yourself (on the off chance you think a murdered American is worth your time — there’s no traditional leftist grievance politics angle.): https://townhall.com/tipsheet/miacathell/2022/09/21/alleged-killer-freed-mowing-down-teen-political-argument-n2613415

[David Nieporent]

I'm beginning to think that the problem is that MAGA types really don't understand what news is.

[shawn_dude]

Note the article title says "leftist" vs "conservative" and not "liberal" vs "right-winger." The title itself is enough to shed doubt on the reporting that follows.

This is the first I'm hearing about this incident. So without knowing more than what I've read here, the guy in the car seems like a nutcase. If the kid was actually threatening him, you'd think he'd stay safely in his SUV and just report the kid to the police. Anyhow, he killed a teenager and that's on him. ND has a "stand your ground law" but (IANAL), this doesn't seem like it would qualify.

[Ben_]

"This is the first I’m hearing about this incident."

Your media hid this news from you. Any thoughts about that?

[shawn_dude]

What is "my media?"

Seems you're making an awful lot of baseless assumptions here.

[Ben_]

Whatever media you use is your media. You were uninformed as a result.

Any thoughts on your media hiding this news from you?

[shawn_dude]

Not really. Since "my media" doesn't exist, it cannot take actions like hiding things from me. It cannot be part of a conspiracy.

So no. No thoughts on this non-existent thing you've invented.

[Ben_]

If you don’t use any media, then of course you’re uninformed about almost everything.

[David Nieporent]

No, that's not a news story. You are both stupid and dishonest.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Everything I saw in the news used the phrase “MAGA extremist”. But the stories were all consistent that the killer said that.

He said the guy he killed was calling for help to come over and beat him up, turns out the guy was calling for help because some whack job was trying to run him over.

[David Nieporent]

But the stories were all consistent that the killer said that.

Read the police report. That's not what they said he said.

He said the guy he killed was calling for help to come over and beat him up, turns out the guy was calling for help because some whack job was trying to run him over.

"Turns out" according to whom? The dead guy's mother? (Maybe? I haven't seen her quoted firsthand anywhere, though the claim has been sourced to her.)

Hey, maybe that's what happened. But it doesn't "turn out" that's what happened based on a secondhand claim from a single person.

What seems undisputed is that he ran over the kid, that he was rather drunk at the time, and that he claimed he was acting in self-defense after they had gotten into a political argument. Everything else is a bunch of culture war loons trying to spin the story.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh. Here's the news story with the full police report with the news story.

Key elements here.

""According to State Radio logs, the reporting party identified as Shannon Brandt, stated he struck the pedestrian because the pedestrian was threatening him."

"Brandt admitted to State Radio that he his the pedestrian and that the pedestrian was part of a Republican extremist group."

"Brandt admitted to striking the pedestrian with his car BECAUSE (highlighted) he had a political argument with the pedestrian and believed the pedestrian was calling people to come get him"

https://www.foxnews.com/us/north-dakota-man-freed-50k-bond-fatally-striking-republican-extremist-car-records-show

Now, since the victim was specifically identified as part of a "Republican extremist group" by the criminal, AND was also struck because the criminal had a political argument with the victim, a rational conclusion would be the criminal's perspective on the victim's political views played a role.

[David Nieporent]

Now, since the victim was specifically identified as part of a “Republican extremist group” by the criminal, AND was also struck because the criminal had a political argument with the victim, a rational conclusion would be the criminal’s perspective on the victim’s political views played a role.

That may be a rational inference, but it is in fact an inference, not an established fact. And while it may be a rational inference, it is not by any means logically compelled.

"I shot him because we had gotten into an argument and I was scared he was going to attack me. He's 6'6" 275 pounds."

Does that mean I shot the guy because he's 6'6"? No, it does not. There are a large number of 6'6" guys that I did not shoot and would never shoot. Rather, I shot him because we had argued and I was scared of him. The fact that he's 6'6" provided support for why it was reasonable for me to be scared of him, but it's not why I shot him.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Again, David lies by omission by selectively citing only part of the police report, and conveniently dropping these two lines in it...

"“Brandt admitted to State Radio that he his the pedestrian and that the pedestrian was part of a Republican extremist group.”

“Brandt admitted to striking the pedestrian with his car BECAUSE (highlighted) he had a political argument with the pedestrian and believed the pedestrian was calling people to come get him”"

[David Nieporent]

Well, someone here is lying by omission. I quoted both of those things, ten hours before you accused me of not doing so.

Neither of those, as noted above, matches what you people are claiming.

[Sarcastr0]

"One thing that makes law interesting, I think, is that the internal rules of law often lead to there being correct answers while external pressures on judges sometimes result in judges not finding them—with the debate over whether that is good or bad being surprisingly unsettled."

-Orin Kerr.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's because the judges don't read VC comments, where the lawyers who comment here have the definitive answers on everything.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You know what, it’s time to stop handling Trump with kid gloves. Sentence him to exile on Devil’s Island, I’m sure the French would be happy to cooperate. Keep him on a diet of bread and water.

Then it will be time enough to figure out what crime he committed.

Update on Devil's Island, from Wikipedia:

"In 1953, the prison system was closed. In 1965, the French government transferred the responsibility for the island, with the rest of the group, to its newly founded Guiana Space Centre. The CNES space agency, in association with other agencies, has restored buildings classified as historical monuments. Since tourism facilities have been added, the islands now receive more than 50,000 tourists each year."

Well, then, close the space station, clear out the tourists, reserve the island for just Trump and his guards. And the scorpions.

[Moderation4ever]

He an interesting take on your idea. What if Trump is indicted and decides to flee the country and hang out at his golf resort in Scotland? Should the US pursue extradition or simply leave him there in self-imposed exile? I personally would contribute to the cost of a ticket to fly him there, economy-plus of course as his is a tall man and need to the extra leg room.

[Martinned]

He can have the cell next to Julian Assange.

[John F. Carr]

Let him stay in exile at least long enough to keep him out of the 2024 election. Warn him that the U.S. will seek extradition if he tries to run for President from overseas.

[Martinned]

That has to be unconstitutional somehow.

[Brett Bellmore]

At the point where you're exiling candidates for President, "unconstitutional" has left the room.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you've left the hypothetical behind, ignoring the 'self-imposed' part.

[Martinned]

Remember the magnificent glory of idiocy when that UN working group condemned the UK for "detaining" Assange when he was hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy?

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/12/united-kingdom-un-expert-calls-immediate-release-assange-after-10-years

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think I just noticed that "self-imposed" is a bit of a joke, since the only way he'd ever do that would be in response to a serious threat.

[Sarcastr0]

It's okay to say you misread, Brett. Might be less embarrassing than saying you thought the author actually meant a completely different hypo because this *hypothetical* was *too unrealistic*.

[Martinned]

For sure. But as so often, the more difficult question is "where does it say that?"

[John F. Carr]

I was thinking of an informal warning. But suppose it is official US policy. I think the UK would be happy to send him back. An independent Scotland even more happy. As a general rule being brought to court illegally does not make the charges go away.

[not guilty]

If Donald Trump dies outside of prison, he will have gotten away with serious crimes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Taking your comment at face value he would then join a large list of Dem politicians.

[Moderation4ever]

Don't be daft. The former President is 74 years old and he is not going to prison. I, like many, would like the former President held accountable but I don't expect him to go to prison.

[OtisAH]

90+ year old Nazi prison camp guards have been sent to prison, 74 year old Big Baby can go to prison.

[Moderation4ever]

Donald Trump is not a Nazi camp guard, and the analogy is silly. If he is indicted, the case will drag on and he will be older still when convicted. The American people are not going to imprison a man in his late 70's for non-violent crimes. I don't want Donald Trump imprisoned I want him out of politics and out of business. Let him play golf and keep quiet.

[OtisAH]

Then he’d be extradited and tried. And that’s the point where he’ll test out the legal theory that he cannot get a fair and impartial jury because there was so much news coverage of his flight from justice and his return in handcuffs.

Doesn’t matter anyway because he’s made some noise about moving home and business to Hungary. Maybe he mentioned it because he’s too dumb to not mention fleeing the country while under multiple civil and criminal investigations, or maybe he just hadn’t eaten in awhile.

[Paladin_44]

My father chastised you with whips; I will chastise you with scorpions. 1 Kings 12:11

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I should have been more careful to label my remarks sarcasm.

[apedad]

House passes election law overhaul in response to Jan. 6

The House has passed legislation to overhaul the rules for certifying the results of a presidential election as lawmakers accelerate their response to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and Donald Trump’s failed attempt to remain in power.

(The final vote was 229-203, with nine Republicans joining all Democrats in voting for the bill. None of the nine Republicans is returning to Congress next year.)

The bill, which is similar to bipartisan legislation moving through the Senate, would overhaul an arcane 1800s-era statute known as the Electoral Count Act that governs, along with the U.S. Constitution, how states and Congress certify electors and declare presidential election winners.

The bill would clarify in the law that the vice president’s role presiding over the count is only ceremonial and that he or she cannot change the results. It also sets out that each state can only send one certified set of electors after Trump’s allies had unsuccessfully tried to put together alternate slates of illegitimate pro-Trump electors in swing states where Biden won.

The legislation would increase the threshold for individual lawmakers’ objections to any state’s electoral votes, requiring a third of the House and a third of the Senate to object to trigger votes on the results in both chambers. Currently, only one lawmaker in the House and one lawmaker in the Senate has to object. The House bill would set out very narrow grounds for those objections, an attempt to thwart baseless or politically motivated challenges.

In addition, the bill would require courts to get involved if state or local officials want to delay a presidential vote or refuse to certify the results.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-donald-trump-presidential-constitutions-election-2020-32c6ea94829f95d11f7696d2cba542b6

Additionally:

The bill is an “attempt to federalize our elections,” Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-Pa., said on the House floor. He argued that voters are more focused on the economy and other issues than elections law.

“In my area of Pennsylvania, nobody is talking about this,” Reschenthaler said.

Looking at Rep. Reschenthaler’s district (SW corner of PA), I’m going to guess this statement is true.

[Sarcastr0]

The GOP whipped against this bill.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and why not? The Senate had arrived at a reasonable compromise both parties could get behind, and the House up and decides they needed a more Democratic bill, and gets the votes of some retiring Republicans so they can claim it's "bipartisan".

[Sarcastr0]

What about the bill is 'more Democratic?'

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well in this case it's that the winners of presidential elections become President. That is the small and large D position these days, and the R position is the opposite of that.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Goddamn you’re an extremist jackass. It’s everyone’s position has always been that the winner in the electoral college wins the presidency.

You and people like you don’t like that. Wish I could say I was sorry but I’m not.

Does the house bill try to change that? I don’t know. This is where our media’s loss of credibility comes into play. Note that the linked story doesn’t tell you what the bill actually says. It just says it’s similar to the bipartisan senate bill. Is it? I don’t know and certainly don’t trust the AP enough to take their word for it.

If it simply makes impossible what Trump tried to do, I’m all for it. If it tries to change the nature of our elections, then no.

Your smug “my side wants the winners of elections to become president” is horseshit. You want election processes move outside the way the constitution says they should be because it will give you more power. You know who else wants that for himself? DJT. You and he are spirit animals.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well that was a weird rant.

[bernard11]

It’s everyone’s position has always been that the winner in the electoral college wins the presidency.

No, Bevis. It's not. The people who tried to send phony electors don't think that. The people who try to get election officials to "find" votes don't think that. The people who keep yelling about having state legislatures "decertify the results" don't think that. The people who file endless BS lawsuits about the election don't think that.

Guess what party all those people belong to.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bernard, I'm all for shutting that crap down. The Pennsylvania rep who did the "people in my district aren't talking about this" excuse is just another Republican who spends his time jerking off Trump. We shouldn't fix problems because people aren't aware of them is garbage thinking.

But if the Dems are trying to work around the EC with this house bill, they're every bit as bad as Trump.

[David Nieporent]

This is not something like the national popular vote compact or anything like that. It does not attempt to "work around the EC." It just tries to ensure no shenanigans in which politicians decide they want to hold an election and then ignore it if the wrong side wins.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I know that’s what the Senate does. Not sure I trust the House.

[Sarcastr0]

Then read the bill, bevis.

Don't just come in hot based on nothing.

[Nige]

If you detail what the Republicans are doing and shout loudly and vaguely about what the Democrats are supposedly doing, they're the same, more or less.

[Martinned]

Voting has a well-known pro-Democrat bias...

[Darth Buckeye]

Illegal ballot distribution and shady vote counting is a Democratic tradition. See the Box 13 scandal from the 1948 Texas Senatorial primary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_13_scandal “On the day of the election, Johnson appeared to have lost the Democratic run-off primary to Stevenson. Six days after polls had closed, 202 additional ballots were found in Precinct 13 of Jim Wells County, 200 for Johnson and 2 for Stevenson. ”

* * * *

“The recount, handled by the Democratic State Central Committee, took a week. Johnson was announced the winner by 87 votes out of 988,295, an extremely narrow margin of victory. Suspicions arose that the 202 late votes were fraudulent. The added names were in alphabetical order and written with the same pen and handwriting, at the end of the list of voters. Some of the persons in this part of the list insisted that they had not voted that day.”

[NOVA Lawyer]

Now do North Carolina's 9th Congressional District in 2018.

(And it wasn't a single party primary, it was the general election.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Makes claiming somebody is an insurrectionist a free pass to object to EC votes.

[Sarcastr0]

Not that I see, Brett:
https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR8873IH.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

"‘(2) GROUNDS FOR OBJECTIONS .—To raise an objection under this subsection, a Member must submit such objection pursuant to the requirements of subsection (a)(5) and specify in writing the number of electoral votes objected to and one of the following grounds for the objection:

...

‘‘(C) One or more of the State’s electors are constitutionally ineligible for the office of elector ... or section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ...

‘‘(D) One or more of the State’s electoral votes were cast for a candidate who is ineligible for the office of president or vice president pursuant to—

...

‘‘(iii) section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;"

Just searched for "insurrection", didn't you?

[shawn_dude]

Since when does the Fourteenth Amendment only require a "claim" that someone is an insurrectionist?

That is what you said: "Makes claiming somebody is an insurrectionist a free pass to object to EC votes." --emphasis mine.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say that the 14th amendment only requires a claim. It is, in fact, regrettably void of procedure for finding disqualification, probably due to the Civil war having been so clear cut.

I said the statute only required it.

I think the game plan here is pretty transparent: Should Trump win in the EC in 2024, the Democrats will proceed to challenge his EC votes on the basis of his being disqualified by Section 3, in the hope of prevailing in the votes with every Democrat and a few NeverTrump Republicans.

Ordinarily this would result in a bit of a mess, because the Constitution requires an absolute majority of EC votes to be elected. However, the statute declares that the total number of EC votes shall be reduced by the number of disqualified EC votes in some of these cases, (Unconstitutionally, I think!) doubtless to avoid throwing it to the House, where the states would vote by state, and Republicans have a majority of most state delegations.

So they can just by a majority vote declare some of the Republican electors disqualified, and create a pseudo-majority of EC votes for their own nominee.

THAT is why this language didn't end up in the Senate compromise version: It provides a map for Congress to steal Presidential elections by claiming electors are insurrectionists.

[shawn_dude]

You’re inventing conspiracy here. The statute incorporates the 14th by reference. It doesn’t lower the bar to “claiming” any more than the 14th does. It also doesn’t avoid due process.

[LawTalkingGuy]

How dare the federal government federalize the counting of electoral votes for federal office.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What does the constitution say?

[wreckinball]

That will only be enforced if a Democrat wins the election. Many laws are like this these days.

Are you breaking the law? Well that depends on your political view point

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Reschenthaler's district was drawn to largely exclude the educated, modern, functional elements of southwestern Pennsylvania; that district has a border with West Virginia approximating 100 miles, though. Mostly street pills, Trump fans, bottom-scraping religious schools, $60,000 houses, turn-of-the-century pickup trucks, and abandoned businesses.

Here is another side of Skunk Baxter -- or maybe not? Maybe the best hour you could enjoy this month.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Biden was certified the winner under the Electoral Count Act, despite the violence.

Pence didn't try to unilaterally decide the election, despite the pressure, he decided to conform to the Electoral Count Act.

The Capitol rioters are locked up, even those who haven't been convicted.

So which part of the system failed, exactly? Didn't it produce a Biden victory, just like it was supposed to do?

[bernard11]

The system didn't fail.

But your argument is like saying that you don't need a brake job because you managed to stop the car somehow last time.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Perhaps we need some laws against rioting, and laws against trespassing on Capitol grounds.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Is there any tension between this:

"requiring a third of the House and a third of the Senate to object to trigger votes on the results in both chambers."

and this:

"the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal." /Art. I(5), U. S. Constitution

[Brett Bellmore]

Nope. The first provision determines how many members have to object to GET a vote. It does raise the question of how you determine how many have objected without holding a vote, mind you...

The second provision has to do with how many members must demand it to get the roll call recorded in the Congressional journal. Less than that many, and you can get away with just recording the (Purported; Voice votes are notoriously a sham.) outcome.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

For all practical purposes, it seems the bill presumes unanimous consent to approve the results unless there's 1/3 in each house demanding a vote.

It's not as if they're discussing tariffs and someone tries to intrude with a discussion of the election results.

If this method of presuming unanimous consent is allowed, the right of 1/5 in one house to get a roll call is diluted.

[Brett Bellmore]

You might get a constitutional challenge, were it not for the fact that basically all the parts of the Constitution relating to internal procedures within Congress have been declared by the judiciary to be "non-judiciable".

So members could complain to the Supreme court, which would duly place their index fingers in their ears and recite, "Neener, neener, I can't hear you." Just like they do when members complain that the versions of a bill "passed" by each house actually had text differences, or that a quorum wasn't present when some action was taken.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I didn’t say it could be taken to the Supreme Court. Whoever has the last word is all the more obliged to decide the matter correctly. Even if they’re a house of Congress.

I believe the Court also said that questions about impeachment are nonjusticiable. And questions about the contents of the Journal, if I recall correctly. Both important topics where a wrong decision is...a wrong decision.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Even better, it was the clause about publishing an account of public expenditures which was nonjusticiable.

[Moderation4ever]

It seems the former President, like Dr. Stephen Strange, can do thinks with just his mind, like declassify documents. What more interesting is his assertion that the FBI was looking for Hillary Clintons emails at Mar-a-logo. My question then is the former President losing it or is this the grifter in him? Is he looking to the audience to find that word that his marks will react to, and he can hook them? Or is he Captain Queeg without the ball bearings and are the emails his strawberries?

[Sarcastr0]

Telepathic declasification is pretty incredible.

That there are those on here that will argue this is a legit argument is just sad.

[Brett Bellmore]

Since he actually claimed he had a standing policy of anything being removed from the White House being declassified, (Yeah, that's stupid, too.) the claim here would be more in the nature of telekinesis, wouldn't it? Since he apparently packed and shipped the documents with his mind.

It would be a stupid policy to have, but I'm not entirely trusting the denials that he had issued any such order.

[OtisAH]

Yes, the people noting there’s absolutely no evidence any such order was ever given are a highly suspect lot. It’s best to assume the order was given until there’s more proof it wasn’t.

[Brett Bellmore]

Noting, asserting, not quite the same thing.

[OtisAH]

You’re right.

They NOTE there is no evidence of the existence of such an order because no evidence has been presented proving the existence of such an order.

You ASSERT (more “suggest” or “imply” but I’ll roll with it) that there IS evidence despite the complete lack of any and despite the fact you know there isn’t any.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would assert that there's evidence that Trump declassified the Crossfire Hurricane papers. And note that, since we don't know which papers marked classified we're discussing, we don't know that they aren't the Crossfire Hurricane papers.

On the larger point, I really don't know that the people asserting he didn't issue such an order are telling the truth, or there's just an implied, "He said it, but we made a point of not recording the order and didn't tell him." going on. He faced a lot of sabotage from people nominally working for him, you know. Like the State Department lying about troop levels: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/unelected-federal-officials-have-been-lying-about-us-troop-levels-in-syria

[OtisAH]

Tune in next week for more “That’s Our Brett”!

[Nige]

If he had a written order for the docs at MAL, 'sabotage' by underlings would be irrelevant, and he would have submitted it by now, and he'd still be in trouble for holding onto documents he wasn't supposed to hold on to. Everything else is just bumf.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the Trump line is basically what I expected: He ordered a bunch of documents declassified, and the drones made a point of not acting on the order.

Documents at Mar-a-Lago Marked ‘Classified’ Were Already Declassified, Kash Patel Says

Since this is the same administration the State Department admits they routinely lied to, I find it plausible.

But a bit of an indictment, too: Gross failure at follow-up, and to anticipate the drones violating orders.

[Nige]

Put it in a legal filing, then. Produce the order. Bring the 'drones' in to testify under oath about it.

If they're declassified, doesn't that mean all the documents can be used against him as evidence if he's indicted?

[Brett Bellmore]

Produce the order the people in charge of putting in writing deliberately didn't put in writing?

[Nige]

Suggesting a degree of laxity and carelessness on Trump's behalf that's well over the border into negligence.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Suggesting a degree of laxity and carelessness on Trump’s behalf that’s well over the border into negligence."

I wouldn't argue with that. One of Trump's faults is that he thought the government operated more or less like the private sector, where you wouldn't typically expect employees to be deliberately ignoring the boss's orders.

And he didn't learn otherwise nearly fast enough. That IS one of the problems with making elderly people President, you know: They get set in their ways and don't adapt properly.

[Sarcastr0]

Always fun to assume without evidence that Trump did or wanted to do a lot of things, and then they didn't get done because everyone who worked for him was plotting against him!

[David Nieporent]

One of Trump’s faults is that he thought the government operated more or less like the private sector, where you wouldn’t typically expect employees to be deliberately ignoring the boss’s orders.

Add "private sector" to things Brett thinks he understands but is actually unfamiliar with.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If the President is talking on the phone to a foreign leader and shares some classified Intel. How did that classified Intel become declassified?

[Moderation4ever]

The President can declassify anything he wants, but it has to be documented somewhere.

He my hypothetical, I call up the National Achieves, identify myself as a researcher, and request all documents related to the nuclear arms program of country X. The NA informs me that most of the documents are classified. I respond that the documents were declassified by President Trump. She says there is no record of that declassification and I respond that he did it in his mind and no record is necessary. Send me the documents

[John F. Carr]

Agencies refuse even legitimate FOIA requests all the time. If you don't like the official response you sue and ask the judge to read Trump's mind.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When the President shared the info in my hypo, where was is documented? And who defined this documentation rule that binds the President?

[Moderation4ever]

Then my hypo is right and there is no classified data. We have no idea what data is classified because the President could have declassified any document with no record being made.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Presidential actions can declassify something. He doesn't have to get permission from civil servants or inform them.

[Nige]

Brett's suggesting underlings weren't following orders, you're suggesting he literally didn't tell anyone and kept it entirely to himself. You voted for this guy?

[SRG]

To be accurate he speculated that the reason for the raid on Maga Lago was that the FBI were looking for Hillary’s emails. Which is still meshugge.

And he also claimed that NARA is run by a radical leftist group.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1572764458623148035

[John F. Carr]

Truckers won an injunction to block Rhode Island from collecting tolls on heavy trucks. The judge distinguished the facts and legal arguments from a Third Circuit ruling upholding Pennsylvania's tolls against a Commerce Clause challenge.

I have not read the full decision yet. I noted when the tolls were put up that they were based on a false premise. Truck drivers are required to pay fuel taxes based on where they drive, not where they fill up. Part of the record keeping of being a professional driver or fleet manager is recording how many miles were driven in each taxing jurisdiction.

https://ecf.rid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv0378-245

[Krychek_2]

I absolutely love that the case captions is "Trump v. The United States of America." That, I think sums it up in a nutshell.

[John F. Carr]

I was hoping the caption would be "Trump v. Justice".

[John F. Carr]

An immigrant friend saw a pregnant 15-16 year old in a doctor's office. She was surprised that I wasn't surprised. Teenagers having sex? Not having an abortion? I said "it happens". I should have said "I am shocked, shocked, to find intercourse going on in here."

I thought of a memo that went out 10-20 years ago reminding school nurses that a girl under 16 asking about contraception was likely a rape victim and a report to the authorities was required. We don't have a "Romeo and Juliet" exception to our statutory rape law. Two 15 year olds having sex are raping each other. School nurses are mandatory reporters of child abuse.

[Martinned]

Two 15 year olds having sex are raping each other.

For the record, depending on the jurisdiction that may or may not be an accurate summary of the law. (And where it is, it's a pretty stupid law.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

I took the "we" to mean "on my jurisdiction."

And assuming that jurisdiction to be Massachusetts, John F. Care is correct about the lack of a close-in-age defense.

[Martinned]

I read it the same way. But since he didn't say which jurisdiction that was, I figured I'd flag it.

[Michael P]

I was surprised by how many states are like that. (Those with "N/A" in both of the last two columns of the table on this HHS page.)

[LawTalkingGuy]

Amid all the other DeSantis drama it slipped by that he gave a speech the other day claiming that no one questioned slavery until we decided as Americans that everyone has inalienable rights. Which is obviously and demonstrably false and an extremely brain dead reading of history.

In the first place, enslaved people were obviously someone and they didn’t think slavery was so great. Equiano and Sancho became abolitionists after their freedom, to say nothing of the fact that escapes were common.

But even among non-slaves and non-blacks this is false. Lord Mansfield ruled in Somersett’s case in 1772. And that case was the product of efforts by abolitionists like Sharpe and others who were trying freedom suits even before that.

We could also get into the Quaker position or the Catholic condemnation of native slavery early in the age of discovery.

Of course the idea that the American Revolutionaries all had some special insight into the nature of human liberty that led people to realize slavery was wrong was demolished by Samuel Johnson stating: “that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes.”

So with someone saying such demonstrably wrong things…why are we trusting his word on what an accurate history curriculum would be?

[Martinned]

Black people enlisted in droves during the Revolutionary War. On the British side.

[Nige]

Daniel O'Connell, The Liberator himself, excoriated Irish Americans for supporting slavery.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I will admit that I also did not see this story.

Do you have a link to the speech?

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://twitter.com/GovRonDeSantis/status/1572314687542288386

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"trusting his word on what an accurate history curriculum would be?"

The bill you're referencing banned what looks very much like hostile-environment harassment, reaffirming the federal ban.

It's one thing to teach about the horrors of slavery and racism, as happened at my school pre-wokeness.

But the teachers didn't say that the white students and say they were somehow guilty for crimes committed by other whites.

Nor, in discussing juvenile crime (and in those days the message was don't commit it), the teacher *didn't* point to the black students and say "you should be ashamed, too many of you are committing crimes."

It's that sort of hostile-environment harassment which the bill seems to ban.

(Plus the idea that American is inherently racist. How can you have military recruiters in one part of the school while in another part of the school telling students the country isn't worth defending?)

[LawTalkingGuy]

I'm not referring to a bill. I'm referring to his statement. Which is demonstrably false.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I beg your pardon, I thought you were referring to his so-called CRT bill, which is sometimes misleadingly portrayed as forbidding the teaching of certain parts of American history.

It's not racial harassment to talk about bad times in history, it's racial harassment to single out students of particular races as if they were guilty by association.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. He made a speech. In it he made a demonstrably false statement about history in his dumb attempt to promote his education agenda.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

OK, let's back up, what proposals has he made to change the history curriculum, other than to ban racial harassment under the guise of teaching?

[Nige]

Classing teaching history as racial harassment, for a start.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

See above.

[shawn_dude]

Who is this "we" you're talking about as trusting what he says about history? Answer that and you answer both questions.

The central core of Florida is populated by quite a variety of racist organizations including neo-nazis, KKK, World Church of the Creator, and other nutcases. And these folks don't live in a vacuum and they aren't generally shunned in most of Florida.

Besides pandering to racists, DeSantis also plays to the machismo crowd, just like Trump, which also gains him some votes in the I-4 corridor and South Florida where there are fewer klan idiots but lots of Cuban-Americans.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Military goes woke c. 2012.

Recruitment takes a dive starting about 2016.

Military has no idea or clue why enlistments are way down.

I hope those aren't the same people tasked with planning for the next war.

[Martinned]

You're right. The old strategy of exploiting poor white people from the Red States was so much better.

[DaveM]

Yeah, but them good ol boys sure knew how to shoot. /sarc

[Sarcastr0]

Military has no idea or clue why enlistments are way down.

Maybe it's the forever wars we were in?

[Jimmy the Dane]

You mean the Obama colonisation attempt of Afghanistan and all of our efforts to jam radical feminism into their institutions?

[Martinned]

Hang on, back up, who do you think started the war in Afghanistan???

[Nige]

Feminists!

[Brett Bellmore]

Alexander the Great, maybe?

[Jimmy the Dane]

It was a good old fashion police action (albeit probably unwarranted) up until about 2008 when the lefties decided to go in and tell Afghanistan what they really needed were some "liberated" women. Weirdly and in complete shock to the left, they were not too keen on the idea culturally. But it isn't cultural appropriation if it is the left imposing their values, right?

[Nige]

Yeah, who can forget the Republicans boasting that the war was justified because as a result of the invasion Afghan women would remain oppressed.

[apedad]

Yeah, the labor market, awareness, and the pool of qualified potential recruits have NOTHING to do with declining recruitment.

https://recruiting.army.mil/pao/facts_figures/

[Nige]

And they're complaning that with student debt forgiveness, young people won't be desperate enough to join.

[Martinned]

It looks like I'm going to have to eat my words about Congress never getting anything done. It took the Senate a mere six years to ratify the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Convention. The vote was 69-27, so it was a real nail biter!

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/21/senate-approves-first-climate-treaty-in-decades-00058078

[Nige]

Models suggest that eliminating ozone-depleting CFCs has spared the world one degree extra of warming, and should save another half degree more by 2030, to say nothing of the countless lives saved from skin cancer.

[shawn_dude]

"The vote was 69-27, so it was a real nail biter!"

That made me LOL. Then cry.

[Alan Vanneman]

"Funny" that the VC is maintaining radio silence with regard to what one might call "Trump law". There was a time when Josh Blackman and even Eugene himself were quite voluble on Trump's legal woes, but now, apparently, mum's the word. Sad!

[Bored Lawyer]

Trump's two biggest problems are he has no self-control, and he screws over people that he may need later. There are a whole line of lawyers that he has stiffed. So why would any competent lawyer want to work for him?

[Mr. Bumble]

They've outsourced it to commenters.

[John F. Carr]

Jonathan Adler posted on the 11th Circuit order last night. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/21/eleventh-circuit-grants-stay-of-trial-court-order-blocking-access-to-mar-a-lago-documents/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The news is coming out that His Majesty King Baracka has top secret documents stored in an unsecured warehouse for years.

Weird how the Democrat DOJ and Democrat NARA can't seem to give a shit about it.

[Krychek_2]

I'm sure they would if that were actually true.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like they've taken action against the First Son for lying to purchase a firearm?

[Krychek_2]

You again, with your usual "let's change the subject." If you want to respond to my actual point, knock yourself out.

[Mr. Bumble]

The subject is the DOJ's unwillingness to investigate possible violations of the law unless it is somehow connected to Trump.

[Nige]

The DOJ has been investigating Hunter Biden for the last three years.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lmao

[Nige]

So you DON'T want him investigated? Make up your mind.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They aren’t investigating him, they are covering up for him just like how they bullied and threatened that laptop repair shop owner.

And all those super serious and trust worthy IC experts rushed out to declare the Biden laptop "Russian Disinfo".

[Nige]

Ah, so an investigation is a cover-up, so when you demand more investigations, you’re actually demanding more cover-ups!

[David Nieporent]

What "unwillingness"? It's been widely reported that DOJ is investigating Biden.

[Mr. Bumble]

That must be some file. Wonder what's in it?

[Sarcastr0]

New goalposts, again!

[OtisAH]

They don’t make ‘em like they use to…

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Investigating ways to not charge him and cover up his crimes.

[Nige]

Started by the Trump DOJ.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The premise is the DOJ acts in a partisan fashion based upon whose in office.

I agree with that partially. It definitely acts in a partisan manner.

[Nige]

So the investigation into Hunter Biden was politically motivated?

[MoreCurious]

There is a haunting similarity between you and Trump. He believes he can declassify documents simply by thinking about it. You believe you can turn nonsense into truth simply by thinking about it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What is the process by which a President must declassify something and who has the authority over the President to enforce it's compliance?

Any idea?

[Nige]

Neither has Trump.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So you have no clue you just know in your heart of hearts there must be one.

lmao

[Nige]

No, I don't care what process he claims he used - if he ever gets around to making a legal filing that he used one other than 'thinking' - without some sort of record he might as well just be lying his head off.

[wreckinball]

He did, apparently every president has but of course it's different this time because Trump!

J6 and BLM same thing. Whether you're breaking the law depends on your politics these days.

[Nige]

It's different this time because it's Trump! Who did different things. Even so, different things are the same!

[wreckinball]

But they are exactly the same. You need to step out of alternate reality sometimes.

[Nige]

Exactly the same except the many, many, endlessly repeated ways in which they are completely different. But also identical.

[wreckinball]

You're right it's different. Trump did not store the documents on an unsecure bathroom server and then destroy all the evidence and claim it was about wedding plans.

[Nige]

I thought they were exactly identical to all these things that didn’t really happen?

[DaveM]

Re: DeSantis sending illegal aliens to Martha’s Vineyard

Some say this is a political stunt and a misuse of funds. I agree. He should formalize the process, use busses instead of private jets, give advance notice, and put up advertisements in all the places where illegal aliens are being dumped by the feds, such as street corners, abandoned warehouses, and parking lots. Advertise the offer openly. “Do you want a free ride to a sanctuary city? Sign here, and climb aboard.”

Change my mind.

[wreckinball]

Nice plan!

[bernard11]

First of all, the people involved are not illegal aliens. Like it or not they are here legally.

Second, Martha’s Vineyard is not a sanctuary city by definition, since it's not a city at all.

Now get the rest of it straight.

[Commenter_XY]

Wait bernard11, they (the MV 50) are illegal aliens, but not detained. Isn't that actually the case? I mean, they were not given legal status (like legal resident alien), so they remain illegal aliens subject to immigration court proceedings, correct? Also...Isn't MA a proudly self-proclaimed sanctuary state?

Is it a deliberate act on the parts of Governors Abbott and DeSantis to dramatize the problem of illegal immigration? It sure is. I do not see the buses moving illegal aliens stopping anytime soon, whether it is Abbott, DeSantis, Adams (NYC mayor) or Biden facilitating the moving. As long as we have illegals coming across the border, the buses will continue. It is a new fact of life that sanctuary communities should consider, whether they like it or not. Sanctuary communities will be forced to live with their sanctuary policies. That is their new reality.

I see two things here. One, it embarrassed the MV virtue signalers, and people like that hate humiliation and public ridicule more than anything else. Two, sometimes it really is unpleasant when you are forced to live with the consequences of your stated policies. Maybe something good can come out of this. One can always hope.

[David Nieporent]

Wait bernard11, they (the MV 50) are illegal aliens, but not detained. Isn’t that actually the case?

No. These are asylum seekers. (I know it's an article of faith on the anti-immigrant right that asylum is just a scam and everyone who claims it (except Cubans) is really just an economic migrant. But regardless, it is not illegal to come here and apply for asylum, even if it's ultimately ruled that one is not entitled to it, which has not happened here.)

[bevis the lumberjack]

Truth be told, most of these folks are economic migrants.

[Commenter_XY]

Doesn't that status come from an actual proceeding = designation as a bona fide asylum seeker? Agree....the cases have not been adjudicated, so if they are asylum seekers, that has not been determined.

[Sarcastr0]

Doesn’t that status come from an actual proceeding = designation as a bona fide asylum seeker?

I don't believe there is not a presumption of illegality before review.

*certainly* these people are not 'illegal aliens, but not detained.'

[shawn_dude]

No. Asylum seeking and asylum granting are not the same thing. They need to request asylum to be "seeking," which some of them reportedly had done and already had hearings scheduled prior to being misdirected by DeSantis.

[Harvey Mosley]

At least two of them were self proclaimed "economic migrants" according to a story on the CNN website. So those two, even if they are asking for asylum, are illegal aliens. I wonder how many more are.

[shawn_dude]

I don't think this helps your case. At best, it shows that the Americans who lied to them and flew them to Martha's Vineyard didn't care whether they were legal asylum seekers or not. Some, apparently, were. What they wanted to do was get those brown people out of their state and make a dumb political point about sanctuary jurisdictions.

[bernard11]

One, it embarrassed the MV virtue signalers, and people like that hate humiliation and public ridicule more than anything else. Two, sometimes it really is unpleasant when you are forced to live with the consequences of your stated policies.

I don't buy either one of these.

There was zero humiliation and ridicule. The MV residents in fact rallied to support the unexpected visitors with assistance, food, clothing, whatever, and they were ultimately transported to housing on Cape Cod.

Plus, nobody here is saying they find the whole thing unpleasant. They are saying, correctly, that DeSantis is a jackass who lied to the migrants, refused to tell anyone they were coming, and generally treated them as no really human beings.

[Sarcastr0]

Come on, Commenter, these were a small number and were easily and enthusiastically welcomed. No one had to live with any consequences, other than some civil servants having a bit of a day.
FFS, it was the off season!

This backfired on DeSantis. And if you're clinging to it shaming those worthy, you haven't followed the actual story, just the increasingly desperate and force right-wing chortling.

[Bob from Ohio]

"enthusiastically welcomed"

And then enthusiastically sent under military guard to a NG base.

"This backfired on DeSantis."

We'll see.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You mean a place with resources and facilities for people?

[Sarcastr0]

Bob thinks the only real way to welcome people is let them stay where there are no jobs.

[Bob from Ohio]

"where there are no jobs."

They are not legally allowed to have jobs in the US.

[Sarcastr0]

You may apply for employment authorization 150 days after you file your asylum application.

[shawn_dude]

"Two, sometimes it really is unpleasant when you are forced to live with the consequences of your stated policies. "

Sanctuary jurisdictions become specifically to live with the consequences of that choice. More specifically, to ensure that any population of undocumented migrants doesn't become estranged from our laws and law enforcement in a way that makes them an easy target for criminals. With massive land borders along Mexico and Canada, plus the ease of flying in on a visitor visa and just never leaving, it's an impossible job to remove all undocumented immigrants. Cities still have to live with them and make sure they don't create larger problems. Further, it stops local governments from spending local resources on Federal criminal cases and shifts the burden back to the Feds where it belongs. Political posturing aside, sanctuary status has mostly practical benefits. So living with those "consequences" is entirely the point.

[Ben_]

"Second, Martha’s Vineyard is not a sanctuary city by definition, since it’s not a city at all."

Wow. This is just an awesome point. Bravo.

[OtisAH]

MV is also not a sanctuary city because there are 8 such places in Massachusetts and MV is not one of them.

[bernard11]

Hard to make awesome responses to completely idiotic statements.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No, he shouldn't. DeSantis doesn't have a dog in the hunt.

You can like or dislike what Abbott is doing, but at least he has an understandable and reasonable point. "You sanctuary people are encouraging heavy migration and that is putting enormous strain on us and our border communities. Let's share the load".

DeSantis doesn't have that. He's not being overwhelmed by migrants, unless Georgia is a problem. He had to borrow immigrants from San Antonio to pull his stunt, and he sent them to a place that hasn't been virtue signaling as a sanctuary. His actions hurt more than help. He's totally jumped the shark trying to be like Trump.

[David Nieporent]

He’s totally jumped the shark trying to be like Trump.

And the LOL factor is that Trump is upset that DeSantis stole his idea.

[wreckinball]

So what? Illegals spread all across the country so I imagine there are quite a few in FL. You should read MA's position on being a sanctuary. It's quite inviting.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It DeSantas had a bunch of migrants he wouldn’t have had to borrow from Texas. At first he seemed tolerable but he’s rendered himself unsupportable.

Just another guy broken by Trump. The guy poisons everything he touches.

[bernard11]

His other recent stunt is worse.

He has had twenty people arrested for voting illegally. These are ex-felons whose voting rights have not been restored.

The problem is that many of them checked their eligibility with their local registrars, and were told they could vote. Now that Republican darling wants to see them prosecuted.

He's a disgraceful human being.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also how he did it. At least one arrest involved an early morning raid from a SWAT team i.e. a life threatening situation given what we know about encounters like this. He risked lives over this. Authoritarian thuggery of the highest order.

[Jimmy the Dane]

It is "thuggery" only when the left deems it so. Otherwise, using federal power to abuse people participating in good faith in the democratic process is cool and alright.

Leftist chumps don't get to lecture anyone on any type of morality and the use power after BLM and the political prosecution of voting concern protesters.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No, its thuggery when you use legal violence against people for non-violence offenses generally, but here specifically when the tactic is used to bolster a career and intimidate others.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yeah keep whining. No one is listening to you at this point.

[grb]

No one – least of all you – refutes the point he made. DeSantas’ stunt was morally loathsome cartoon-grade behavior. But today’s Right abandoned policy & real political objectives at the same time they ditched their last shred of honesty. Everything is a stunt now; their only objective is cartoon entertainment.

This has been a long time developing. It started decades ago with talk radio, when conservatives enjoyed a few hours of content-free yucks every day. Then Fox delivered the same theatrics 24/7 for right-wing viewing pleasure, leading to the politicians themselves in competing for the same consumer base. Now the entire right-wing world is one non-stop reality-TV show, with phony hucksters in competition to deliver the most garish spectacle.

And no one in the entire conservative universe seems to have the slightest trace of integrity, honesty, or dignity left. Thus DeSantas.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You whine all the time, and people think you're a paranoid crank., Yet here you are anyway.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"Now the entire right-wing world is one non-stop reality-TV show, with phony hucksters in competition to deliver the most garish spectacle."

It really takes an extreme lack of self awareness to type something like this given the current state of any "news" channel, every major talk show, and the public face of many institutions.....

[Jimmy the Dane]

Huh....I thought illegal voting never happened.....

Are voting system is pristine and unable to be defrauded by people who are otherwise ineligible to participate. Or at least that was the line in 2021.....

How in the world did DeSatan find one let alone 20 people to charge?????

[LawTalkingGuy]

How in the world did DeSatan find one let alone 20 people to charge?????

Because his party and government made it difficult to make a final determination of what fines were owed and then confused officials told them they were eligible based on incomplete data. If you are manufacturing the circumstances to create a violation of the law, then you will find people to arrest.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So you don't expect people to follow the law except when they ought to follow the law, right? Looting, arson, and rioting is also illegal, but plenty of leftists seemed to think that was A OK.

You don't get to complain about the boot of authoritarianism when you also use it to kick the other side for purely political reasons.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There were actually a ton of prosecutions for 2020 protest activity. And also a lot of unnecessary police violence in those situations that was documented extensively.

[Bob from Ohio]

"ton of prosecutions"

There is a left leaning group called The Prosecution Project that has a spread sheet outlining the grand total of 1632 cases including just 367 federal cases in the entire country.

Compare that to over 600 cases [plus an ongoing manhunt] over 3 hours in DC.

[Jimmy the Dane]

No there wasn't. Most of those prosecutions were ultimately dropped, dismissed, or resulted in hugely disproportionately low sentences to even the most generous federal/state guidelines.

Stop lying. No one believes this stuff anymore. Just stop lying.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well Bob, maybe they shouldn't have livestreamed themselves going through an incredibly secure area and bragged about it afterwards.

[Sarcastr0]

Jimmy, just contradicting someone and then calling them a liar doesn't really make you correct.

Rather the opposite, really.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I called him a liar because he is a liar. Big difference.

[Bob from Ohio]

"His actions hurt more than help."

Hurt whom?

It got people taking about the immigration crisis in a way that the Abbott buses did not.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Because it got people talking about the stunt that is indefensible rather than the actual problem. MV did nothing to deserve for the migrants other than be made up of rich residents.

The spotlight should be on Abbott and the sanctuary cities.

That’s how it hurt. DeSantis hurt the effort to get something done.

[Jmaie]

[shawn_dude]

Even Abbott has no point there. If Sanctuary cities were encouraging migration then they'd be transiting through Texas to other places and not staying there. They wouldn't have to lie to them to get them on the busses *and* they'd already have known the MV wasn't a sanctuary city. The whole "encouraging migration" thing is B.S. They aren't leaving their homes and family and friends because some white liberal in San Francisco is saying they're welcome. They're leaving because shit is bad in their home town--so bad they're willing to cross multiple countries with dangerous criminals and pay outrageous fees to coyotes to just get to the US and their dream of a better life.

Migration places a burden on those communities in part because the state doesn't want them here so they don't do anything to make things better. But I'll agree that more immigration courts would be a necessary start and that's Federal.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Your premise is not rational. They’re not going through to the sanctuary cities because the sanctuary cities don’t want them. But they’re plenty easy to offer phony sanctuary, which encourages people to come because sanctuary is available.

And saying “Texas wouldn’t be burdened if Texas would just spend more” is terminally stupid.

I don’t like Abbott at all, but telling the sanctuary cities to put up or shut up is not unreasonable.

[shawn_dude]

My premise is that sanctuary cities aren't why people migrate to the US and your quote of Abbot claiming they are is illogical and unsupported. Your comment that sanctuary cities "offer phony sanctuary" suggests that you don't even know what is meant by "sanctuary" in this context. Sanctuary here just means the local government will ignore your immigration status in most circumstances and treat you like any other citizen. That's it. Nothing more complicated than that. It's a practical choice that enhances public safety and reduces waste of local taxes.

"...telling the sanctuary cities to put up or shut up is not unreasonable." No, it's not; it's nonsensical. It signifies a complete and likely intentional misunderstanding of what "sanctuary" means in this context. It's misinformation for the sake of political grandstanding on the backs of some of the poorest people in the country. It's shameful and immoral.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I would send them to every single democrat party enclave in the United States, especially if they all have that "stand with immigrants" sign.

[Bob from Ohio]

His only mistake was sending 48. Need to send at least 500.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Classic Bob. "The real problem is he didn't behave immorally to people enough! Lie and trick more people and strand them! The innate dignity of humans doesn't matter!"

[Bob from Ohio]

Nothing "immoral" about the trip. Free airplane trip to a nice vacation site, no cartel thugs extorting them. Housing at government expense on a military base.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lying and tricking people is immoral, Bob. But you know that.

"a nice vacation site"

A vacation site during the off season is not a great place for people to find work and social services.

Also sending a videographer to film them, including children, like it was an episode of Punk'd is pretty sick stuff. Do you condone that?

[Bob from Ohio]

"great place for people to find work "

They aren't legally allowed to work.

A video too. OMG, the horror

[LawTalkingGuy]

A video too. OMG, the horror."

Yeah videoing nonconsenting children and their families in an emotionally tense situation is gross. You wouldn't want it done to you or your family.

If I was a worse person and a right-winger I'd probably call you a pedo or a groomer for defending filming kids like that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your statements concerning these asylum-seekers persuades me that the Jesus you claim to worship is a real piece of shit, Bob from Ohio.

An illusory piece of shit. A silly fairy tale suitable solely for especially gullible, ignorant children of all ages.

That's your god.

And this is why the liberal-libertarian mainstream has been kicking the crap out of bigots like you for more than a half-century in the glorious culture war; why your betters should and will replace you soon enough; and why our nation will be better off for that replacement.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The town has more than a million bucks in the bank and 100 empty rooms just on Air BnB. There was plenty of space and funding for those immigrants. There is a difference between "having" and "wanting"......

Here these leftists were more than happy to put up yard signs, but when the rubber hit the road they literally called in the National Guard.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The National Guard has experience providing rapid emergency services to large groups of people in need.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You would think that all those people with all those supportive signs would have also been prepping for the eventuality they might also need to provide aid and assistance.....

You mean they didn't? It was all just virtue signaling?

They didn't even want to spend any money on those immigrants or house them temporarily. Hence the quick deporting to an ill prepared military base. But deporting immigrants is cool and acceptable when they end up in the "wrong" place, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, asshole. You can't support immigrants unless you're continually prepped and excited about taking one of them personally.

No one really believes that, not even you.

DeSantis thought more people would share that mindset, and thus this wouldn't backfire. Didn't go well for him.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The only people who didn't find it back slapping funny were the leftists who are now worried more immigrants will show up in their backyards.

"We didn't mean for those people to come here!!!!!!"

[Randal]

Hm that's a pretty sick thing to say. Fortunately you're wrong. DeSantis even knows he overstepped -- he cancelled the sequels. They're backing off and regrouping.

For the record I think giving immigrants free trips to places that they actually want to go is a great idea. But kidnapping them under false pretenses and abandoning them on an ill-equipped island after a "back-slappingly funny" photo op is, well, evil.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"Now the entire right-wing world is one non-stop reality-TV show, with phony hucksters in competition to deliver the most garish spectacle."

Only the left would be able to cast themselves as the victim in a scenario such as this. A wealthy island of white people can't handle an influx of 50 people in need, white liberals nonetheless that espouse the virtues of immigration. Instead they call in the National Guard to deport the immigrants and then plead "we are the victims!!!!!"

This is why the modern left is nothing but a joke.

[Randal]

Ha ha snort! Good try trying to use the "cast themselves as the victim" attack against the left.

The qoute you quoted points out that the modern right consists of a sack of evil freaks trying to outdo each other on TV. That in no way casts the left as the victims, unless you mean how we're being forced to watch the horrors that unfold. That would be true, but not what I think you mean by victim.

No, the left has been clear that the 50 assylum seekers are the victims. Obviously.

Nice try though, pretty funny. But it's the right that plays the victim card in every situation. Even here, they're claiming they're doing the immigrants a favor, and doing it in order to shine a light on the terrible situation befalling their poor old red states... i.e. casting themselves as the victims of Biden's immigration policies.

Pretty pathetic Jimmy!

[Jimmy the Dane]

So which side of the coin is it today?

America, especially the South, run by those nasty Republicans, is racist and a white supremacist hell hole that no minority would ever want to live,

OR,

Immigrants ought to have all these rights and free stuff, but only if paid for by "those" people and far from our white liberal vacation house enclaves.....

If you want a nasty, immoral action it is calling the National Guard to deport poor refugees that you supposedly support and use as a political football when you have more than enough space and money to take care of them while things get figured out.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"Sure, asshole. You can’t support immigrants unless you’re continually prepped and excited about taking one of them personally."

So just empty virtue signaling by white elite liberals living on a primarily white elite island. Got it. When their virtue was actually tested the cried uncle in 12 hours and called in the National Guard. And now we are supposed to listen to their lectures on morality????

Don't you have some more children to chemically castrate or mutilate surgically?

[Randal]

You seem to be in some kind of right-wing fever dream and I can barely understand you.

Undocumented immigrants should be detained while their cases progress, for the most part. But Congress hasn't paid for it. So they get released. Nobody is happy about that (except maybe for the immigrants).

That has nothing to do with sanctuary cities or Martha's Vineyard. I think giving immigrants a free bus ride to somewhere they actually want to go without being tricked is a great idea. They don't want to go to Martha's Vineyard.

As far as I can tell, your beef is with Congress and the left agrees with you. So what the f are you on about?

[Sarcastr0]

These are human beings that you treating like tools of your spite.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Huh like the voting rights protesters that are sitting in DC jail, right? You have little like concern for their well being. In fact, it is a routine joke among the left to mock and laugh at their situation. You treat people like that on the right and expect them to care?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well I do care actually which is why I think pretrial detention should be severely restricted and jail conditions vastly improved. Don't you?

[Sarcastr0]

LTG is right – our pretrial system is awful, and that applies as much to the J6 defendants as to anyone else.

But I’m not into special pleading, and don’t expect yutzes like you will be into reforming the system. You all just cry about *your faction*’s victimhood to deflect from their sociopathic treatment of asylum seekers.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Let’s assume all January 6th charges are bullshit.

American conservatives cheered the creation of a system where police and prosecutors can make your life hell over bullshit and judges defer to them on issues of detention and public safety. Efforts at accountability for cops and prosecutors were (and are) denounced by conservatives .

It worked great as long as the people being arrested and detained (or killed) for minor crimes or no crime at all weren’t like them.

And then one day, people like them pissed off the wrong group of cops and prosecutors over some bullshit. And the system they built sprung into action.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"Let’s assume all January 6th charges are bullshit."

You do not have to assume. They are.

[Nige]

Yes, they too were tools of your spite.

[Randal]

Who's mocking and laughing at their situation? We're all waiting for you guys to get on board with police and criminal justice reform, now that it's impacting someone that you care about.

[Bob from Ohio]

"treating like tools"

They should have stayed in their home countries instead of falsely claiming persecution to get into the US.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh because someone did something wrong that means you can behave immorally to them in your eyes? That their innate human dignity evaporates?

Serious question: do you treat people like this in your personal life? When someone aggrieves you, do you treat it as a greenlight to do any manner of bad things to them? Do you have any respect for anyone's innate humanity?

[Bob from Ohio]

Nothing immoral was done to them.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lying and tricking people with false promises isn't immoral?

Also another admission by silence on pointed questions. Your wonderful character always shines through here.

[Sarcastr0]

You want to use more of them as tools in some political spite game of yours. You aren't thinking of them as human. Seeking asylum doesn't mean they're not people.

It's awful. You're being awful.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The funny thing is you are trying to make a moral judgement value. And, the even funnier thing is you don't even know why that is funny.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Awful people tend to think deep down everyone is actually as awful as they are. So they tend to think it’s funny when other people make genuinely felt moral judgments of human conduct because such a thing is an absurdity to them.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Thanks for proving my point. I didn't know it was possible, but you indeed made it even funnier.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. Again, you think it’s funny people are actually moral. Because you’re awful.

[Sarcastr0]

"I'm not mad, I'm actually laughing, this is totally funny to me, you're the one that's mad."

[shawn_dude]

Remember when the right-wingers were yelling "socialists" and pointing to Venezuela as an example for how bad things can get if "socialists" are in charge?

And now we have Venezuelans fleeing to the US to get away from that awful government and it's "falsely claiming persecution."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They don't get to be Republicans or conservatives with sound judgment, adequate education, decent character, or a tether to the reality-based world.

[Darth Buckeye]

It would be legit to tell these immigrants that there will be more government funds and resources to help them in Mass, Ill, and NY. Government officials in these states may have panicked, but the citizens stepped up and helped the immigrants relocated.

[bernard11]

It would be fine to explain to them, honestly, what the situation is wherever, and offer them free transportation, and also tell someone they were coming.

DeSantis did none of that.

Oh. BTW, have Abbott and DeSantis gone to Congress and asked for funds to help deal with the migrants coming in? Seems like a logical thing to do.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Using underhanded tactics to transport undesirable people from one place to another? Definitely no horrifying parallels to that move in American or European history!

[Jimmy the Dane]

A libertarian might call it "foot voting"....

[LawTalkingGuy]

Again with the menacing ellipses.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Oh Jesus. Here comes the Nazi bullshit. You’re such a politicized fool. We’re the migrants gassed when they got off the plane? Were they forced to do slave labor?

DeSantis was wrong. But you’re still a jackass who can’t make a single point without extreme hyperbole.

[shawn_dude]

Because one has to reach all the way to Nazi Germany? Or maybe just the Native Americans in the Trail of Tears or the Mormon migration, or even Nevada bussing homeless people to San Francisco as a more recent example.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I was actually thinking more about Natives. But since you brought up the Nazis, take note that early Nazi efforts at getting Jews out of Germany didn’t involve either gassing or slave labor.

[bevis the lumberjack]

How about FDR? Were you think about him?

And you’re absolutely wrong about slave labor and the Nazis. Dachau was opened about six weeks after Hitler took power. It was built by the inmates, who were serving as slave labor. Slave labor was a part of the Nazi’s effort to get rid of the Jews from day 1.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Early dachau prisoners were political prisoners. Jewish internment wasn’t widespread until post Kristallnacht. Early Nazi policy focused on encouraging emigration through making life miserable for Jews.

And yes FDR also sucks for interning Japanese people?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sure. Congress can’t agree on when to take a piss break. I’m sure asking for this will be something they hop right on.

And as I said, DeSantis doesn’t have skin in the game. He needs to butt out. Texas and Arizona are the affected parties.

And down here the media is saying the the people in the buses that Abbott is sending have signed em waivers agreeing to the transfer. Hope that’s true.

[shawn_dude]

They lied about where they were going. They gave them false brochures full of B.S. But somehow those waivers are going to be on the up-and-up? That they signed them fully understanding what they meant?

Those waivers are nothing but another part of the stunt.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re talking about DeSantis. You’re so goddamn inclined to argue that you’re arguing with me about something on which we agree.

[shawn_dude]

Again, you said Abbot is having them sign waivers. Abbot's busses are no less a stunt and no more trustworthy.

[Michael P]

"Fat" Leonard Glenn Francis was caught after skipping pre-sentencing house arrest: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62976844.amp

He had crossed the US border into Mexico, flown through Cuba to Venezuela, and was caught in (a suburb of) Caracas trying to board a flight to Russia.

[John F. Carr]

Back to be sentenced without any discount for pleading guilty or cooperating.

[John F. Carr]

Associated Press points out getting him extradited from a hostile country may be difficult. Also, his defense lawyers want off the case.

https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-arrests-california-united-states-577813b7045b7f220c71e460b34af4de

There has already been talk of allowing Venezuela to sell oil to make up for loss of Russian supply. Fat Leonard could be part of a deal to ease sanctions.

[ah....Clem]

This just in: a majority of Republicans do not believe in the first amendment:

“Most Republicans in every age group favor designating the U.S. a Christian nation, but even more so in older generations. Fully 71 percent of Silent Generation Republicans and 72 percent of Republican baby boomers would like to see the U.S. officially declared a Christian nation…”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/21/most-republicans-support-declaring-the-united-states-a-christian-nation-00057736

[Jimmy the Dane]

If we were a Christian Nation, we probably wouldn't have a lot of our current problems....

[Martinned]

They should do a TV show about that idea!

[SRG]

If we were a Christian nation, that is to say, one that follows the teachings of Jesus, then hypocrisy would be viewed gravely, there would be a very strong social safety net, capitalism would be frowned upon (look at the Sermon on the Mount) and abortion would be ok.

But when people talk about making this a Christian nation, what they are talking about is a form of tribal "Christianity" bearing little relationship to anything that ascetic Jewish preacher was talking about.

It does mean not only imposing a theocracy, it also means discrimination against non-Christians.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You have absolutely no idea what is the Christian religion, do you? It is funny to hear such ignorance but if all that you ever learned about Christianity was from an atheist professor and NPR, not surprising result.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I learned about Christianity from years of Catholic schooling (including altar serving), and took Church history classes from a devout Protestant in college. I'm pretty sure SRG's conception of Christianity vs its American practice is more right than wrong. (Wrong on the abortion part...right about most everything else)

[SRG]

Thanks!

Wrong on the abortion part…right about most everything else
But...Jesus never said anything about abortion, and there's no reason to think his view was any different from Jewish orthodoxy which was that a fetus was a limb of the mother, not a separate soul, until birth. (That's why the biblical penalty for causing a miscarriage was a civil fine paid to the expectant father, which is very different from that for manslaughter or murder.)

IIRC abortion became prohibited within one of the Christian sects at the turn of 1C/2C.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don't think we can entirely discount all later theological views as non-Christian and I think the Christian ethics that developed over time don't necessarily permit abortion (which doesn't mean they couldn't or that even if they did, it should be illegal under civil authority). But it might be an arguable issue, so I might have overreached when I said you were wrong.

[SRG]

We all overreach!

Later theological views were certainly Christian in the sense of forming part of the various churches, and there's of course no doubt that eventually abortion was deemed a sin by almost all denominations. It is, however, notable that Jesus said not a word.
Though his saying "do not murder" is often taken to include abortion, one has to adopt an originalist reading (lol) and consider that at the time Jesus was reported to have said that, abortion wouldn't have been understood to have been included. The Mishnah permitted the execution of a pregnant woman until the point where the greater part of the baby's head had emerged.

But regardless, the larger point is, what is the Christian element of a "Christian nation"? Is it what the sundry sects that account themselves Christian regard it to be? If so, are Mormons Christian, for example? The Mormons think they are, while there are some Protestant groups who deny that the Catholics are Christians. Or are there some basic principles from Jesus's own words which are the minimum requirements to be adjudged Christian - even if those principles are not always followed?

Meanwhile, from the Treaty of Tripoli, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" - as ratified by Americans there at the founding of the country, and I think they'd know.

[SRG]

I've actually read the New Testament. You should try it sometime.

As I joked to a rabbi friend of mine recently, Christians don't "get" Jesus.

Of course, there's a divergence between what Jesus actually taught (as claimed in the NT), and what the various sects of Christianity taught. Hypocrisy was a big deal to Jesus. It appears to be a sacrament in modern Christianity.

[LawTalkingGuy]

One really telling moment on the issue of right-wing Christians using it as a tribal aesthetic was when Lauren Boebert said: “On Twitter, a lot of the little Twitter trolls, they like to say, ‘Oh, Jesus didn’t need an AR-15, how many AR-15s do you think Jesus would’ve had?” Well, he didn’t have enough to keep his government from killing him.”

Like its one thing to not live up to the social teachings, most people fail at that in most religions. But its another thing entirely to get the most basic premise of the religion completely wrong. The entire point of worshipping Jesus is because he was God who became man and willingly sacrificed his life to save others from sin. It's the most basic thing in the entire religion. It's why Christianity is Christianity and Jesus wasn't simply an influential first century Jewish thinker.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You do understand that the entirety of Christianity is far from just "Jesus" right? I don't think you get the whole concept at all. Takes more than just reading a little.....

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well, sure if you’re just going to stereotype people you don’t know.

You’re conflating the political Christians with the vast majority who aren’t. But if it helps you feel superior, I’m not gonna try to explain it to you.

[Randal]

He didn't say "Christians." He said "right-wing Christians using it as a tribal aesthetic."

I'm sure we all know a lot of normal Christians who aren't right-wing and who would absolutely never say what Lauren Boebert said or that the US should be a Christian nation.

Which sort of Christian do you think lands closer to the original meaning of the text?

[Sarcastr0]

You have absolutely no idea what is the Christian religion, do you?

I know enough to know you are one of the worse advocates for that faith I've ever seen.

[Jimmy the Dane]

That is a real zinger there. Is that all you got at 5pm? What happened? Ran out of gas? (I mean Biden Gas at $5/gallon it is really expensive so maybe that is what happened….)

[LawTalkingGuy]

"..."

Just say Jews, this is taking forever!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The Supreme Court did that in 1892.

Then in circa 1952 they dialed it down by saying merely that our “institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

I guess the next step is to dial it down even further by saying our institutions are based on the twin principles of “be excellent to each other” and “party on, dudes.”

[Nige]

Could do a lot worse.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Depends on the definition of "party," I suppose.

[shawn_dude]

“be excellent to each other” is just another way of saying the "golden rule," is it not?

If you subtract the endless tediousness of the begats, the raunchy sex and violence, the lists of people to kill in the name of God, and all the crazy holiness rules, the Bible just boils down to "don't be a dick."

[SRG]

It is said that a gentile approached the great rabbi Hillel and asked him to explain the entirety of the Torah while standing on one leg. Hillel responded, "that which is hateful to you, do not do to others, all the rest is commentary".

[shawn_dude]

Shana Tova.

[bevis the lumberjack]

If it’s any comfort Clem, the Democrats don’t believe in the first amendment either.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing like these numbers, with such a stark survey question.

Though I do take opinion polls with a grain of salt. Still, such a strong response is quite a thing to see.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Nah, just the most powerful guy in the government.

[shawn_dude]

The Democrats don't believe the freedom of religion clause is a free pass to do whatever you want to whomever you want in the name of your gods. It may be old fashioned, but the same laws should apply to everyone equally, regardless of one's religious choices.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I agree. So should the speech part of the 1A, which the Democrats have a real problem with.

[shawn_dude]

Oh?

[Commenter_XY]

Question for the employment law lawyers: Can an employee be fired for declining to sign a company DIB statement?

[David Nieporent]

Nobody can answer that without knowing what state you're talking about, and even then, the answer is likely to be "it depends." Like, what is the context of the statement? How is it being used? Is the employee claiming that it violates his religious beliefs, or just that he doesn't want to sign it?

[Commenter_XY]

NY (or NJ)

Requirement that employees sign a DIB statement endorsing specific DIB statements, attitudes and beliefs, along with compulsory DIB training. Employees who decline the compulsory training or decline to sign the DIB statement are terminated. There are no exceptions.

Assume for the purposes of my question, the claim is the DIB statements violate the employee's freedom of conscience, and personal beliefs and ethics. Not religious beliefs.

[OtisAH]

If it’s at-will employment and participating in the training and signing the statement is a requirement of employment my guess is “yes they can be terminated.” And unless “non-religious freedom of conscience, personal beliefs, and ethics” — which in context is… something — are protected by the law, my guess in that regard is the same.

[David Nieporent]

This isn't a formal legal opinion, but based on the fact pattern you describe, I do not believe that the employees in your hypothetical would have any legal recourse. (Assuming, of course, that they did not have employment contracts or were not union members protected by a collective bargaining agreement.)

Even the states that do provide some employment protection for employee political speech, as far as I can tell, only protect against an employer penalizing an employee for his (mostly off-the-job) speech; they don't protect against compelled speech.

[Commenter_XY]

David, thx for the (not a formal legal opinion) response. 🙂

Truthfully, I had a feeling that what you said would be the case = no legal recourse.

[Ed Grinberg]

I think I remember seeing a post by Prof. Volokh saying that, at least in some jurisdictions, the employer is prohibited from engaging in “political discrimination” against the employee. It is at least arguable that such statements are political. So, in the relevant jurisdictions, the answer would be “No.” (FWIW, I’d get rid of such “employee protections.” AFAIC, the government should not interfere in the employer / employee relationship.)

[shawn_dude]

Indentured servitude, here we come!

[M L]

The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, has published a report suggesting that COVID may have originated in an American lab. (The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic). This has angered political and medical establishment voices, prompting accusations.

Curiously, the chorus of denunciations began sooner than the media outlets would have had time to read carefully read the lengthy report (e.g. Daily Mail "Fury as The Lancet sensationally claims Covid may have leaked from an AMERICAN lab - echoing anti-western claims peddled by Beijing"). They also somewhat mischaracterize the report, which only noted in passing that natural origin and lab origin are both possible, and further, that if it originated in a lab the particular source is unknown, but also that both Chinese and American researchers were conducting viral bioengineering work of a closely related nature.

However Jeffrey Sachs, chair of The Lancet’s commission on COVID, had previously published an article in highly respected journal PNAS arguing the stronger claim that it’s not just possible, but highly likely that COVID originated in a lab, and the alternative natural origin is very low probability. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2202769119

He also believes it came from a US lab. Here is Sachs talking about it: https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1543259218995687424

“I chaired the commission for the Lancet for 2 years on Covid. I’m pretty convinced it came out of a US lab of biotechnology […] We don’t know for sure but there is enough evidence. [However] it’s not being investigated, not in the US, not anywhere.”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"highly respected journal PNAS"

Huh-huh-huh, huh-huh, they said PNAS.

[Nige]

How come you don't link to the report in The Lancet?

'The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, has published a report suggesting that COVID may have originated in an American lab'

'They also somewhat mischaracterize the report, which only noted in passing that natural origin and lab origin are both possible,'

Oh, so just a passing comment that we don't know what the origin was, there are two incredibly broad and unproven possibilities. Conclusive!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Whatever it is, we better close our eyes and not look at the source because it might implicate the elites that higher up then us in the power hierarchy!

*licks boot*

Sincerely,
Nige

[Nige]

'Whatever you want to believe must be true, else thou'rt a licker of boots.'

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dude, you worship the State. As if it wasn't just a bunch of unaccountable dumbasses who get off ruling others and hurting people as much as possible.

You love your government masters.

[Nige]

Dude you worship Trump. Lol.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

you have a literal king who rules over you and your country,
lmao

[Nige]

Oof, swing and a miss.

[M L]

"How come you don’t link to the report in The Lancet?"

Because the commenting software blocks your comment if you include more than two links. I provided the title of the document so that you could find it easily.

"Oh, so just a passing comment that we don’t know what the origin was, there are two incredibly broad and unproven possibilities. Conclusive!"

Right, that's what I said. If you followed the point, what is odd was the hair trigger overreaction. As another example, Foreign Policy denounced the report as "pushing" "dangerous and unsupported" "conspiracy theories" ! And again this was published immediately, simultaneous with the rest of the chorus. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/15/conspiracy-theories-covid-19-commission/

Maybe they doth protest too much. But the background of the prior report by Sachs provides context. Anyway, quite likely that COVID originated in a lab. Where, who, why -- I have no idea. Could be anything from an accident to an ill-advised biowarfare attack.

The Vanity Fair investigative report long ago made it clear that officials were resisting any inquiry because it could "open a can of worms."

[Nige]

It's just that not linking to the Lancet Report you're referring to while linking to two other articles instead is a bit odd.

'Anyway, quite likely that COVID originated in a lab'

No, it's POSSIBLE it originated in a lab, the likelihood varies depending on who you're talking to, but either way remains unproven.

[M L]

Fair - my first comment was blocked so I had to delete links. Hopefully that makes more sense now. The Lancet report is an easier to find one, but for everyone's convenience here it is:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01585-9/fulltext

"either way remains unproven"

And probably will remain that way forever, I'd guess, even if evidence mounts higher.

[M L]

This is the most comprehensive and scholarly report on the subject of COVID to date, by the way. Around 50,000 words, and 499 footnotes. Careful and meticulous all around.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The Lancet, ground zero for the anti-vac movement has pissed away their highly respected status.

But sure, it started in a US lab. That’s how it showed up in China first.

[M L]

My thoughts exactly. How did it come from a US lab if it started in Wuhan China? An intentional biowarfare attack seems terrible to contemplate. But I think maybe Sachs means to say that the Wuhan lab was picking up on research work that had started in a US lab (and was then continued in Wuhan with US funding and some US researchers).

[Sarcastr0]

As of the time of publication of this report, all three research-associated hypotheses are still plausible: infection in the field, infection with a natural virus in the laboratory, and infection with a manipulated virus in the laboratory. No independent, transparent, and science-based investigation has been carried out regarding the bioengineering of SARS-like viruses that was underway before the outbreak of COVID-19. The laboratory notebooks, databases, email records, and samples of institutions involved in such research have not been made available to independent researchers. Independent researchers have not yet investigated the US laboratories engaged in the laboratory manipulation of SARS-CoV-like viruses, nor have they investigated the details of the laboratory research that had been underway in Wuhan. Moreover, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has resisted disclosing details of the research on SARS-CoV-related viruses that it had been supporting, providing extensively redacted information only as required by Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.

Your appeal to authority aside, this not very impressive. Not really research at all, in fact; more speculation.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"Letter Surfaces of Obama Foundation Admitting in 2018 They Keep Classified Documents in Unsecured Storage at Furniture Warehouse"

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/09/21/letter-surfaces-of-obama-foundation-admitting-in-2018-they-keep-classified-documents-in-unsecured-storage-at-furniture-warehouse/

Weird, no Democrat FBI raids or Democrat NARA complaints.

So weird.

[David Nieporent]

Because you're lying, which is all you ever do. NARA, not the Obama Foundation, controlled that warehouse, and nothing in that letter "admits" otherwise.

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "controlled".

[Nige]

'Were in charge of it and responsible for it in every possible way.'

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "in charge". Were agents of NARA on site?

[Nige]

You never bothered to check before posting lies about Obama? Shame on you.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'll be the first to admit that these threads can get confusing, but what "lies" did I post about Obama?

[Nige]

Oops, mixed you up with BDC, sorry.

But I don’t think there’s any definition of ‘in charge’ that’s going to magically put those documents in Obama’s posession when he wasn’t supposed to have them, such that the FBI needed a warrant to retrieve them.

[M L]

NARA and the Obama foundation are united in the political establishment against Trump and Americans.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Imagine being at the point where you seriously start claiming that freaking archivists are in a league against Trump. There is no profession or organization that ultimately won't be in league against him will there? He's going to live to be 100 and die peacefully in hospice care and you're going to be claiming the nurses were in a league against Trump.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If NARA controlled Hoffman Estates then why do they use language like "move ... records and artifacts from Hoffman Estates to NARA-controlled facilities that conform to the agency's archival storage."?

You're saying NARA controlled Hoffman Estates?

That sounds like a whole-cloth invention of yours.

[David Nieporent]

If NARA controlled Hoffman Estates then why do they use language like “move … records and artifacts from Hoffman Estates to NARA-controlled facilities that conform to the agency’s archival storage.”?

The obvious answer is because Hoffman Estates is a temporary storage facility that does not "conform to the agency’s archival storage."

You’re saying NARA controlled Hoffman Estates?

That sounds like a whole-cloth invention of yours.

Except I posted links to that effect.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You posted a link that said am abandoned Sears warehouse, which is what the Hoffman Estates are was an NARA controlled facility?

And you think it makes sense for NARA to negotiate with the Obama Foundation to negotiate transporting items from one NARA facility to another NARA facility?

[David Nieporent]

You posted a link that said am abandoned Sears warehouse, which is what the Hoffman Estates are was an NARA controlled facility?

It wasn't a Sears — even the small things you get wrong — but yes, I did. In Wednesday's thread about the 11th circuit's ruling:

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20220803/hoffman-estates-allows-obama-library-archives-to-stay-for-four-more-years

While no firm date has been announced for the completion and opening of the Barack Obama Presidential Library near the University of Chicago, its future contents will stay in Hoffman Estates for four more years.

Village board members unanimously approved an extension to the special-use permit that enables landlord Hoffman Estates Medical Development LLC to lease the 74,200-square-foot former Plunkett Furniture store at 2500 W. Golf Road to the National Archives and Records Administration through Dec. 31, 2026.

Here's one from years earlier (2016), when the property was first secured by the government:

The space at 2500 W. Golf Road was leased in February by the General Services Administration. Village officials are expected to consider a special use permit for the project, which has the backing of Mayor Bill McLeod, in July. Work at the location could start as soon as October.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/obama-center/ct-obama-archives-to-hoffman-estates-20160531-story.html

[Michael P]

Numbered item 1 implicitly disagrees with both of your claims: It says that the Obama Foundation agrees to digitize the unclassified records there, and separately to digitize unclassified items that were transferred to NARA's custody. If NARA controls the warehouse, the natural way to express that would be shorter and simpler.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey, how's the search for the Dobb's leaker going?

[Mr. Bumble]

Leader of the free world? pic.twitter.com/woOtEnEI6h

Has Biden been replaced with an animatronic president from Disney?

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

On my mind: farewell to the great PROFESSOR SAUL KRIPKE (Princeton), one of the very few people who really understood Wittgenstein and the arguments about meaning, language, symbol, and reference which we all argued about so passionately, back in the day. (He died a week ago, but I just found out yesterday.)

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

[M L]

True or False:

Destroying or "bleaching" the data on hard drives that are under subpoena (as Clinton did) would be fairly analogous to burning documents in a burn barrel behind Mar-a-Lago (which Trump did not do, just a hypothetical).

To be perfectly clear--two wrongs don't make a right. If one person did something wrong, this does not excuse another person doing something wrong. "But she did it first!" is a bad legal defense.

Nonetheless -- is this analogy reasonable, why or why not?

[Nige]

They weren't under subpoena when they were wiped.

The Bush administration 'lost' 22 million emails. They'd been using multiple private servers, one run by the RNC.

Trump was known to tear up government documents and flush them down the toilet. He and his family used insecure phone and email communications all the time while in the White House.

Frankly, the more you compare them, the less significant any alleged wrong-doing by Clinton becomes.

[M L]

"They weren’t under subpoena when they were wiped."

Wrong. They were.

"Trump was known to tear up government documents and flush them down the toilet."

Only newspaper articles and inconsequential things, nothing classified or important: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/former-trump-white-house-lawyer-100009399.html

"Frankly, the more you compare them, the less significant any alleged wrong-doing by Clinton becomes."

I agree the more you compare the real events, the more unalike they seem. Trump did NOT burn the documents in a burn barrel behind Mar-a-Lago, whereas Clinton DID destroy the hard drive data!

This was a good one, too:

CNN Fact Check Confirms Clinton Aide Destroyed Mobile Devices With Hammers https://freebeacon.com/national-security/cnn-fact-check-confirms-clinton-aides-destroyed-mobile-devices-hammers/

[Nige]

The emails were as inconsequential as you claim Trump's flushed documents were, and, of course, the issue is that Trump held onto documents, many of them marked classified, to which he was not entitled, something which has resulted in other people going to jail.

[shawn_dude]

Nefarious intent aside, if one used devices as part of a legitimate activity that contained legal, sensitive information, one would only be acting responsibly by destroying the hard drives and other data-holding devices beyond repair when finished. This is just SOP.

The bottom line is that Clinton's actions all hinge on intent. At best, you show she showed poor, but common judgement in her use of a private email server. She ordered the destruction of the hard drives before anyone brought up the server as an issue. This has all been hashed to death, of course, but it boils down to intent. If you're looking for a discussion on why Trump is in so much trouble over the documents he held illegally, it gets to intent for him as well. The issue for Trump is that intent is much, much easier to prove given the series of events and condition of the documents.

[David Nieporent]

True or False:

Destroying or “bleaching” the data on hard drives that are under subpoena (as Clinton did) would be fairly analogous to burning documents in a burn barrel behind Mar-a-Lago (which Trump did not do, just a hypothetical).

That sounds true, except for the first parenthetical. At no point were Clinton's "hard drives" under subpoena. The subpoena was for work-related documents.

If one gets a subpoena for a particular category of document, one is required to turn over documents in that category. One is not required to preserve all other documents in one's possession just in case someone later says, "Hey, there could have been responsive documents in there."

If I get a subpoena requiring me to turn over all of my law firm's financial records, I am required to turn over all of those records (subject to any attorney-client privilege). That doesn't mean I'm doing something wrong if I clean out my garage and toss out boxes of personal financial records.

[Michael P]

But if you have a filing cabinet full of records from your finance department, and you get a subpoena for finance documents, you can't just turn over things that say "finance" and burn everything else from that filing cabinet (which is approximately what Clinton's lawyers did).

[Brett Bellmore]

"That sounds true, except for the first parenthetical. At no point were Clinton’s “hard drives” under subpoena. The subpoena was for work-related documents."

That's got to be the stupidest argument I've heard here in a while. And some of the work related documents were on that server. It was confirmed, when they found the other end of some email chains.

And that's what you should reasonably have expected.

If I'm asked for certain information from my account book, and I hand over some photocopied pages and burn the book, literally no sane person is going to think I burned nothing relevant; The only purpose for burning the book is so that nobody could check to see that I'd actually complied!

[David Nieporent]

If I’m asked for certain information from my account book, and I hand over some photocopied pages and burn the book, literally no sane person is going to think I burned nothing relevant; The only purpose for burning the book is so that nobody could check to see that I’d actually complied!

Brett, the question isn't what conspiracy-minded people "think." The question is what you are allowed/required to do.

But of course your analogy isn't analogous anyway; an "account book" presumably only contains accounting information, so most of the information contained therein is likely to be responsive. A computer hard drive is likely to contain tons and tons of unrelated and irrelevant documents. I have a 1 TB drive in my laptop; it contains music and photos and personal email and work email and personal finances and work finances…

[Randal]

Who cares? Hillary was almost prosecuted. She was denied the presidency. But she was never charged, because they didn't think they could prove intent.

Trump has also not been charged, and I doubt he will be. If he is, then the only difference will be that they were able to put together a case with a higher chance of success.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Others have pointed out the error in your first parenthetical. Clinton didn't destroy data on hard drives [which data] was under subpoena, she gave the order to wipe the hard drives after producing all relevant emails to the House committee (I believe or whoever) requesting them and prior to the subpoena. The order wasn't executed until after the subpoena, but, by all accounts, it was a tech worker realizing he hadn't yet done what he was supposed to do without knowledge of the subpoena. (You're undoubtedly skeptical and I don't uncritically accept the assertion, but much in the same way I don't uncritically accept the claims by Kushner, Manafort, Junior, and a Russian agent that they just talked about adoptions despite the text agenda being collusion but accept we don't have contrary evidence (other than the fact that Russia did later distribute stolen email that was embarrassing to the DNC and hurt Hillary's campaign). There are things you can prove and things you can't. I try to be honest in those circumstances regardless of the party. I hope you do.)

Another problem with the analogy is that email on a hard drive are duplicates, meaning you have to delete an email from your own account and whoever either sent it to you or received it from you (plus any forwards, etc.). Whereas the document Trump wrongfully held onto and, it would appear, had his attorney lie about in response to a subpoena, were original copies that did not belong to him.

Furthermore, the analogy bears no relation to the problem at issue in the Trump case.

Although, to be fair, given empty folders indicating they previously contained classified documents, it would seem to be an open question as to whether the documents presumably in those folders found their way back to their rightful home, are still being held by Trump somewhere else, were sold or given away by Trump, were stolen by some other person, or were put in a burn barrel by Trump who then roasted marshmallows over them while they burned. With the 11th Circuit slap down of Judge Cannon, the review team can now try to answer that and other questions relating to the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago (and those not found, but possibly brought there).

[Brett Bellmore]

NOVA, if I hired somebody to take my papers and burn them, then got a subpoena for said papers, and then they got burned, it would do me precisely no good to argue that I'd issued the burn order prior to the subpoena. Because as you well know, the subpoena imposed on her an affirmative duty to preserve the papers. She wasn't just barred from walking over to the server to personally beat it to pieces with a hammer, she was obligated to cancel the order to destroy it.

She could have had a timer on the server with a bomb, that would blow it up if she went 2 days without entering a code, and she'd have been legally liable for not entering the code.

She didn't, because being able to destroy the contents without the feds having a backup was literally the only benefit of her having gone to so much trouble to have a private server, and then violate her legal obligation to have it back up to the federal system. It's literally the only thing all that trouble bought her, so nobody should believe for even one second that, when she went ahead and did it, it was by accident.

It's as though I had installed a thermite charge on my hard drive, with a trigger on the computer case, and when subpoena'd claimed I'd stumbled and hit the trigger by accident. If you go to trouble and expense to undertake actions that have no benefit except enabling destruction of evidence, get a subpoena for the evidence, and it gets destroyed, no reasonable person is actually going to believe the destruction was by accident.

No reasonable person DOES believe it was an accident. Some partisans merely claim to believe it.

[Nige]

Just a reminder here as Brett tries to make up in metaphors for what he lacks in evidence that the Bush administration had at least three private servers and 'lost' over two million emails.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And various members of the Trump family and administration used private cell phones and email for official business.

But all his analogies fail if, as claimed, (a) Hillary ordered the servers wiped after producing certain requested email to the government and before getting a subpoena to produce all of the mail, (b) Hillary believed the servers were wiped, (c) Hillary gets the subpoena, (d) the tech guy wipes the servers. It's not unreasonable to suspect this seems to coincidentally beneficial to Hillary, but it's a plausible story that, if true, doesn't indicate any malfeasance. Unlike your non-analogous hypotheticals, in the actual case the claim is that Hillary didn't know the servers had not been wiped and, in fact, reasonably believed they had been wiped. She didn't know it was possible to cancel the order, because according to the order it should have been wiped already.

To take one of your hypos, on September 15 she set the timer to wipe the servers on September 30, she gets the subpoena on October 5. She thinks she doesn't have the docs (I don't recall if she responds prior to the deletion or after, but it doesn't really matter). Due to a glitch in the timer software, the server is wiped on October 6. She double checks on the server on October 7 and finds it was wiped, so no data, but also that the wipe occurred October 6 rather than September 30.

Was it possible for her to stop the deletion in this hypo? Yes. Is any court going to penalize her for failing to do so? No. Why? Because, unless you can show she didn't have a good faith basis to believe the deletion was carried out on schedule, you have no ill-intent.

Now, you may say that seems suspicious and you don't believe the timer was set to September 30, you think she just issued the wipe order October 6. But she has more proof than you do (including witnesses who claim to have seen her set the timer), so good luck proving your theory beyond a reasonable doubt.

[David Nieporent]

NOVA, if I hired somebody to take my papers and burn them, then got a subpoena for said papers, and then they got burned, it would do me precisely no good to argue that I’d issued the burn order prior to the subpoena. Because as you well know, the subpoena imposed on her an affirmative duty to preserve the papers. She wasn’t just barred from walking over to the server to personally beat it to pieces with a hammer, she was obligated to cancel the order to destroy it.

Once again: there was no "subpoena for said papers." There was a subpoena for a subset of said papers. That imposed no duty on her to preserve other, unrelated papers.

[M L]

Michigan gov Whitmer "blasts" her own administration's Department of Education for training teachers to hide their grooming/trans propaganda from parents and keep a child's "gender identity" from parents.

"one trainer suggests that teachers can talk with a parent about an LGBTQ child’s suicidal thoughts without having to tell them about their gender identify of orientation even if it played a role in their distress."

https://www.bridgemi.com/talent-education/michigan-dept-education-lgbtq-gender-training-blasted-dixon-whitmer

[Nige]

How is not disussing a child's sexual orientation with their parents hiding some sort of supposed grooming/trans propaganda? If the child specifically requests that the teacher not disclose the information, I'm in favour of the teacher respecting the child's wishes. The right is riding roughshod over any possibility of treating difficult cases with sensitivity and discretion purely to get at LGTBQ poeple.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, as a parent, I'm NOT down with the school conspiring with minors to keep their parents in the dark about their lives, in order to defeat parental preferences.

You want a child to be treated as an emancipated minor, or transfer parental rights and obligations to somebody else, there's a legal process for that.

[Nige]

It's not 'conspiring,' it's respecting the child's wishes and not revealing things told in confidence.

[David Nieporent]

There is no student-teacher privilege. Children's wishes don't override the right of parents to control their children's upbringing.

[Sarcastr0]

Dunno about the legalities/policy choices there. But certainly it's not grooming. Nor is it conspiring.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is absolutely "conspiring", an agreement between student and teacher to conceal something from the parents that they're legally entitled to know.

It may or may not be concealment of grooming, depending on the case.

On the bright side, the case for abolishing government run schools in favor of universal vouchers is certainly getting more persuasive thanks to this sort of thing.

[Nige]

How are they legally entitled to know it if the child doesn't want them to? That's not 'grooming,' that's respecting the child's confidences, my God, you have to know the difference.

If voucher schools are places where children get outed to parents against their wishes, they're a fucking nightmare.

[Bob from Ohio]

"How are they legally entitled to know it if the child doesn’t want them to? "

Parents have a right to control their child's education and behavior.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Within reason, sure . . .

[Nige]

That does not amount to a legal right to know something they tell someone else in confidence.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, you're assuming the extent of a right to an area that is very much in doubt. At least on the federal level, this particular issue has not been litigated.

So quit pretending something is true you have no idea about.

[Sarcastr0]

It may or may not be concealment of grooming, depending on the case.

Or it may be concealment of a fucking elephant, depending on the case.

And absent a legal right (I don't know the law, but I'd wager you don't either), this is not a conspiracy.

the case for abolishing government run schools
Yeah, no. This is a wedge issue moral panic. It won't get you to the dumbass nation-wrecking place you want to go.

[EscherEnigma]

You aren't legally entitled to know your kid's sexuality or gender identity.

And frankly? If a kid tells a teacher "please don't tell me parents" about them being gay/trans, then that is 100% a bona fide reason for the teacher to think that telling the parents is putting the kid in harm's way.

[Bob from Ohio]

"100% a bona fide reason"

Just not a legal reason.

[Nige]

What law requires someone to break a confidence like that, assuming no illegality or direct risk to the well being of the child?

[Randal]

"... conceal something from the parents that they’re legally entitled to know." Emphasis in original.

What legal right to know your kids' secrets do you think there is?

[M L]

The legal right isn't to "know" "secrets," it is to direct your children's education and to know what the teacher (an employee who is supposed to be serving that end) is telling your kids.

Telling kids to keep secrets from their parents is textbook predator/grooming behavior.

[Sarcastr0]

Citing nothing, not even a court case.

Telling kids to keep secrets from their parents is textbook predator/grooming behavior.
Not what's going on here - this is about when kids request something be held in confidence - so fuck right off with that groomer stuff.

[Nige]

It isn't the teacher telling kids secrets, it's the kids telling teachers things in confidence.

[Randal]

What is it about these right-wing dudes that their minds always go directly to sexually assaulting minors!

First of all, you don't get that much "direction" over your kid's education in public schools. You might be able to opt them out of a controversial lesson here or there, but that's it. If you really want to direct their education, send them to an appropriate private school or better yet, home-school them. Problem solved.

You do get to know what the teachers are telling your kids, at a general level. You don't get to effectively "listen in" on every conversation though. Creepy!

"Telling kids to keep secrets from their parents" isn't what's happening at all, obviously. That's your paranoid, Fox-addled mind farting in your ear, along with whatever predilection towards pedophilia you've got going on that keeps warping your mind in its direction.

[David Nieporent]

Telling kids to keep secrets from their parents is textbook predator/grooming behavior.

You have the facts backwards. This is kids telling teachers to keep secrets, not teachers telling kids to keep secrets.

[David Nieporent]

Dunno about the legalities/policy choices there. But certainly it’s not grooming. Nor is it conspiring.

I agree that it’s not grooming. That’s just bad faith stuff by the right.

[M L]

The grooming and trans propaganda is all the other stuff.

[Nige]

That was the best example you could come up with? Sure, 'other stuff.'

[shawn_dude]

Read "grooming" and just skipped the rest.

Homophobic hysteria died a long time ago. Let yours go, too.

[Randal]

I suspect there's a deeper reason ML keeps coming back to the topic.

Just look at his next post where he finds a way to contemplate a long list of sex acts that he probably thinks are off-limits to him for one reason or another.

[shawn_dude]

All of that is available to heterosexuals. At least, those that can find a willing partner.

[Randal]

I don't think sex-obsessed right wingers like ML are all gay. I suspect they're obsessed with non-standard sex in general. Lashing out at gays is an easy outlet since gay sex is always non-standard.

[M L]

The national teachers union’s "LGBTQ+ Caucus" has created a website and badge for public school employees that promotes a how-to guide for "anal sex," "bondage," "rimming," "domination," "sadomasochism," "muffing," and "fisting."

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1572630113589788672

Why Does The NEA Want Kids To Learn Butthole-Licking? https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-does-the-nea-want-kids-to-learn-butthole-licking/

Related: US Education continues to fall precipitously at all levels, K thru university, relative to the world.

[Nige]

Are these as real as that school pamphlet promoting pedophilia linked here a few weeks ago? Or does this represent assorted lies, fantasies and obsessions of the reactionary right?

[M L]

If I recall the thing you are talking about looked obviously fake. This is real. Check out all the links in the TAC story.

[Nige]

Yeah, that's why it leads to an internet archive link, not the NEA site, which doesn't have any of that stuff on it, nor to the NEA LGTBQ Caucus site which seems to be a seperate organisation, and which doesn't have that stuff on it.

But even so - you're objecting to what is essentially a straightforward guide to sex for teenagers that highlights issues of safety and consent? Because with the prevalence and ease of access of internet prornography, the last thing you want is a clear, frank and honest guide to sex.

[M L]

It's right here you dummy. https://teenhealthsource.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Sex-Acts-final.pdf

That's just one of the items.

Oh, forged internet archives now? Easy on the tin foil hat buddy.

[Sarcastr0]

Those look like definitions, not a how-to guide.

And we're back to the usual 'if you teach kids about sex then they'll start *doing it*' bullshit.

No, teaching a kid what BDSM is won't make them into a leather queen.

Like the 1980s all over again.

[Nige]

You guys post fakes, lies, exagerations and stuff out of context all the time, I will never not be skeptical about your claims and links. The more I look at the relevant pages, the more I sense reactionary moralistic scaremongering over informing teenagers about sex in a clear and honest way, something you guys have never approved of.

[David Nieporent]

Um, that's a link to "a program of Planned Parenthood Toronto."

It should be noted that Planned Parenthood Toronto is neither the NEA nor any school nor even in this country.

[M L]

Are you trying intentionally to be misleading? This material is being provided by the NEA to teachers in the US for use with students. The NEA is the largest teacher's union in the US. They have over 3 million members.

Do you think "fisting" and such should be taught in schools? The implication of your comment is that if this particular PDF was labeled as NEA material (setting aside that it is being deployed by the NEA), that would be problematic.

[Nige]

Do you think teenagers should be given any access to clear definitions of sexual activities, or should they just pick up what they can from pornography and guesswork?

[David Nieporent]

Are you trying intentionally to be misleading? This material is being provided by the NEA to teachers in the US for use with students. The NEA is the largest teacher’s union in the US. They have over 3 million members.

You are confused again. The NEA does not provide material to teachers "for use with students." The NEA is a teachers' union. It can certainly provide information to its members, but it has no role in curriculum decisions. School boards, not unions, decide what is "for use with students."

You are doing the typical right wing misrepresentation about all of these purported curricular debates (sex, CRT, etc.): deliberately (or stupidly) conflating information given to teachers with information given to students.

Do you think “fisting” and such should be taught in schools?

No. But I do think teachers who are teaching sex education should be familiar with it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yeah, that’s why it leads to an internet archive link, not the NEA site..."

Huh? It's an internet archive of the NEA site. The NEA site does indeed have links to the stuff on it, exactly as claimed.

[Brett Bellmore]

You typically use a wayback machine link for something that has, or likely will be, memory holed. There's nothing nefarious about it.

[Nige]

True, there's nothing nefarious about any of it, except for the right trying to drum up a good head of hate.

[shawn_dude]

If you keep up the homophobic hysteria, we're going to start questioning your sexuality.

[Ben_]

No one cares what you question and what you don’t.

[Bob from Ohio]

Gay dude using a classic "homophobic" trope. Its funny and pathetic.

[Kazinski]

Has Stacey Abrams gone full anti-science conspiracy theorist:

"There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks,” Abrams claimed during an event at the Ray Charles Performing Arts Center in Atlanta on Tuesday. “It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.”

https://www.yahoo.com/now/stacey-abrams-claims-fetal-heartbeats-152143154.html

[SRG]

She's right. There's no heart at 6 weeks, so how can there be a heartbeat? However, the strip of cells that will later form part of the heart does generate an electrical pulse.

See how fast your car goes with a battery, distributor and spark plugs but no engine.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The head is large in proportion to the rest of the body at this point. At about 6 weeks, a heartbeat can usually be detected."

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth

[SRG]

No. At 6 weeks an electrical pulse can be detected from a strip of cells. There is no heart to have a beat.

This is not a matter of opinion.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sorry dipshit, but you are wrong and can't admit it. Sonograms do not pick up electrical activity. The heart is not fully formed (valves haven't developed) but the tissue that will continue to form the fully developed heart is contracting. That's a beat.

Of course you probably believe Stacy Abrams is speaking as the governor of Georgia.

[SRG]

the tissue that will continue to form the fully developed heart is contracting. That’s a beat.

But not a heartbeat! As you yourself said, the tissue will form the heart (or to be accurate, part of the heart). Hence the heart is not yet formed.

You can't have a heartbeat until you have a heart.

[M L]

This is not a matter of opinion. You are wrong.

[Harvey Mosley]

“It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.”

Yep. Nothing but science right there.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’ve seen a heartbeat at slightly before six weeks. So you’re pretty much full of shit on this one.

And if she’s right, who is generating the fake noise (and tiny flashing light that lines up with it)? Are you claiming that Big Sonogram is out to get the Democrats?

[shawn_dude]

How do you hear a heartbeat when there's no heart? Literally. No heart. Assuming, by "heart" you mean a muscular structure with four chambers that pumps blood. The four chambers don't show up until week 8 and don't fully function as we define a heart until around week 20.

What you have at week 6 are two tubes that will eventually become a heart that have some electrical activity and move blood. This is what people are hearing at 6 weeks.

[ducksalad]

What most people mean by heart is something that periodically contracts and moves blood. As in, if you look at a diagram of an ant produced by a biologist there will a part called the heart.

"Beating" = periodically contracting.

[shawn_dude]

Do you have anything to support "most people" in this context? Seems to me, the claim being made about fetal heartbeat is an allusion to the fetus being at a level of development at 6 weeks such that aborting it is killing a person. But if it's not a human heart that's beating at that point, it kinda ruins the illusion. Do "most people" know that? If I posted a picture of a 6 week old's pulmonary system, could they point out the "heart" on the diagram? Unlikely. Nor would people call whatever it is inside an ant a heart if they found it inside of a human--which, as it turns out, is very close to what a 6-week old fetus has for moving blood.

New thing I learned today: ants don't have blood.

[Sarcastr0]

Organs aren't formed till like 3 months in, Kaz.

Google a bit - and not just LifeSiteNews.

[Mr. Bumble]

"By the end of the third month, the fetus is fully formed. All the organs and limbs (extremities) are present and will continue to develop in order to become functional. The circulatory and urinary systems are also working and the liver produces bile."

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth

[Sarcastr0]

...Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess?

[bevis the lumberjack]

As I said above, with our first child we had to do a sonogram early because there was something going on that suggested we might lose the baby. The baby was conceived around August 20 or 25, we did the sonogram in late September.

We were scared shitless. I will never forget the OB pressing the wand up against my wife’s abdomen and seeing that flashing light and hearing a light thumping. The doctor said “Praise Jesus” in a very relieved voice. It was a very emotional moment that I will never forget.

And that was with late ‘80s technology. Y’all and Abrams are completely full of shit on this. You couldn’t be more wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a beat; there is no heart.

Easy mistake to make.

Not very scientific though.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Easy mistake to make”.

Yeah, made by our OB, who clearly referred to it as the “heartbeat”. But I’m just certain that you know more than he did. He was a black guy, by the way, which I guess makes it easy for you to be smarter than him or something.

[shawn_dude]

What do you think this doctor would say? Your baby doesn't have a heart but the two tubes that will eventually form a heart are currently moving blood? Or just "I hear a heartbeat?" Seriously, have you never needed to dumb things down for untrained people so that they can understand the important point?

Also, why do we care what the doctor's race is? Why did you think that was important to mention? Do you think about if often?

[bevis the lumberjack]

All the fucking time. It was the moment when we found out that we weren’t going to lose our first child. You bet your ass I remember it.

[SRG]

https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html

at six weeks of pregnancy, an ultrasound can detect "a little flutter in the area that will become the future heart of the baby," said Dr. Saima Aftab, medical director of the Fetal Care Center at Nicklaus Children's Hospital in Miami. This flutter happens because the group of cells that will become the future "pacemaker" of the heart gain the capacity to fire electrical signals, she said.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What causes the swoosh noise on all sonograms, including sonograms at 6 weeks gestation? Do you believe Abram’s stupid claim that it’s a fake noise?

The swoosh noise is blood flow through whatever your doing the sonogram on. What causes the swoosh noise on a 6 week sonogram? Is there some other organ that pumps blood around?

What you’re hearing is cardiac activity from the early stage heart.

Go ahead and explain it to me otherwise. You can’t. Otherwise I’m gonna believe my wife’s OB over a message board jockey.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's been explained. You're very emotionally wedded to the "heartbeat" idea. However, it's indisputable that, scientifically, there is no heart at six weeks. You attempt to square this circle by claiming that there is an electric pulse contracting tissue and moving blood and anything that has an electric pulse that moves blood is a heart. But it isn't. It's tissue that will become a heart.

As pointed out above, the reason why people who want to control women's bodies call it a heartbeat is to bring to mind a fully formed, if miniature, human being with a beating heart!. But it's not a heart or a fully (or even mostly) formed miniature human.

Yours is a great and moving story. That was an amazing moment for you and your wife and I am glad it all worked out for you. That doesn't answer the "is it a heartbeat" though. In your case, it was a clear sign that the embryo was developing appropriately. No matter how moving the moment, however, it wasn't evidence that the embryo had a heart yet.

[SRG]

Is there some other organ that pumps blood around?

The mother's heart, you dummy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Good grief. Take a look at the way the placenta functions: The mother's heart is utterly incapable of pumping blood through the fetus at ANY stage of development! Aside from the occasional anastomosis, the fetal and maternal bloodstreams are distinct, and if fetal blood is being pumped AT ALL, it's being pumped by the fetus.

Yes, by the fetal HEART. Which shows up at about 3 weeks.

"The human heart is one of the first organs to form and function during embryogenesis [1, 2]. By the end of gestational week 3, passive oxygen diffusion becomes insufficient to support metabolism of the developing embryo [3-5], and thus the fetal heart becomes vital for oxygen and nutrient distribution [2]. The initiation of the first heart beat via the primitive heart tube begins at gestational day 22, followed by active fetal blood circulation by the end of week 4"

What you're arguing about his that the early fetal heart doesn't have chambers and valves, it operates by peristalsis, kind of like the intestines: A traveling contraction pushing a bolus of blood through it. But it's actually pumping blood from week four, or else the fetus would die, because at that point it's too large to survive without actively circulated blood.

So you guys are just quibbling, claiming an organ that's pumping blood isn't a "heart" because it works a bit differently in early development than later. But it's just a stupid rationalization so that you can deny that the 6 week fetus has a heartbeat.

[shawn_dude]

Good grief, indeed.

The fetus is 6mm long at that point. It doesn't *need* a heart to move oxygen and nutrients around since it's getting them directly from the mother, who pumps it into the placenta via her own heart.

A 6 week fetus and an ant both have a similar cardiovascular system because both of them are tiny and able to get most of their nutrients through other means. Your claiming to hear a strong "swoosh" noise from something the size of a pinto bean over the sounds of the mother's own vascular system is bizarre. You might as well try to hear the "swoosh" coming from an ant.

https://youtu.be/mBNom46c4tQ

[NOVA Lawyer]

You might as well try to hear the “swoosh” coming from an ant.

This. Which is the original point of this thread. People stupidly criticizing Abrams for making an accurate statement about manufactured swoosh noises from, Brett's own language, "peristalsis." Neither the intestines nor the 3-6 week "primitive heart tube" (not heart, as the article Brett quotes makes clear, make swoosh sound pushing their respective cargo through. Well, unless you just had bad crab dip, maybe. The sound of a pulsing heart swooshing blood through arteries is made up and used to represent data indicating the fetal cardiac electrical signals are doing what they're supposed to do.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" The doctor said “Praise Jesus” in a very relieved voice. "

Would he have blamed Jesus for a different result? If not, that doctor sounds like an idiot.

[Kazinski]

The heart isn’t fully formed but it is beating:

Radiologist Pradeep Shankar:

“It is true that the valves in the heart develop later. However, the cardiac muscles that are located in the embryological heart are contracting. They are in fact moving inward and outward. That is how you define a beat….the cardiac tissue is contracting, which is literally what a beat is. To say otherwise is scientific misinformation, and cannot be treated otherwise.”

He goes on to say:

“It’s bad enough they are dishonest about the science.

But their mendacity doesn’t end there. Even if there was a provable heartbeat, beyond any of their doubts, would they change their minds on abortion?”

I have to say the reason I posted this is just to watch the usual suspects rush to defend scientific nonsense from their side.

[bevis the lumberjack]

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/when-does-a-fetus-have-a-heartbeat

https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/when-can-you-hear-babys-heartbeat

I'm sure they're going to come back and say "hey, we didn't know that! I guess we were wrong".

After all, they're from the Party of Science. Guess they've been listening to too much Planned Parenthood bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll stick with your buddy Mr. Bumble's link:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth

There is no heart. Not in form nor in function.

This clarification may not play well with some people's narrative, but that is science's thing - jamming your narratives.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Mr Bumble is blocked on my screen, asshole. You’re the one that talks to him all the time. Guess you like beating up on retards because you can’t discuss stuff with people who might know more than you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wow I've managed to piss off both sides of the aisle in the short time I've been posting.

Don't know why Butthead muted me and don't, care since putting fingers in your ear is something children do and think that you are playing the semantics game.

[Sarcastr0]

the cardiac tissue is contracting

So how does this disprove that the heart isn't yet a thing?

Seems you've left science rather behind and are going for some semantic games.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah well anything to dehumanize an unborn child I guess.

[Sarcastr0]

Suddenly, science has left the building.

Remember, the original point was: "Has Stacey Abrams gone full anti-science conspiracy theorist."

You seem to have rather proven that's wrong.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No, you never ever admit when you’re wrong. Never.

Please tell me. Has somebody actually dubbed in a noise to fake a heartbeat like Abrams claimed? C’mon captain science, tell us how that fits.

I’m an actual scientist. You’re not. I’ve had a doctor show me a heartbeat at sixish weeks. You haven’t. How dare you lecture me about anything as to science? My wife was a nurse. Between the two of us we know more about this than you and 10 of your friends. Smug arrogance around your ignorance is ugly. Must be the impact of working for the government and never having accountability for anything.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't play that credentialist shit with me; THAT is what's ugly. I'm not buying you have some sense of science I do not.

Your response to an argument about fetal development is to talk about dehumanization. That's a fine argument, it's not a scientific one. And I think it's telling that's where you went.

Feel free to say that for you this is a baby and a heart. I'll agree with you! And would almost certainly be true for me in the same situation!

But you cannot use that to say that Stacy Abrams is not trusting the science with that argument.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What scientific process adds the fake noise? You’re dodging that one like the roadrunner.

And yeah I know more science than you. How much science did you have in college? How many years did you spend working in a STEM field?

But anyway, Captain Science, where does the fake noise that your Science Leader swears has been added come from? Who the hell at the OBs office cares enough to add it? Fetal hearts beat at different speeds - how do they change the rate on the fake noise do that it always adds the flashing not-heart.

Quit dodging the questions.

[Sarcastr0]

What scientific process adds the fake noise The microphone.
The point being made, as you seem to have lost the bubble on, is that those Abrams is calling out call it a heartbeat so not due to any scientific insight (there isn't any, for all your caterwauling), but because it makes for a good emotional foundation on which to rest your anti-abortion policies.

And yeah I know more science than you. How much science did you have in college? How many years did you spend working in a STEM field?
This is credentialism. You're appealing to your own authority because you went to the right schooling. That is fallacious. If you're as smart as you say, you should be able to make a scientific argument, not waive your degree-laden dick around.

Oh, and I went to a STEM undergrad and have an MS in thermodynamic cosmology. I have been doing technical reviews for research grants programs for the past 4 years across the physical, social, and biological sciences. And I have learned that the credentialist dickheads I sometimes come across are usually not too bright.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bob and weave, baby, bob and weave. The microphone? What the hell is that? What makes the microphone whoosh.

Oh, and remember earlier when you said the organs don’t form until 3 months in? Look at my link. “the heart is fully formed at 10 weeks”. I don’t know about DC, but out here in flyover world 10 weeks is a lot shorter than 3 months.

C’mon. A real answer. Who fakes the swish? And why? Gotta be Big Sonogram, doesn’t it?

[NOVA Lawyer]

It’s not a microphone that collects actual noise and then amplifies it via other stereo elements. Rather:

What Is a Fetal Doppler?

A fetal Doppler is a test that uses sound waves to check your baby’s heartbeat. It’s a type of ultrasound that uses a handheld device to detect changes in movement that are translated as sound.

When you were in that room with the excellent doctor and your pregnant nurse wife, no one shoved a microphone up her vagina, I assume. I’m no expert, but it beggared belief that what you were listening to is simply amplification of the actual sound being made by your fetus. So I Googled how do they get that sound and voila. Of course it isn’t just a conveyance of the actual sound made in the womb. Rather, it very much is a translation of movement detected by ultrasound (not recording the sound from the womb, but bouncing sound waves off the fetus and using those to detect objects and movement, much like a bat “seeing” the world around them) that is conveyed to you as sound.

Think of it like this: Pictures of the universe from the Webb Telescope are accurate in a way, but that isn’t what the universe actually looks like because the images we can see are produced from detection of electromagnetic waves we can’t see. They translate the waves they record into a palette of colors that we can see. It’s still breathtaking and amazing, but the colors chosen are art, not the actual color of the nebula (or whatever). The sound you hear isn’t the actual whoosh of blood passing through the pre-heart or heart of your baby, it’s a translation of the detected movement into a sound you can hear.

Hate to break it to you, but what you heard wasn’t the actual sound waves from your baby. They were mechanical representations of the miracle of your happily healthy child as a fetus. No less wonderful, but just like the image you see on the screen isn’t an actual picture (i.e., collection of light bounced off the fetus) but is an optical representation constructed from sound waves, the sound you hear is translation of data gathered by bouncing external sounds off your fetuses tissue and taking that data to construct the “sound” of the “heartbeat” that brought you so much joy. And, again, a very moving, beautiful moment and I am happy for you and thanks for sharing.

I didn’t get a STEM degree, but these concepts aren’t terribly hard. A little knowledge of science and common sense goes a long way.

[Kazinski]

Ok, we can all agree that there is cardiac tissue, and its beating enough to be detected, but the heart is still being formed.

I think that's a fair summation, even for those that want to be so pedantic as to claim heart tissue beating is not a heartbeat.

Now lets go to Abrams statement:
“It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.”

Its not a manufactured sound, its certainly can't be detected by ear, so it is enhanced, but its not just some made up thing. Its got a real medical purpose for being detected, in fact its the only real confirmation that the fetus is alive.

[Sarcastr0]

Its got a real medical purpose for being detected, in fact its the only real confirmation that the fetus is alive.

Neither of which contradicts what she's saying.

The point is about bills that cite fetal heartbeats as some kind of significant threshold. It's not - that's bullshit meant to justify abortion restrictions.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah the added fake swoosh noise is fooling everyone I bet. Who is adding it? Is it Big Sonogram? Discouraging abortions because longer pregnancies means more sonograms?

What a helluva conspiracy that is! I’ll suggest it ta Abrams office tomorrow and see if the idiot bites.

[Sarcastr0]

You're reduced to arguing she's claiming the noise is a hoax.

Step back for a second and consider whether that is the most plausible reading of what she said.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m reduced to pointing out what she said. The precise phrase is “manufactured sound to control womens’ bodies”.

What other meaning is possible?

I thought you were the preeminent debunker of stupid conspiracy crap on the internet. But here you are unable to explain an idiotic one so now you’ve flipped to defending it. Do you also believe it’s a manufactured sound to control women’s bodies? She’s nuttier than Q Anon and perhaps you are too.

[OtisAH]

JFC, all this alleged science education and you display absolutely zero scientific acumen throughout the entire conversation. What the sound you heard at that stage of development is and isn’t has been explained several times here. You refuse to acknowledge any of it. So we are either talking about a STEM education rooted in “creation science” or you’re lying about having taken a single science course that wasn’t required to graduate high school.

[Kazinski]

"manufactured"? "designed"?

Yep. Sounds to me like she's claiming it's a patriarchal hoax.

Sad thing is you know it. But you are just scrambling not to admit it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I've posted elsewhere, but the sound is not generated by the fetus and then "amplified" or "enhanced" so humans can hear it. You all are way misguided. It is "manufactured" in that data collected by ultrasound is then translated into a sound for human consumption.

The name of the machine being "ultrasound" should have tipped you off, at least if you understand that ultrasound involves sending sound waves into the womb and then recording the doppler shift and intensity or whatever when those external sound waves bounce back.

These are manufactured sounds, not recordings or amplifications or enhancements of sounds generated by the fetus. The sounds you hear as a "heartbeat" are generated by the machine using data gathered from other sound waves made by the machine and bounced off the fetus.

Now, all that talk about whether people could admit they were wrong. Looking forward to bevis and Kazinski admitting Stacey Abrams was correct.

[Kazinski]

Yeah Doppler waves, like say in wave vibrations, like soundwave vibrations?

What instrument are they using to collect that data? An ultraSOUND machine? Ultrasound doesn’t detect electrical waves, only ambient and reflected sound waves.

Those pulses cannot be heard by human ear, and they are computer enhanced to both magnify them and put them in an audible frequency range but by any scientific definition they are sound waves traveling through the body.

Next you’ll be saying bats aren’t using sound for echolocation even though they are emitting sound in the ultrasound range. Or that dolphins sonar isn’t sound its some new strange medium.

And one other thing, the legislation that Abrams is talking about specifies the "detection of fetal heartbeat", it doesn't say " hear".

And I guess now you will come up with a new definition of "detect".

[NOVA Lawyer]

Its not a manufactured sound, its certainly can’t be detected by ear, so it is enhanced, but its not just some made up thing.

This is what I was responding to, so this is just changing the subject so you won't be wrong:

And one other thing, the legislation that Abrams is talking about specifies the “detection of fetal heartbeat”, it doesn’t say ” hear”.

But the bigger point is, this is laughable:

What instrument are they using to collect that data? An ultraSOUND machine?

For the scientifically illiterate, i.e. Kazinski, an ultrasound machine doesn't detect environmental sounds and then magnify them. It emits sounds and then records the return of the sounds generated by the ultrasound machine and then converts the data from the difference between the waves sent and bounced back into either images or, in the fetal "heartbeat" instance, sound. It doesn't record sounds from the womb.

But don't take it from me, here's NIH on how ultrasound works:

When used in an ultrasound scanner, the transducer sends out a beam of sound waves into the body. The sound waves are reflected back to the transducer by boundaries between tissues in the path of the beam (e.g. the boundary between fluid and soft tissue or tissue and bone). When these echoes hit the transducer, they generate electrical signals that are sent to the ultrasound scanner. Using the speed of sound and the time of each echo’s return, the scanner calculates the distance from the transducer to the tissue boundary. These distances are then used to generate two-dimensional images of tissues and organs.

You are, unequivocally, wrong. Stacey Abrams was right. I'll look forward to your acknowledgement of these two facts.

Hey, we all make mistakes. I've admitted to messing something up on these comment threads. You can be man enough to do the same.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Its not a manufactured sound, its certainly can’t be detected by ear, so it is enhanced, but its not just some made up thing.

You’re wrong. They don’t use a super sensitive microphone to record sound waves being generated by the fetus. This is how they do it:

What Is a Fetal Doppler?

A fetal Doppler is a test that uses sound waves to check your baby’s heartbeat. It’s a type of ultrasound that uses a handheld device to detect changes in movement that are translated as sound.

So, yes, it is a manufactured sound, much like the Webb Telescope pictures are manufactured pictures. They aren’t taken with a camera with a really long telephoto lens. No, they detect electromagnetic waves that humans can’t see and then through computers, they translate those detected waves into an image humans can see.

The fetal doppler uses ultrasound to gather data regarding the location of tissue and movement of (and within) the fetus and then that data is translated into sound. In that sense, it is definitely manufactured sound. It is not, as you unscientifically suggest, mere implication of very quiet sounds human can’t hear.

(Tell me you understand that the image generated by ultrasound isn't a "picture" of the baby, it is a manufactured optical representation of data collected by bouncing sound waves off fetal tissue. If you understand that, then you can understand the "heartbeat" sound being manufactured in a similar way.)

Stacey Abrams was definitely more right than you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Geeze. You ARE aware that "sound" is just repetitive movement, right? You can use a wide variety of technologies to move it from place to place. Just letting it propagate, if it's loud enough and the media between you and it is suitable. A tight string. Bouncing light off a shiny surface. Bouncing much higher frequency sound off a change in density that reflects it.

So, don't overplay your case.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I am, but converting movement detected by ultrasound into sound for human consumption is not the same thing as listening to the "sound" created by that movement.

Just like the image captured by ultrasound does capture what is there and what it "looks like" but is an image manufactured from data rather than a natural image.

[Ben_]

She is also an election denier.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but on television she was the president of the United Earth. hahahahaha.

[M L]

This whole argument is just an extension or subsidiary of the personhood argument.

It's not a baby because it's not developed enough yet! Must be at least this tall to ride this ride.

It's not a heartbeat because it doesn't have the valves or whatever arbitrary politically motivated thing I'm making up to change long accepted definitions!

[Sarcastr0]

OK. But then don't drape your objection in those who disagree with you are being hilariously wrong about the science.

[M L]

Pro-abortionists are frequently hilariously wrong about the science. Abrams' statement is an example of that.

Some of the other arguments in this thread, on the other hand, lean more toward the extreme semantic dishonesty that I'm talking about.

[MoreCurious]

The position of some of those commenting on this thread seems to be that Trump (or any president) can declassify any material he wants to by simply thinking about it or waving a magic wand or something. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they're correct. What limitations would then exist on his use of the material? Could he have it shipped to his residence or residences? Could he show it to his family? Could he show it to his friends and donors? Could he have documents framed and display them in public areas? Private areas? Could he auction material off at Sothebys, or Christie's, or E-Bay? Could he share the material with allies of the United States? With enemies?

[shawn_dude]

Bigger question: if Trump can declassify it with his mind, can Biden re-classify it with his mind?

[Kazinski]

Might be a good question to ask Obama, he had classified and unclassified documents stored in a warehouse near Chicago, then he cut a deal with NARA to take over the storage space

"The Obama Foundation agreés to transfer up to three million three hundred thousand dollars ($3,300,000) to the National Archives Trust Fund (NATF) to support the move of classified and unclassified Obama Presidential records and artifacts from Hoffman Estates to NARA-controlled facilities that conform to the agency’s archival storage standards for such records and artifacts, and for the modification of such spaces."

https://www.obama.org/wp-content/uploads/BOF-NARA-LOI.pdf

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20220803/hoffman-estates-allows-obama-library-archives-to-stay-for-four-more-years

So Sept 2018, almost 2 years after Obama left the White House he had control of classified douments, and negotiated an agreement with NARA on how they should be handled.

No FBI raid needed.

[Randal]

All lies, as we all know, but allow me to show you up once more!

Obama is footing the bill. He never had the documents. The Hoffman Estates facility is a NARA facility. There's some debate about whether any classified documents are or were even ever there, but ultimately it's irrelevant -- either way, Obama never had them, NARA did.

Ok, I can't wait to see what sort of orange flatulence comes out your mouth next. By writing checks, Obama was bribing the FBI not to investigate? The NARA facility was in Chicago in order to make it easier for Obama to secretly sell access to the document to foreign adversaries? Obama's digitizing the documents so that they can be transferred through a compromised Venezuelan satellite that'll rewrite the history of his administration to make his inauguration crowds seem even bigger? Obama uses the documents to wrap the slices of pizza he sells as a front business to his child sex groomer dungeon?

[Kazinski]

Let’s go over this real slow for you:

1. “All lies”. The document I linked to was posted at Obama.org, his foundation website. You can’t assume that anything Obama says is lies without evidence.

2. "Hoffman estates is a NARA controlled facility". It was not at the time this agreement was negotiated the agreement and the cash was for NARA to take over the facility and the documents. It says: “from Hoffman Estates to NARA-controlled”. You know what from-to means don’t you?

3. “There’s some debate about whether any classified documents are or were even ever there”. The document says there were classified documents. The document was signed by the director of the Obama Foundation, do you have a more authoritative source? And yeah, I’m appealing to authority.

[Randal]

Wait, was the agreement to move the documents or to take over the facility? You seem to have confused yourself with your lies.

[Randal]

The Hoffman Estates facility was always a NARA-controlled facility. Here's an article from early 2016 talking about the impending arrival of the documents under the auspices of NARA.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/obama-center/ct-obama-archives-to-hoffman-estates-20160531-story.html

Face!

[Randal]

Finally, one last insult to your alleged intelligence. If you actually read the Obama letter, it's clear. They want to do a digital library, which involves a) digitizing the records and artifacts and then b) archiving the analog versions permanently.

The key word in the out-of-context blurb you quoted is archival.

to NARA-controlled facilities that conform to the agency’s archival storage standards for such records and artifacts

In other words, the $3.3M is for transferring the records and artifacts, once digitized, from temporary NARA storage to permanent NARA storage.

God what a doofus.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How does this white, male, right-wing, faux libertarian blog attract such a concentration of delusional, ignorant, roundly bigoted, antisocial, disaffected commenters?

By design, of course.

[MoreCurious]

Pretty pathetic. There is nothing in that letter that supports your position. Maybe it's time for you to enroll in a reading-comprehension course at your local middle school.

[Sarcastr0]

Really doing poor old Alex K some shame here.

[Kazinski]

Alex K?

[Jeb Kerman]

inter arma silent leges

[Michael D]

Nothing like a bunch of lawyers and people working in the field arguing over politics. Yet somehow the realization never occurs to anyone that politics makes everything and everyone it touches, worse.

As Sarcastr0 will tell you, I find the best solution to be anarchism and/or voluntaryism.

I believe the harms committed by government to be greater than any negative outcomes were the state abolished. And further, that most problems between individuals would be resolved via alternatives to the state.

Anarchism is no utopia to be sure. Neither is it a panacea.

An alternative is voluntaryism. It is based on the simple premise that anything that is done without the consent of the individual is an act of tyranny. Voluntaryist principal beliefs stem from the idea of non-coercion.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I assume you vacation in Somalia then and soak up that beautiful anarchy!

[apedad]

You're a NOVA guy (me too!), so just invite Michael D to drive on 95, 495, or 66 for a while.

Talk about anarchy! 🙂

[NOVA Lawyer]

lol, yeah, that'll give a person a taste of anarchy they won't soon forget.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I find the best solution to be anarchism and/or voluntaryism.

Problem is, to find that, there is no actual place you can point to. Seems like that might make you more doubtful than you appear to be.

Yet somehow the realization never occurs to anyone that politics makes everything and everyone it touches, worse.

However commonplace, disparaging politics is a stupid thing to do. In American constitutionalism, politics is the intended means to manage the public life of the nation. That has worked well enough to give the impulse to do it at least a tinge of honor and respect. You should give that some thought.

[M L]

Politics does make everything worse.

And as a government becomes larger, more intrusive, and more centralized over a large geographic area, the politics of that government become exponentially more toxic to every institution and household it touches. This is inevitable, like a law of physics.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Because there are great places to live that have no politics? Name one.

There are a lot of problems with politics generally and certainly our system right now in particular, but it's just stupid or irresponsible hyperbole to claim that politics makes everything worse. Every livable society has politics. That's because politics does some good things that nothing else can achieve.

[M L]

I'd agree that politics is a sort of necessary evil. I don't buy into anarcho-anything, so I think the organized use of force and violence, i.e. government, is a necessary evil, and self-government by a people governing themselves is the best way to do it.

However it should be done as locally as possible, and the scale of jurisdiction minimized. That is actually necessary to any meaningful self-government to exist. Politics on a massive jurisdictional scale precludes meaningful self-government. It is a sham. It is also, like I said, very toxic to everything. It infects everything from state and local governments, to businesses and local private institutions.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That's a fair argument and I agree with lots of it. I wouldn't say sham. There are things that need to be done on a state, a national, and an international scale, and so politics at those levels are necessary and not a sham. Of course, the further you get away from the voters, the more likely it is through either corruption or just the inherent bias towards one's milieu that the decision makers will not be responsive to the needs of the people as they should be.

Solving the problem of needing a national government (hence the U.S. transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution) is a difficult one and we obviously have only partially solved it. (And it has gotten worse in a way, as the country gets bigger. A Senator represents far more people now than they did in 1800, well, unless that Senator is from Wyoming.....another problem with the current system).

[Sarcastr0]

As the government has gotten larger, we've also electrified the nation, brought up the poverty level, gone into space, ended Jim Crow, raised life expectancy and quality a great deal.

Anyone who says government has ruined America is blind to history.

[M L]

Correlation/causation. Those things happened despite growing centralized government powers, not because of it.

Government "has gotten larger" many times throughout history. Always with bloodshed and imperialistic conquest. Did your list of benefits materialize in Soviet Russia?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Everything in this thread is a prime example of how the modern left has become nothing more than a sad freak show at a bad circus – bearded women, blue haired monsters, fat loud odd looking men, they got it all. Apparently they decided about 10 years ago that the usual clown show they ran wasn’t good enough and wanted to see if they could go even lower. Well, they have achieved that feet.

Come one, come all. Step on up and see the freak show. Just watch your kids because these people have a weird obsession with the genitals of children.

[Randal]

I like how you took the time to re-edit this post but still have us achieving feet. I am glad we have feet, for what it's worth. Who wants to walk around on a pointy shin bone.

[apedad]

Way to expose your true self Jimmy!

You feel that bearded women, blue haired monsters, fat loud odd looking men, LGBTQ, minorities, etc., are second-class citizens who should not have equal rights and opportunities.

YOU are the problem not everyone else.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"Everything in this thread is a prime example of how the modern left has become nothing more than a sad freak show at a bad circus – bearded women, blue haired monsters, fat loud odd looking men, they got it all. Apparently they decided about 10 years ago that the usual clown show they ran wasn’t good enough and wanted to see if they could go even lower. Well, they have achieved that feet."

Where does this say anything about rights, LGBT, or minorities? Hint - It doesn't. You just read that into it because that is your knee jerk programmed response.

[Randal]

We've seen your past comments, Dimmy. Create a new account if you want to start from a clean slate.

[Nige]

You elected a reality show host who liked to wander through dressing rooms full of teenage girls getting changed as president.

[Sarcastr0]

And there you have it folks.

The argument from the right amounts to 'eeew.'

I remember when it was about thinking the way to help the most people was markets. Still wrong, but had some heft to it.

Not sure Jimmy meant to be as revealing about the emptiness at the heart of conservative ideology these days, but he's never been very good at posting.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The truly funny thing is that you don't realize how much of a clown you are and how stupid the side show you are part of is viewed by pretty much everyone who isn't in it.

Or maybe that is sad....but also a little funny at least.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which is worse . . . commenters such as Jimmy the Dane, or the law professors who cultivate an audience of Jimmy the Danes?

Spoiler: Who cares? They're all just biding time until replacement.

[M L]

Looking back . . .

James Clapper's perjury, and why DC made men don't get charged for lying to Congress

In DC, perjury is not simply tolerated, it is rewarded. In a city of made men and women, nothing says loyalty quite as much as lying under oath.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/

John Brennan's Dishonesty: A Long Record

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/john-brennan-dishonesty-long-record/

[Sarcastr0]

You're a lawyer and pretending not to understand the threshold for perjury.

Or maybe you really don't, but have decided to trust the media because they agree with your priors.

Either way, bad show.

[M L]

Gibberish as usual.