Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Krychek_2]

A couple of days ago I was driving in North Florida and saw a billboard for a candidate for state legislature that said "Are you tired of overdevelopment? Vote for me. I'm the true conservative."

Since when is putting brakes on development the true conservative position? It strikes me that this is Exhibit No. 862 on how "conservative" and "liberal" have both become totally meaningless terms. In North Florida, you get elected by claiming to be a conservative. Even if your positions aren't.

[apedad]

I wonder if the candidate meant 'conservative' in the sense of "adverse to change," and not so much the political sense, e.g. pro-business, etc.

It might be more a NIMBY position that a political position.

[Moderation4ever]

Might be a true Floridian. I don't want to say this for all original Floridians but some I know some don't care much for the development.

[Kazinski]

It's long been a thing for liberals to claim they are conservative, because outside of big cities running as a liberal is the kiss of death.

[John F. Carr]

Can you run as a "liberal" in a big city, using the dreaded L-word?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

In my experience, Republican candidates are using "conservative" and "Republican" on signs during primary season, then omitting both words with respect to signs used for the general election. Several Republicans are using blue signs with no "Republican" in sight and broadcasting advertisements that never mention "Republican" or "conservative." They have ditched the goofy red hats, too.

Being passed by as America's electorate continues to improve -- more diverse, less religious, less bigoted, less rural, less backward -- apparently has consequences.

[David Nieporent]

It’s long been a thing for liberals to claim they are conservative,

[Citation needed.]

[MaddogEngineer]

Democratic Leadership Council

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The whole point of the DLC was to try to make the Democratic Party less liberal. They advocated actual policy positions to accomplish that. I'm not sure that qualifies as claiming to be conservative. Besides which, calling pols like Sam Nunn or Joe Lieberman liberal just goes to further prove Krychek's original comment.

[David Nieporent]

The DLC — which hasn't even existed in a decade — never claimed to be conservative.

[Nige]

Since when did 'conservative' mean 'paving over paradise?' Surely 'overdevelopment' in Florida comes freighted with implications of bad planning, environmental destruction and corruption, anyway. Maybe there are conservatives who don't agree with all of that.

[OtisAH]

Sure, like some propose he might be a North Florida liberal claiming to be conservative*. We all know how perfidious those Libs are. More likely he’s “upper middle class” to wealthy and this “overdevelopment” is basic “affordable housing, which I totally support, is getting built in the wrong areas.”

*This doesn’t happen anywhere, of course. “Centrist” and right-leaning Dems boast of their bipartisanship and how often they “fight back against party leadership.” They don’t claim to be True Conservatives.

[John F. Carr]

Since George H. W. Bush "liberal" has been a bad word. Dukakis could have whipped out his ACLU card and said "I'm proud of this" but history went the other way.

"Conservative", on the other hand, is a good word. Candidates declare themselves more conservative, the most conservative.

I tried to find Bill Maher's recent bit on this. It was entertaining and on target.

Unfortunately we do not have a shared label for people who think sodomy is great and "Latinx" is a joke. If you like both, you can still use "progessive" safely.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" “Conservative”, on the other hand, is a good word. "

Among roundly bigoted, poorly educated, childishly superstitious, economically inadequate, obsolete hayseeds residing in disaffected, can't-keep-up backwaters, sure!
'

[OtisAH]

“Liberal” became a four-letter word under Saint Ronald.

[Don Nico]

"Latinx" is a micro-agression. If you don't like the gendered endings of proper Spanish, the the perfectly appropriate English adjective, "Latin" as in Latin music, Latin America.
Moreover, people from Spain are not Latin. They are white Europeans.

[OtisAH]

“LatinX” is a gender-neutral term applying to people from Latin America or of Latin American descent created by people who wanted a gender-neutral term to describe themselves. It doesn’t apply to people from Spain. And it is not a “micro-aggression,” a term which you likely dismiss generally but will trot out when you think it works as a doody stick in the eye of Libs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Historically, wasn't it actually created by Latino "queer" activists who didn't want a word that pinned down their gender? That would certainly explain why only 4% of actual Latinos use it.

[Sarcastr0]

It's dumb. I'm not sure how it started, but why is queer in scare quotes?

[shawn_dude]

It's Brett. I'm sure those are actually conspiracy quotes.

[OtisAH]

Term came first, then LGBTQ adopted it.

[Randal]

What, they all got together and had a summit? No, Latinx was made up by some especially woke contingent and then everyone felt too guilty and intimidated to push back.

Imagine if you woke up one day and all the trans Otises had declared that every Otis was now only to be referred to as Otix (they, them) in order to avoid any possibility of gender bias.

[Don Nico]

Otis,
Who are you to tell anyone whether they consider something to be microagression.\?
Second the term made up by Anglos who disrespect the struct and historical development of the Spanish language.
Third, it is an unnecessary. If you want a gender-neutral ternm there is one in common English usage.

[OtisAH]

Sorry, you don’t get your own dictionary. You can have your own copy of the same one we all use, but you don’t get to have your own. “Micro aggression” doesn’t mean “that really bothers me.”

[Nelson]

"“LatinX” is a gender-neutral term applying to people from Latin America or of Latin American descent"

LatinX is one of the dumbest "gender-neutral" words that has ever been manufactured. And it has a lot of competition. It is pure idiocy.

[OtisAH]

Well, since it likely doesn’t apply to you in any way your opinion on it is irrelevant. Don’t use it if you don’t want to.

[Nelson]

I don't use it, just like the vast majority of people (including most Latin people. By the way, is Hispanic a naughty word now? I can't keep track.

Latinx is the poster child for focusing on the frivolous elements of an actual issue. It doesn't make anything better, especially since it's as organic and grassroots as astroturf.

[shawn_dude]

“Latinx” is a gender neutral noun and adjective. “Latin” is an adjective. Perhaps you’ll understand why one isn’t always a replacement for the other.

“Latinx” appears to be a product of academia where the topics of gender studies and ethnic studies combined to create a demand for a gender neutral noun. I don’t mind the existence of a gender neutral noun to replace Latino/a, but I’d prefer a word that is pronounceable using common English language rules.

It’s very common to see “Latinx” in academic settings and rare to see it elsewhere.

[Don Nico]

Latin can also be used as a noun. Maybe not as commonly in English as in other languages.Maybe you missed that day in grammar school.
As for the pronunciation, that is latinix, a distinctly feminine form of very long standing.

[bernard11]

I don't think of it as a micro-aggression. It is, however, pretty silly IMO.

[Kazinski]

Oh come on don't be so pedantic, they call it Latin America because they speak a language than devolved from Latin, Spanish or Portuguese, which I have it on good authority is also spoken in Spain and Portugal.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"Liberal" is synonymous with big government tyranny. In other words, being ruled by the world's stupidest and most corrupt people.

Hell on Earth.

[Sarcastr0]

Looking at America and seeing carnage and darkness and despair, eh?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

For those who prefer ignorance, superstition, bigotry, and backwardness, America is deteriorating.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wherever the big hand of Democrat control is, yes you typically see extreme inequality, failing schools, failing roads, high crime, poverty and general misery. Except for the elite ruling Democrats of course.

[Nelson]

“Wherever the big hand of Democrat control is, yes you typically see extreme inequality …”

Nope. It’s pretty evenly split.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/income-inequality-by-state

[Nelson]

“… failing schools …”

Nope. Red states dominate the lower half of education quality. It’s been that way for at least my entire lifetime.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-school-rankings-by-state

[Nelson]

“… failing roads …”

Again, the bottom 10 are dominated by red states, while the top 10 are split.

https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/the-worst-roads-in-the-us

[Nelson]

“… high crime …”

Again, you are wrong. The 5 states with the lowest crime rates are all blue states, the majority of the 10 worst are red states.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/crime-rate-by-state

[Nelson]

“… poverty …”

This one is so obvious only a complete fool would try to claim it. Like education, red states (especially the South) dominate the worst states for poverty. 13 of the worst 15 are ruby red.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/poverty-rate-by-state

[Nelson]

“… general misery …”

With red states on the short end of inequality, education, infrastructure, crime rate, and poverty rates, it seems like general misery is dominated by red states.

I know your tribe and the echo chamber you live in likes to claim that red states are paradise and blue states are crime-ridden hellholes. Unfortunately for you and your fellow travelers, you couldn't be more wrong.

[Currentsitguy]

I wouldn't necessarily associate Conservative with "Pro Development". My all conservative township council for the past 16 years I have lived here always is made up of anti-development members. We live in a semi-rural area that abuts strip mall central across the county line, and one of our primary concerns is preventing that from spilling over. No one here wants high density housing, endless chain stores, heavy traffic, etc. Most of us moved here to get away from that. I like the cornfield next to my back yard, the occasional person going by on horseback, the farmer who comes out on his John Deere to plow the road and help dig out cars, and the groups of kids in orange out hunting on the 1st day of Buck Season.

Generally speaking it's usually the Democrat at any election who is trying to persuade us about the benefits of bringing The Sprawl in. Every election I get some yutz beating on my door trying to tell me how much better off I'd be with city water and sewage and how much more they could "do for me" with all the extra revenue, when all I want is to be left the hell alone.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's lawsuit in Florida appears to be backfiring on him. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/us/politics/trump-special-master-mar-a-lago.html The Court of Appeals stayed the District Court's injunction prohibiting the government’s use of classified documents in its criminal investigation. The Special Master is calling Trump's bluff on his bullshit claims of declassification of documents and suggestion that the FBI had planted incriminating evidence by demanding proof of such allegations.

IOW, Trump is not in Kansas anymore. Neither is he any longer clutched to the bosom of Judge Aileen (Evidence? Fuhgeddaboudit!) Cannon. The Special Master has set a tight timetable, so Trump is not benefiting from delay to the extent that he probably had hoped. The Special Master has suggested that he contemplates evidentiary hearings on disputed matters. Filings and statements made by Trump's lawyers on his behalf in the civil action will likely be admissible in a criminal trial -- they are non-hearsay according to Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(B).

I wonder what advantage Trump hopes to gain from continued pursuit of the civil suit. The smartest tactic may be to seek a voluntary dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1).

[Moderation4ever]

I will say again that Judge Dearie seems to be a no-nonsense person.

[John F. Carr]

I would not say "backfiring" because he is no worse off than if he had done nothing. He comes out slightly ahead because he delayed the FBI's work.

[not guilty]

The delay ran only from September 5, when Judge Loose Cannon's wacky injunction issued, to September 21, when the Court of Appeals stayed the injunction to the extent it enjoined the government’s use of the classified documents and required the government to submit the classified documents to the special master for review.

What benefit or advantage will likely accrue to Trump from continuing to pursue the civil suit? Judge Dearie is challenging the Trump team to put up or shut up. Any filings by Trump's attorneys will likely be admissible in future criminal proceedings, and the failure to produce evidence after having been ordered to do so may work judicial estoppel to Trump's detriment. If and when Trump asserts attorney-client privilege as to his communications or documents, he risks litigating the crime-fraud exception in a forum where the DOJ has the full range of civil discovery available.

All in all, not a comfortable position for team Trump to occupy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I doubt it even did that, as the tainted team could have immediately photographed everything on an informal basis.

[not guilty]

Until the partial stay was granted, the DOJ was prohibited from using the content of the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago during its investigation. That would have curtailed witness interviews, grand jury testimony and so forth.

[jb]

It's forcing him to commit to various portions of his criminal defense strategy long before a trail (e.g., is he actually going to claim that documents were classified or planted by the FBI?) and, depending on the approach they take, potentially exposing them to more criminal liability by making statements under oath rather than to the press.

[not guilty]

That is in part my point. Team Trump does not currently appear to derive any benefit from pursuing the special master lawsuit, what with having been bench slapped by the Court of Appeals and with being pressed to commit itself under oath by the special master to matters which could come back to bite in a criminal prosecution.

A voluntary dismissal would also moot out the (still pending) appeal from the trial court's September 5 order. The September 21 order of the appellate court indicates clear skepticism of the trial court's exercise of equitable jurisdiction.

[not guilty]

Judge Loose Cannon is mollycoddling Donald Trump once again. An order entered today, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.125.0.pdf, excuses Trump from having to file a declaration or affidavit recommended by the special master including each of the following: (1) a list of any specific items set forth in the Detailed Property Inventory that Plaintiff asserts were not seized from the Premises on August 8, 2022; (2) a list of any specific items set forth in the Detailed Property Inventory that Plaintiff asserts were seized from the Premises on August 8, 2022, but as to which Plaintiff asserts that the Detailed Property Inventory’s description of contents or location within the Premises where the item was found is incorrect; and (3) a detailed list and description of any item that Plaintiff asserts was seized from the Premises on August 8, 2022, but is not listed in the Detailed Property Inventory.

[not guilty]

Judge Loose Cannon is mollycoddling Donald Trump once again. An order entered today, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.125.0.pdf, excuses Trump from having to file a declaration or affidavit recommended by the special master including each of the following: (1) a list of any specific items set forth in the Detailed Property Inventory that Plaintiff asserts were not seized from the Premises on August 8, 2022; (2) a list of any specific items set forth in the Detailed Property Inventory that Plaintiff asserts were seized from the Premises on August 8, 2022, but as to which Plaintiff asserts that the Detailed Property Inventory’s description of contents or location within the Premises where the item was found is incorrect; and (3) a detailed list and description of any item that Plaintiff asserts was seized from the Premises on August 8, 2022, but is not listed in the Detailed Property Inventory.

The order further provides:

No later than twenty-one (21) calendar days after the receipt of Defendant’s Notice of Completion [certifying that the government has made available to Trump all of the Seized Materials], Plaintiff shall provide the Special Master and Defendant with one comprehensive, annotated copy of the spreadsheet described above that specifies, for each document, whether Plaintiff asserts any of the following:

a. Attorney-client communication privilege;
b. Attorney work product privilege;
c. Executive Privilege;
d. Presidential Record within the meaning of the Presidential Records Act; and
e. Personal record within the meaning of the Presidential Records Act.

Plaintiff’s designations shall be on a document-by-document basis. For any document that Plaintiff designates as privileged and/or personal, Plaintiff shall include a statement adequately explaining the precise basis for the designation, including, as relevant to any possible assertions of executive privilege, a sufficient description of the rationale and scope of the assertion from which to evaluate the merits of the assertion.

Remarkably absent is any requirement that Trump submit any declaration or affidavit under oath.

The Court of Appeals last week determined that the District Court’s exercise of jurisdiction to grant preliminary injunctive relief (also without presentation of evidence by Trump) was an abuse of discretion. Today’s order of the District Court requires presentation of evidence under oath from one side of the lawsuit, but not from the other side — the side that bears the burden of proof and persuasion. The Department of Justice should seek recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) because the trial judge’s impartiality is reasonably subject to question.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Subject to question?

She is not making any pretense of objectivity whatsoever.

The DOJ submits sworn affidavits and probative evidence, and still has to appeal every decision because she doesn't care.

Trump submits nothing but bullshit hand-waving and gets her to make legal arguments on his behalf, with no sworn statement to support anything he alleges.

She's a disgrace to the bench and sadly, the only way she's getting removed is impeachment or death.

It's "odd" that only the DOJ has to keep swearing to things and Trump - the plaintiff in this ridiculous bullshit, gets to swear to nothing at all.

[not guilty]

Christina Bobb, who has previously held herself out as one of Donald Trump's attorneys, on June 3 signed a statement to FBI agents in response to a grand jury subpoena attesting that she was a custodian of records and falsely asserting that:

a. A diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida;
b. This search was conducted after receipt of the subpoena, in order to locate any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena;
c. Any and all responsive documents accompany this certification; and
d. No copy, written notation, or reproduction of any kind was retained as to any responsive document.

Ms. Bobb is now stating that she then was not acting as Trump's attorney in regard to the Mar-a-Lago documents. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRWTA0ZrhRw (Her commentary begins at 3:17 of the YouTube clip.) That means that no attorney-client privilege attached to communications regarding the June 3 certification.

It will be interesting to see to what extent the DOJ investigates Ms. Bobb's conduct in light of her admission. Will she be deposed in Trump's civil action in Florida? While any claim of attorney-client privilege has been vitiated, she still retains her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Assume for the sake of argument that Bobb was acting as a matter of fact as Trump’s attorney with regard to the documents. For instance, assume Trump insists she was his attorney. Does she have power to waive that privilege, or does the client retain that power? How much delay could litigation of that entail?

[not guilty]

The privilege belongs to Trump and may be asserted or waived by him. If we assume for the sake of argument that Ms. Bobb was acting as a matter of fact as Trump’s attorney with regard to the documents, then Trump's communications to her may be privileged (subject to the crime-fraud exception to the privilege), and she could not unilaterally waive it where Trump has asserted it.

That assumption, though, is counter-factual. Ms. Bobb is specifically disclaiming being part of Trump's legal team when she signed her statement as custodian of records. Whether a communication or document is covered by the attorney-client privilege is determined by an eight-part test:

(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) unless the protection be waived.

The party asserting the privilege bears the burden of proving each essential element. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf, p. 14.

It is hypothetically conceivable that Trump could claim that he believed Ms. Bobb to be acting as his attorney, even though she did not understand that to be the case. That would present a factual dispute to be resolved by the tribunal in which litigation is pending, with the burden of proof/persuasion on Trump.

[David Nieporent]

It is hypothetically conceivable that Trump could claim that he believed Ms. Bobb to be acting as his attorney,

It's a bit more than hypothetically conceivable. It's inconceivable that he wouldn't make that argument. Normal disputes about privilege of this sort turn on

1) Whether an A/C relationship was ever formed; and/or
2) Whether a specific communication was in the nature of legal services (as opposed to, e.g., business advice).

Bobb is a lawyer (loosely speaking). She has held herself out as his lawyer, including in that very TV interview. She was responding to a subpoena on his behalf. The notion that her saying on TV months later that, "Oh, no, I wasn't actually acting as his lawyer" is a waiver of privilege is wrong as a matter of law — she can't waive privilege — and is terrible as legal analysis even if framed properly given that the relevant question is what Trump reasonably believed, not what she was privately thinking.

That having been said, with respect to the search itself and the affidavit she signed, she's a fact witness. A/C privilege would not attach to the facts and circumstances of that search and subsequent flawed document production.

[not guilty]

Some clarification is in order. I have not suggested that Ms. Bobb could waive privilege; I agree that she cannot. (I linked to the YouTube video because Ms. Bobb's language disclaiming acting as Trump's lawyer is embedded therein; I don't agree with the analyst's suggestion of waiver.) I question, based on the words emanating from Ms. Bobb's mouth -- “I was never on the legal team handling this case” -- whether the a-c relationship regarding the Mar-a-Lago documents was ever formed.

It is unremarkable that a principal may engage a lawyer for some purposes but not for others. The client can assert privilege only as to the former.

The burden to show the existence of the attorney-client relationship regarding the subject matter of the communication at issue is on Donald Trump. Ms. Bobb has denied the existence of that relationship relative to her executing a statement as custodian of records. If Trump claims the existence of the a-c relationship, it is incumbent on him to produce evidence thereof. If Trump affirms, and Ms. Bobb denies, there is a question of fact for a tribunal to resolve based on the preponderance of evidence.

[Gandydancer]

"any claim of attorney-client privilege has been vitiated"

"all"? Are you aware that "vitiated" merely means impaired? Not, e.g., "vaporized". Contra the video you link to an attorney can't "waive" attorney-client privilege. That belongs to the client. Her claim that she was Trump's attorney only as regards "election matters" and not as regards the records of which she was "custodian" is a strange one. Sorta like she's claiming to have been a gofer/"Apprentice" contestant, not a lawyer at all, to make her "attesting" less serious.

As to the Special Master... it isn't the first bad choice that Trump has rolled over for. See Brett Kavanaugh and ACB, for two. But whether the documents in question are classified or not is irrelevant, so whether the Special Master thinks they are or not is also irrelevant. That you think this nothingburger skirmish is any reason to drop his civil suit is hard to understand. This "the walls are closing in" act is way past tired.

[not guilty]

It is not a question of waiver. If Ms. Bobb was not acting in her capacity as a Trump attorney at the time of the communications, no privilege ever attached, and there is nothing to waive. An attorney can represent a client with regard to one matter but not another. The putative attorney's statement as to the capacity in which she was acting is strong evidence as to whether the attorney-client relationship, with regard to that subject matter, ever existed.

[Gandydancer]

Jeez. Reread what I wrote. For comprehension, this time.

First, "Contra the video you link to...."

Second, as to the "strength" of the evidence she provides, I already pointed to the fact that her affirmation of a falsehood gives her an obvious motivation to claim to have acted merely a gofer and not a lawyer. Her volunteering that claim apropos of nothing strengthens my impression. Trump's motivation to employ her merely as a gofer and not a lawyer isn't nearly so obvious. I would expect him to say that any authorization he gave her to sign any document on his behalf was in the course of her employment as his lawyer. And I would expect him to prevail on that claim.

[not guilty]

In the face of Ms. Bobb's denial of acting as an attorney with regard to her June 3 certification as custodian of records, any assertion of attorney-client privilege regarding that document would require evidence from Trump, as the proponent of the privilege, that an attorney-client relationship with Ms. Bobb then existed. Outside of court filings, Trump is free to yap and yammer about whatever he chooses, but he seems to be allergic to making claims under oath.

Judge Dearie has indicated that he may hold evidentiary hearings on disputed factual issues. I wonder if Trump will submit himself to the crucible of cross-examination.

[Gandydancer]

He should of course evade that waste of his time to whatever extent he can.

It’s not in dispute that Ms. Bobb was hired as a lawyer, and AFAIK there’s little reason to think that she has had much contact with Trump himself. So, no, there’s no reason to think that much if any testimony from Trump will be required to establish what her job was. Trump has layers of minions, you know. So, keep dreaming.

[not guilty]

Uh, Ms. Bobb says on video, "I was never on the legal team handling this case," referring to the Mar-a-Lago documents. There is no dispute yet, in that Trump has not contradicted her.

The burden of establishing that a communication is privileged is on the proponent of the privilege. The party asserting the attorney-client privilege has the burden of establishing both the relationship and the privileged nature of the communication. The party must assert the privilege as to each document or communication sought.

[not guilty]

And if Trump can surmount that hurdle, the next inquiry would be whether the crime-fraud exception to the privilege applies. Ms. Bobb attested under oath:

1. I have been designated to serve as Custodian of Records for The Office of Donald J. Trump, for purposes of the testimony and documents subject to subpoena #GJ20222042790054.
2. I understand that this certification is made to comply with the subpoena, in lieu of a personal appearance and testimony.
3. Based upon the information that has been provided to me, I am authorized to certify, on behalf of the Office of Donald J. Trump, the following:
a. A diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida;
b. This search was conducted after receipt of the subpoena, in order to locate any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena;
c. Any and all responsive documents accompany this certification; and
d. No copy, written notation, or reproduction of any kind was retained as to any responsive document.

This certification contains demonstrable falsehoods. If Ms. Bobb's false attestation was unwittingly based on communications from Trump, then Trump likely violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 1519 and 2071(b). If Ms. Bobb knowingly swore falsely based on what Trump communicated to her, she and Trump violated 18 U.S.C. § 371.

[David Nieporent]

There is no dispute yet, in that Trump has not contradicted her.

Of course, to the best of our knowledge nobody has tried to compel her testimony, so there's no reason for Trump to address it.

[not guilty]

I agree with that, but the DOJ would be foolhardy not to quickly place Ms. Bobb under oath, either in a discovery deposition in Trump's civil case in Florida or with a subpoena to a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia (where last spring's grand jury subpoena originated and where production was due to be made).

Of course, she could render the question of Trump's attorney-client privilege academic by asserting her own Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

[apedad]

I wonder if Christina Bobb had a security clearance (if the documents were still classified), when she was the "custodian."

[Armchair Lawyer]

Probably the same security clearance Clinton's lawyer had when they were reviewing all the e-mails.

[Gandydancer]

Bingo.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, I have “buttery emails” on my card too. Didn’t win tho.

[Gandydancer]

Clinton used a firm of "lawyers" to get the Russia Hoax script written, as I recall. Bobb's work seems to have been about as "legal" as that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I doubt she is in much jeopardy concerning her performance of legal work or any privilege-related issues.

I sense she is a strong candidate to lose her law license -- if not worse -- with respect to sending an affidavit laced with falsehood to federal agents.

Maybe enough risk to incline her to testify against Meadows or Trump or anyone else involved in preparing a fraudulent affidavit and sending it to federal agents.

(Also relevant: The crime-fraud exception is mightier than the attorney-client privilege.)

[Don Nico]

One cannot be the custodian of material that you are not official cleared and authorized to view and/or retain.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The ever-continuing Alex Jones fiasco raises a troubling question. The man behaves in civil court like he enjoys impunity. As a practical matter, does he have it?

Has the internet delivered a business model to enable money raising great enough to more than offset any libel judgments? Can in-court defiance become a practical way to do business?

And while we are at it, have the politically powerful arrived at a point where by fundraising they can finance sufficient legal delays to deliver practical impunity against criminal charges?

[darkknight9]

"The man behaves in civil court like he enjoys impunity. As a practical matter, does he have it?"

I'm relatively certain *he thinks he does. 🙂

[apedad]

He can do/think whatever he wants (and reap the benefits/consequences).

It's the dumbass supporters who buy his crap and actually send him money who are the problem.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree here, the internet gives the grifter access to such a large audience of marks. In the past, the grifter had to work a crowd but now they have access to millions. Think of it in terms of percentages and that a very small percentage is gullible. With the internet and streaming you enlarge the people you engage and while the percent of gullible remains the same you interact with more of them. Leading to a net gain in the grifters take.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Alex Jones' audience is the Volokh Conspiracy's audience.

People with hiring authority at legitimate law schools should take note.

[apedad]

US Treasury carves out Iran sanctions exceptions for internet providers

The U.S. Department of Treasury said it is carving out exceptions within its stifling sanctions on Iran for technology companies providing internet access during recent protests.

The sanctions issued by the U.S. government against Iran make it difficult for U.S. businesses to operate in the country.

But in light of the Iranian government’s decision to shut off parts of its network and access to certain platforms, the Treasury Department issued a new license allowing technology companies to offer the Iranian people “with more options of secure, outside platforms and services.”

The government eventually blocked Instagram — one of the only U.S. social media platforms available in Iran and a lightning rod for the protests. After the block on Instagram, WhatsApp was blocked as well, limiting the ability of Iranians to communicate with the outside world.

Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Wally Adeyemo said on Friday that the U.S. is expanding the Iran General License D-2 as a way to help the people participating in protests over Amini’s death.

https://therecord.media/us-treasury-carves-out-iran-sanctions-exceptions-for-internet-providers/?utm_source=pocket_mylist

I wonder how folks will react when Facebook or Twitter block the Mullahs’ accounts.

[apedad]

US Sugar Defeats DOJ’s Bid to Block Imperial Sugar Acquisition (2)

The Justice Department lost its bid to block US Sugar Corp.‘s proposed acquisition of rival Imperial Sugar, after a Delaware judge said the deal doesn’t violate antitrust law.

Judge Maryellen Noreika of the US District Court for the District of Delaware wrote in an order released with her one-page ruling on Sept. 23 that the full opinion be kept under seal to protect confidential third-party information.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/us-sugar-defeats-dojs-bid-to-block-imperial-sugar-acquisition

I highlighted this case because of the, “. . . full opinion be kept under seal to protect confidential third-party information,” statement.

Prof. Volokh has taught me to be sensitive to ‘full opinion be kept under seal’ situations.

So….how does one fight this?

[Gandydancer]

Vote harder.

[Krayt]

The purpose of your vote is to activate based on feel-good patter. Once elected, politicians work to get in the way of business, to get rich getting back out of the way after some mysteries of life accrue.

This is government working as designed.

[Sarcastr0]

You keep repeating this angry libertarian reductionism like you've managed to support the idea that government is where the money is, whenever you get the chance.

Methinks it's you who crave activation of your feel-food patter.

[Commenter_XY]

Vote more! Bring like-minded friends! 🙂 = How does one fight this?

Unrelated....apedad, I promised to report back. Remember I mentioned I was making brisket? Yeah, you should try this recipe. Stupendously easy, and really tasty.

https://toriavey.com/rum-and-coffee-brisket/

I promise, you won't regret it. Buon Appetito!
(tried to find a phrase with an alliterative reference to your screen name)

[apedad]

Will definitely try it!

I've been actually ordering from Katz's Deli (the famous Meg Ryan orgasm scene place - oh and they make good food too), when I want good brisket, but definitely need a home recipe too.

https://katzsdelicatessen.com/shipping.html

[Commenter_XY]

Expensive taste....I've seen the pricing. But worth it. 🙂

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If you have a smoker, or would like and excuse to get one, learn to make your own home-cured pastrami. I've been doing it for years now (in fact I have a 21 lb full-packer brisket curing in the fridge right now) and it's ridiculously easy (especially if you use a dry cure rather than a wet cure), produces results at least as good as what you can get at the best deli (including Katz's) and costs a small fraction of what commercially made pastrami costs. AND you get to control how much salt, cure, et al goes into it.

I also cure and smoke all of my own bacon, and haven't bought bacon from a store in over 5 years.

[Commenter_XY]

I might just do that....

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You won't regret it. Besides the obvious benefits, it also gives you and excuse to buy a good deli slicer (if you don't already have one).

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll have to give that a try. It's been a while since we had brisket.

[SRG]

Makes me realise how lucky I am to be near a Pastrami King and not too far from Ben's Deli.

[Brett Bellmore]

Speaking of pastrami, last year I had duck breast pastrami at Biltmore, and it was incredible. I have got to try making it myself.

Well, technically I'd be using goose breasts, I help out a local farmer with slaughtering his animals in return for a share, and make sausage from meat he supplies, and split it with him. (He really had little use for pig hearts and livers until I made him some home made liverwurst.)

But first I really have to get started on building a smoke house. Our BBQ doesn't really work well as a smoker.

[Mr. Bumble]

Please try to avoid comments on pig hearts and livers this early in the morning.

[SRG]

That sounds fantastic. I'm also a big fan of goose confit.

I think that pastrami has to be made from fattier cuts, hence I can see how it would work for duck.

[Brett Bellmore]

Waterfowl are fatty, sure, but I assure you that the breasts aren't marbled. The fat is all quite separate from the meat, which is very lean.

[Ridgeway]

Brisket isn't really marbled either -- the fat is mostly separate. The goal with good pastrami or corned beef is to cook the brisket long enough and slow enough to to get the fat to the point where is becomes unctuous and dissolves easily in the mouth. The nice thing about brisket is that the meat stands up well to that low/slow cooking and tenderizes nicely, and since it was so highly seasoned in the first place, it remains flavorful despite the long contact with water. The resulting combination is phenomenal

I am not sure that same technique works with duck or goose.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think if I try making the goose pastrami, I'll do the sou vide route, since that allows you to get it tender without going past medium rare.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I think if I try making the goose pastrami, I’ll do the sou vide route, since that allows you to get it tender without going past medium rare.

Good choice. I use SV for my brisket pastrami as well...not because I finish it medium-rare (though I have done that with a plain uncured brisket before, and it's excellent), but because the results are so reliable.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I think that pastrami has to be made from fattier cuts

That's not true at all. Pastrami is usually made from fatty cuts, but that's because cuts like brisket and plate, which were historically used because they were cheap due to being considered undesirable, just happen to also be quite fatty. Very lean cuts are also used to make brisket, especially using wild game meats like venison.

[Kazinski]

Obviously the answer is to remove import controls on sugar.

US sugar prices are double world Sugar prices because of tariffs and import quotas.

And the top 3 states are all Red states with Ron DeSantis's Florida producing over half of US sugar.

Next up: Iowa corn ethanol.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, let's do the corn ethanol first. At least the expensive sugar isn't rotting engines and reducing mileage, while driving up food prices in general.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

To save the planet from climate change naturally

[Nige]

As a climate change advocate: nope, it's another Big Ag subsidy scam. Giving over land for fuel instead of food is a loser.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah. Cellulosic ethanol might have some climate change cred, corn ethanol is just a handout to ADM. And when you look at the total energy consumption to make it, a classic case of greenwashing.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

As a climate change advocate

You're in favor of climate change? Well, I mean, I'm looking forward to Fall weather and all, but...

[Nige]

Derp.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do the Democrats who want to take over so much of our economy and our lives to Save The Planet(tm) and All of Humanity(tm) , can’t seem to bring themselves to stop this fraud?

[Nige]

Money-money-money, and corporate power and influence.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So we can't trust them to not be corrupt to save all of humankind, but we can trust them with our healthcare?

lol good one

[Nige]

Since the bulk of the corruption and money is flowing from and to corporations, I would say the only way to save the plant and get proper healthcare is to get corporations out of the way.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So no corporations in the entire healthcare industry and supply chain to get proper healthcare, but we don't get rid of corporations to save humankind?

I don't think you've really thought about your beliefs because they're not very consistent.

[Nige]

Corporations as providers of appropriate goods and services to an independant public health care system, with no say on how the system is run or how or whether people access it - in other words no corporate capture or rent-seeking middlemen.

[Nelson]

As long as Iowa is an early primary state, neither Dem nor GOP politicians will get caught saying anything against ethanol subsidies (or ag welfare in general). Because every Senator sees themselves as a future President.

[David Nieporent]

To Ted Cruz's credit, when he campaigned in 2016 he did come out against ethanol subsidies.

[Nelson]

Damn. He's such a bad human being I hate having to say this, but good job Ted Cruz.

*Burp* I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

[shawn_dude]

DeSantis will be president by the time sea level rise floods the everglades (and sugar plantations) with salt water enough to render the soil useless. He won't care anymore as Florida will be in his rear-view mirror. And ethanol for fuel will be killed by our response to the climate crisis as gasoline-powered cars join the horse-and-buggy in general obscurity.

Global climate change is going to "fix" both of those issues.

[bernard11]

True.

The sugar import controls are a bipartisan below-the-radar scandal.

[apedad]

Back when (FLA Gov. DeSantis) was a newly elected Florida congressman in 2013, DeSantis voted against a bill that would provide $9.7 billion in flood insurance aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. The Category 3 storm, which was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 hurricane season, inflicted nearly $70 million in damage and killed a total of 233 people across eight countries.

During a Wednesday press conference, DeSantis said that he had officially sent a letter to the Biden administration requesting the federal government provide 100 percent reimbursement up front for 60 days.

"I know sometimes they wait til different damage assessments are made, but in this situation, we've got a massive Category 4 storm," the governor said. "I think we all know there's going to be major, major impacts."

Earlier on Wednesday, Biden said the federal government would be "ready to help in every single way possible" during Ian and sent a stern warning to oil and gas companies about gouging prices amid the storm.

https://www.newsweek.com/hurricane-ian-sparks-criticisms-desantis-hurricane-sandy-response-1747322

How does he sleep at night knowing he's a piece of shit?

[Stephen Lathrop]

apedad — $70 billion in damage, not $70 million.

[Gandydancer]

I suppose you think he voted against the Hurricane Sandy bill (if he did) because he wanted to gratuitously hurt his constituents?

How can you live with yourself knowing you are such a dumbass?

[Krayt]

Given his rapidly rising political fortunes, I think the voters of Florida aren't particularly bent out of shape over it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Gov. eSantis voted against the Sandy bill -- Gandydancer's "if" looks silly against DeSantis' admissions that he voted against the Sandy bill -- because he is a hypocritical, low-character asshole.

That's what makes him so strong in Republican primaries.

[David Nieporent]

I suppose you think he voted against the Hurricane Sandy bill (if he did) because he wanted to gratuitously hurt his constituents?

Of course not. Are you unfamiliar with geography?

[Nelson]

"I suppose you think he voted against the Hurricane Sandy bill (if he did) because he wanted to gratuitously hurt his constituents?"

Hurricane Sandy hit the northeast, so voting against it did nothing to his constituents but allowed him to make a show of telling the libs to go pound sand. So, in his mind, win-win.

But it certainly highlights his hypocrisy, fecklessness, and partisan warrior characteristics, all of which his base loves.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Seems like there's a lot of context missing in your 2013 statement.

[Gandydancer]

What do you mean? A Governor wanting as much Federal money as possible for Floridians is exactly the same as giving away great gobs of FLORIDA taxpayer exactions in some unknown but NO DOUBT virtuous bill supposedly directed at Hurricane Sandy damages. How could it be otherwise?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why does Biden even take DeSantis' calls? He should send a planeload of surfboards and pool toys to DeSantis' house.

[shawn_dude]

I'm waiting for the photo of Desantis tossing paper towels to people without homes.

Speaking of which...

His re-election is going to get ugly as more insurance companies flee Florida and the state-run homeowner's insurance fund runs dry. Ian did a B-line through a large part of the MAGA-verse in Florida where "free market" cultists probably cheered the GOP's prior insurance policy failures.

[Bob from Ohio]

"How does he sleep at night knowing he’s a piece of shit?"

He represented his voters both times. Seems pretty standard politics.

Biden called several Democrat mayors first and had to be shamed into calling the governor of the affected state. How does Biden sleep at night knowing he’s a piece of shit?

[Sarcastr0]

That's one read of Biden calling local officials first.

Hardly the only one, but you do have that telepathy.

[shawn_dude]

Desantis sure let out a massive 3-year old toddler tantrum over that, didn't he? We could hear the bawling and fist-pounding all the way from the West Coast. Meanwhile, people who actually care about their local residents, like Jane Castor, got a call.

Whining about the President calling him in the evening after talking to some of his mayors is just an ego thing. If Desantis put his citizens first, he'd have been too busy to worry about it.

[Nelson]

So if you are a callous, partisan warrior who lacks empathy and any sense of decency, but you prioritize your constituents at the expense of fellow Americans in need, that's a good thing?

It's interesting what people are willing to defend when they're in the tank for one of the two parties.

[David Welker]

Something tells me that this isn’t the whole story.

[Kazinski]

Jacinda Ardern addressed the UN General Assembly on the 24th.

First she talked about the Ukraine war, and banning Nuclear weapons, then she got down to brass tacks about what the real threat is: an uncensored internet. .

“The face of war has changed. And with that, the weapons used. The tools used to challenge the statehood of others are hidden and more complex.

Traditional combat, espionage and the threat of nuclear weapons are now accompanied by cyber-attacks, prolific disinformation and manipulation of whole communities and societies.

As leaders, we have never treated the weapons of old in the same way as those that have emerged. And that’s understandable.

After all, a bullet takes a life. A bomb takes out a whole village. A lie online or from a podium does not.

But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms? To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then?

This is no longer a hypothetical. The weapons of war have changed, they are upon us and require the same level of action and activity that we put into the weapons of old.

We recognised the threats that the old weapons created. We came together as communities to minimise these threats. We created international rules, norms and expectations. We never saw that as a threat to our individual liberties – rather, it was a preservation of them.

The same must apply now as we take on these new challenges

In Aotearoa New Zealand, we deeply value our right to protest. Some of our major social progress has been brought about by hikoi or people power – becoming the first country in the world to recognise women’s right to vote, movement on major indigenous and human rights issues to name but a few.

Upholding these values in a modern environment translates into protecting a free, secure and open internet. To realise all of the opportunities that it presents in the way we communicate, organise and gather….”

“But that does not mean the absence of transparency, expectations or even rules. If we correctly identify what it is we are trying to prevent.

And surely we can start with violent extremism and terrorist content online.” “This week we launched an initiative alongside companies and non-profits to help improve research and understanding of how a person’s online experiences are curated by automated processes. “As leaders, we are rightly concerned that even those most light-touch approaches to disinformation could be misinterpreted as being hostile to the values of free speech we value so highly.”

“But while I cannot tell you today what the answer is to this challenge, I can say with complete certainty that we cannot ignore it. To do so poses an equal threat to the norms we all value.

“After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?“

Fascism straight up.

[Nige]

Noticing that there are targeted and promoted asymmetrical-warfare propagandistic lies on the internet and that they have real-world consequences is fascism?

[Brett Bellmore]

Noticing that people being allowed to contradict you leads to people disagreeing with you? Yeah, fascism.

[Nige]

It's not about people contradicting each other online, but when you can't acknowledge that online disinformation is a problem, because disinformation is the driving force behind your politics, you might want to pretend it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, disinformation has been a problem for the entire history of the human race. But censorship isn't a solution to that problem, it just exacerbates it, because lies stand in more need of censorship as a defense than the truth does. Lies have a lot more need to silence the truth, than the truth has to silence lies.

You have to free yourself of this irrational belief that the censors will be the good guys, just because for the moment it looks like your allies will get that job. The power to censor is inherently corrupting, and, really, only the already corrupt fight to get it.

[Nige]

If we give up the internet to disinformation, we'd be no better off than if it was heavily censored, but at least it'd be a lot calmer, and while disinformation merchants only answer to the people whio fund them or their own runaways ids, government censors answer to the government who answer to the people; on balance, maybe censorship comes out slightly ahead. However, I do not think heavy-handed censorhsip is the answer, for many of the reasons you cynically deploy to protect disinformation, but careful regulation, transparency and accountability might go some way towards improving matters. How those are acheived is a question for the angels, unfortunately.

Personally, I think you're defending disinformation because your political faction currently relies so much on it.

[Ed Grinberg]

but at least it’d be a lot calmer

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/01/06/attempt-to-vanish-post-critical-of-attempt-to-vanish-posts-critical-of-the-sandy-hook-hoax-libel-judgment/?comments=true#comment-8075614

[Nige]

Sandy Hook trutherism is one definite example of a profoundly weird and nasty and monetised disinformation campaign. Arguably the tools for dealing with this sort of thing don't exist while the tools for developing and disseminating them proliferate.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It shouldn't be a crime to hold beliefs the people in government disapprove of.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is calling it a crime.

But Nige is right - with the Internet, the rise of non-spatially confined single-issue communities allows a level of immunity to shame and social opprobrium for having delusional and extreme views.

If the usual social controls don't work, some other mechanism is needed. I'm not sure it's the government, but there has been a change and this blog has no shortage of the kind of proud lunacy this change allows.

[Nige]

Who said it was? If there were crimes they were harassment and stalking, libel and slander, defamation and fraud, not the holding of a belief.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Some other mechanism is needed to do what?

[Nige]

To let people log on and find things that are true without having to wade through an ocean of lies.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's not what Sarcastr0 meant.

[Sarcastr0]

...Actually it is what I meant. A mechanism to make people lie less. Used to be shame did that.

[Nige]

I don't think you can make people lie less, and if there was we probably shouldn't touch it with a barge-pole, but there must be ways to disincentivise industrial-scale lie production and promotion.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

To let people log on and find things that are true without having to wade through an ocean of lies.

Finding things that are true without wading through an ocean of lies is not "A mechanism to make people lie less. "

Your fascist mask slipped a little and it's too late to edit it away.

[Gandydancer]

Dunno if it’s "fascist" to imagine that Putin stole the election for Trump, but it sure is demented. And saying that you cannot ignore that that happened and must do something about it is unlikely to end well.

[Nige]

Is it demented because if it was true the implications would be unbearable in several different ways that you wouldn't want to confront or deal with?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's demented because the scale of Russian interference in our election was spitting into a hurricane relative to domestic efforts.

[Nige]

It's not that demented if you consider what a toxic, expanding feedback loop was created when they latched on to and fed each other. Well, perhaps if the Russians had been on my side I'd be trying to downplay it, too.

[Brett Bellmore]

But they were, didn't you know that? In fact, they were on both sides all along; Their goal wasn't to change who won, it was to make the country ungovernable regardless of who won, by turning up the heat.

Russians Staged Rallies For and Against Trump to Promote Discord, Indictment Says

Democrats just focus on one side of that, to promote the notion that Putin elected Trump. But the Russians were playing both sides all along, and some of the biggest anti-Trump rallies after the election were organized by Russia.

[Nige]

They wanted Trump to win - their efforts directed at the Democrats were to drive internal divisions and harm the Democratic candidate - hence the leaking of the DNC hack. Wonder how many decided not to vote, or even voted for Trump, because of that? Bet it wasn't zero.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, just like everybody else, they thought Hillary was going to win, so they concentrated on lowering her margin. But they were playing both sides all along. Democrats just like ignoring their efforts on the other side of the scale because it hurts the narrative.

[Randal]

If by "playing both sides" you mean they were trying to get Republicans to vote for Trump and they were also trying to get Democrats to vote for Trump then sure, they were "playing both sides."

[damikesc]

Funny seeing people who believe in such BlueAnon conspiracy idiocy so thoroughly. No matter how false it is, you will never stop believing.

I've seen hyper devoted religious folks who are less dogmatic.

[Nige]

They lowered her margin so much she lost? I thought that was delusion. They did play both sides, but the aim was to elect Trump.

'No matter how false it is, you will never stop believing.'

Even Brett here concedes that the Russians attempted to interfere, we're just debating whether the idea that the interference had a decisive effect is delusional or if calling it delusional is denial.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Brett claims that Russia was “on both sides all along” because (the article he links to tells us):

One Facebook group called “United Muslims of America” was allegedly created by the Russians to plan a rally called “Support Hillary. Save American Muslims” in July 2016 in Washington. The group arranged for one American to hold a sign depicting Clinton and a fake quote attributed to her saying, “I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom,” according to the indictment.

Somehow, I don't think that this was an attempt to help Clinton.

[Commenter_XY]

Fortunately, I do not live in NZ. The people of NZ can vote her ass out of office if they don't like it.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yeah, that could never happen here!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board

[David Nieporent]

It was a dumb idea with a terribly chosen name, but you understand that it had no power to actually do anything, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and that Italian gentleman selling you the insurance isn't the same guy who'll set fire to your place that night if you don't buy it. Of course it had power: The power to identify targets and implicitly threaten them.

It's not like the platforms having covertly been taking direction from the government, or anything.

[David Nieporent]

Exactly. It's not like that.

One can't "implicitly threaten" unless one has power. It had no authority to do anything. If your claim is that "identifying targets" is actually a threat, then they didn't need a board at all.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nope. Not fascism. Belated recognition that supremely important expressive values are about to fall under unprecedented pressures which need thinking about.

Expressive algorithms and AI writing bots capable of passing the Turing Test have implications for speech freedom and press freedom. Those include concerns for the role those freedoms have played in the public life of nations. There is no adequate way to critique such radical new influences with nothing more than free speech nostrums from the mid-20th century.

[Michael P]

Yes, fascism. "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition" etc.

Maybe you missed what NZ did to lockdown critics.

[shawn_dude]

Studying the effects of AI/automation on the propagation of lies to the point it drives members of society to violence: FASCISM!

Seriously? Wanting to understand how automation in online forums can lead to violence is a dictatorship?

Here's a detailed list of what "NZ did to lockdown critics." Pretty tame by American standards.

[Gandydancer]

Not sure why you think AI bots require suppression of free speech more than the idiocy of the likes of Ardern does.

[Kazinski]

By the way way when I did a search on Google “jacinda ardern internet weapon of war”

Google warned me:

“It looks like the results below are changing quickly If this topic is new, it can sometimes take time for reliable sources to publish information Check the sourceAre they trusted on this topic? Come back later Other sources might have more information on this topic in a few hours or days.

Accessing unauthorized news sources on the Internet can lead to fines or imprisonment in many jurisdictions.”

I might have edited that to add that last sentence for greater clarity.

[Ed Grinberg]

Accessing unauthorized news sources on the Internet can lead to fines or imprisonment in many jurisdictions.
In USSR you could get in trouble if found in possession of "unauthorized" printed material -- something printed overseas or by samizdat.

[Gandydancer]

Sounds like performing that search resulted in a hit to your Google Social Credit Score.

[Krayt]

Hmmm. I got all that except for the warning about jurisdiction and prison. As I am in the US, the idea is null and void. Google may just be good stewards for their customers warning them of unfree places that will jail them for speech.

Like, apparently, New Zealand.

One of the things I constantly harp on is "democracy" is no prophylactic against misuse of tyrant powersm. A 51% majority is not a high bar for neo-tyrants aborning to leap. Indeed, seductive patter is their real-world superpower and that's their preferred arena, their home turf.

[Krayt]

(Slaps himself across the face.) You god damned idiot. Have you forgotten the threats against section 230 unless the internet giants play ball and censor harrasement, starting with the harrassing tweets of their political enemies just before an election?

None of this was hidden or imagined. It was loud and out in the open. The Democratic presidential debate even had a discussion unit about it, where they fell all over each other, outbidding the other on how much damage they can cause to twist arms.

Iirc, the candidate who won that one upsmanship promised additional legislation to punish the companies directly. She is now one (lack of a) heartbeat away from the presidency.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — You are right to be concerned about conditional threats to repeal Section 230. But if you leave Section 230 in place, there will be no way to prevent them. Such threats can be made covertly, or even tacitly, and exert influence—maybe even more influence than if they were open and brazen.

The obvious remedy is to repeal Section 230 unconditionally. That gets rid of the pressure for government censorship altogether. No matter which party takes power, its advocates will not have Section 230 to use as a lever against opponents.

[Krayt]

This assumes it needs to be removed at all. While that debate is fine in theory, in practice, and backroom politics being there, who knows?

It has served its purpose, to allow rapid growth of American companies in a new, large realm, without gigatons of predatory lawsuits, something which hampered all other countries, and so the US won for Internet dominance.

Is there a real argument to change that currently, severed from arm twisting to enforce government censorship?

[David Nieporent]

Shorter Lathrop: "Thieves keep smashing in the door of the jewelry store and stealing merchandise. The obvious remedy is to leave the door unlocked so they can take the merchandise without smashing in the door."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Damn. I repeat the remedy umpteen times, until even I get sick of the repetition, so one time I leave it off, and here you come with nonsense pretending you do not know what I am about to say. Well, thanks, I guess, for the opportunity.

The only safe harbor for expressive freedom ever found has been public policy to support diversity and profusion among private publishers. Those, numbering in tens of thousands, will vary in their opinions and prejudices, and contend amongst each other in a vibrant free market of ideas. Doing it that way both assures access to worthy expressions of all kinds, and precludes government censorship.

We know that can work, because prior to the internet it was the publishing regime the nation had, and that is how it worked. It was a system which was then judged an ornament to civilization.

It was not the internet which put an end to it. Internet efficiencies could have enabled a highly profitable—more profitable than ever before—private publishing sector.

To example the kind of savings the internet put in sight, consider that one ink-on-paper Sunday edition of the Los Angeles Times, pre-internet, had an aggregate weight about equivalent to the weight of a navy cruiser. Each week the Sunday edition was again printed, collated, and physically distributed by who-knows-how-many trucks and drivers across an extensive market. All that happened in addition to a proportionately costly effort to publish 6 other weekly editions. Other newspapers across the nation did likewise, with expenses proportionate mainly to their circulations. Not for nothing was newspaper publishing classified by the Department of Commerce as a heavy industry.

The internet rendered every bit of that manufacturing and distribution expense unnecessary. It thus made notably more than 50% of gross newspaper revenue available in principle to support activities necessary to transition publishing to online editions, and not incidentally to increase profits enormously.

The transition was botched, and Section 230 was a huge part of the reason why. Congress was well-intentioned, but abysmally misguided when it decided to end liability for libel online. When that happened, it quite predictably opened the door to the media giantism which now dominates the public life of the nation.

Also predictable was that domination of that sort would lead directly to vigorous demands to install government censorship. For want of the lost former multi-polar private marketplace of ideas, many justly wary and disgruntled citizens now unreflectively demand as a remedy government censorship of online publishing. Those demands will not go away until they are satisfied, or until the present Section 230 enabled age of publishing giantism ends, and a vastly more varied and profuse set of gatekeepers to the marketplace of ideas is restored.

Because they want no gatekeepers at all, internet utopians have for years been insisting otherwise. After successively louder, increasingly broad-based, and more influential demands for government to censor online publishing, nothing has budged. Internet giants remain in control, and demands to censor continue to burgeon.

Actual change awaits consensus to unconditionally repeal Section 230, as the first step toward fixing the enormously consequential blunder which Congress created, despite good intentions. The remedy is to get rid of internet giantism, and once again support public policy to support profusion and diversity among private publishers. The only question is how long the nation will have to wait for frustration and consequent future policy blunders to teach that needed consensus—that Section 230 has been the problem.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Repeal of section 230 would create problems for sites that support user-generated content. A blog like the Volokh Conspiracy would presumably eliminate the ability for users to post comments. Sites like Facebook and Youtube are profitable enough that they would work very hard to remain viable; it's not clear to me what the end result would be. The overall result would be to shut down a lot of communications over the internet, curtailing more speech than anything the most extreme advocates of government censorship would do if they had the power.

We had media giantism pre-internet, when three major networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) dominated the media world. With or without section 230, the internet eliminates the distribution costs associated with delivering paper newspapers, meaning that the marginal cost of delivering content to an additional customer is very close to zero. This alters the market dynamics in a way that favors the creation of media giants, because if your marginal costs are near zero, being able to distribute your fixed costs over a larger customer base is a big advantage.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Almquist — You are mistaken. Internet savings for traditional media, especially print media, are easy to quantify. They are so great that for any publishing platform in a size range between a local weekly newspaper, on up to something several times as large as the NYT, pre-publication editing of content and comments would be fully paid for by a fraction of the savings. Of course the NYT is already doing that successfully for content, and also for a comment count several times larger than this blog’s.

Note also that your second paragraph contradicts your first. When you write, “With or without section 230, the internet eliminates the distribution costs associated with delivering paper newspapers, meaning that the marginal cost of delivering content to an additional customer is very close to zero,” you erroneously reckon without the marginal financial burden which scaling up pre-publication editing would impose.

It was Section 230’s baleful effect to reduce that burden to near zero, as you mention—thus the giantism. With no Section 230, and pre-publication editing back in place, that would no longer be true. Giantism would be far harder to maintain, maybe impossible.

Without Section 230, to get bigger and sell more advertising, a publisher would have to edit more content and comments. That imposes proportional marginal editing cost increases on growth of advertising sales. To understand that fully, you should be aware that advertisers pay rates which generally vary according to the numerical exposure their ads can be shown to have delivered, or sometimes according to the actual sales the ads produce.

No matter whether you agree or not, however, you offer nothing to solve what has become a pressing problem for expressive freedom, and for the public life of the nation. Re-assertion of the internet utopianism which has done nothing to fix that problem can hardly be the answer. Government censorship of internet publishing can hardly be the answer.

If repeal of Section 230 did prove insufficient to get the job done, anti-trust reforms in the advertising sales market might suppress internet giantism that way. But I insist unconditional repeal of Section 230 is by far the best place to start.

[David Nieporent]

Almquist — You are mistaken. Internet savings for traditional media, especially print media, are easy to quantify. They are so great that for any publishing platform in a size range between a local weekly newspaper, on up to something several times as large as the NYT, pre-publication editing of content and comments would be fully paid for by a fraction of the savings.

Tell us more about your expertise in the economics of newspaper publishing in the Internet era.

Tell us more about how you don't understand that social media and newspapers are not in fact in the same industry.

[Kenneth Almquist]

OK, this helps. To be a media giant, you need some combination of (1) producing lots of content and (2) getting a lot of viewers for each piece of content produced.

With near zero distribution costs but nontrivial costs for content, profitability heavily dependent on achieving the second of these. If it costs you $2000 to produce an article and 1,000 people read it, your cost is $2 per reader. If 1,000,000 people read it, the cost is 0.2 cents per reader.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that section 230 means that media companies can reduce their content costs as well as their distribution costs to near zero. If the cost of producing content is effectively zero, what you are left with is the fixed cost of operating the media company. The cost per reader is the fixed cost of operating the company divided by the number of readers.

You assert that, “pre-publication editing of content and comments would be fully paid for by a fraction of the savings [from switching from print to internet distribution].” However, the internet has created a difficult environment for newspapers. The New York Times is doing fine, but lots of smaller papers have closed. The Los Angeles Times may not be quite large enough to survive--its newsroom has shrunk from 1200 employees in the year 2000 to 400 in 2018--and is certainly not rolling in dough from no longer having to pay for a navy cruiser's worth of newsprint each day.

At the really small end, I assume that the Volokh Conspiracy never has and never will be profitable. It exists because the internet reduces costs to the point that Volokh can afford to do it as long as he has another source of income.

The effect of section 230 is, as you indicate, to lower the cost of user generated content. We should therefore expect repealing section 230 to reduce the amount of user generated content.

The biggest impact of repealing section 230 would be on sites that are highly dependent on user generated content. The New York Times would have plenty of content even if it eliminated the ability for users to post comments. In contrast, social media sites like Facebook and Truth Social have little other than user generated content. So if section 230 is repealed, Facebook and Truth Social both become less profitable. Currently, Facebook is profitable whereas the much smaller Truth Social is losing money.

If, after repeal of section 230, Facebook is still profitable (though with smaller profits), while Truth Social is losing more money than before, that means that Facebook will continue to exist while the smaller Truth Social may go away. If repealing section 230 increases costs to the point that even Facebook is not profitable, then you would expect prices to increase to the point that social media companies can make money, or if they can't do that, for social media companies to go the way of the dodo. The price to use Facebook or Truth Social is currently zero, and that is a very sticky price. I expect that if either of these companies required users to pay for accounts, even if the price was quite modest, users would leave in droves. The other price that could go up is the price for advertising. The Internet has pushed down advertising costs a lot by creating more competition. That might happen if unprofitability drove smaller players like Truth Social out of business, eventually allowing Facebook, as the last man standing, to raise advertising prices.

Perhaps restricting sections 230 protections to small sites would be better than eliminating section 230 entirely. Whatever the problems with the Internet, I doubt that making Professor Volokh worry about a potential libel suit every time he creates an open thread would address them.

[David Nieporent]

(Slaps himself across the face.) You god damned idiot. Have you forgotten the threats against section 230 unless the internet giants play ball and censor harrasement, starting with the harrassing tweets of their political enemies just before an election?

The only people who have taken action against 230 are Republicans.

[DaveM]

“After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?”

Fascism straight up.

I wouldn’t call this “Fascism”, though. Fascism is muscular nationalism. What is being expressed here is very weak tea in comparison, more like Nanny Statism, if there were such a thing.

In essence, the PM is saying she doesn’t trust the people who voted her into office to be able to think correctly. She is telling voters to not think for themselves, but instead to let the State tell them what to think.

That’s a pretty ridiculous thing to say out loud in a democratically elected system of government, a form of government dependent upon people being able to form judgments for themselves. At the very least, it is incredibly self-defeating.

Even if I were to agree with this PM on the topics being discussed, it makes my skin crawl to imagine such a government rifling through my communications, suppressing information on my behalf, deciding for me in advance which of my opinions are sufficiently correct. I would imagine almost anyone with even the smallest sense of self will feel the same. It's more than just an insult to one's intelligence, it's an insult to our very character.

Who wants to be manipulated? It was very stupid to just come right out into the open and tell everyone how the government intends to censor and shape voters’ opinions. So, forget the creepiness of the whole project, just focus on the ineptness. That alone is disqualifying.

[Nige]

'In essence, the PM is saying she doesn’t trust the people who voted her into office to be able to think correctly.'

No, she is not saying that. She is saying it's hard for voters to make informed decisions about what is going on in the world when their primary source of information is full of disinformation, much of it targeted at specific issues by state and non-state actors. You can't appeal to some platonic ideal voter with a supernatural ability to immediately see through all disinformation. 'Flooding the zone' with bullshit is a tactic that doesn't just deceive people, it exhausts and discourages the people it doesn't deceive.

Spreading lies and disinformation is exactly the tactic fascists use to get into power, whereupon they took control and all their lies became official. So, for example, the oil industry has over decades spent millions upon millions on PR campaigns to deny climate change. Now it has a political wing for that effort in the Republican Party - and the political right in general as in the UK and Italy, for example- and both continue to spend massively and spread disinformation about climate change (I expect Russia has contributed as well in their assorted election/political interference efforts.) When Trump was in power he made efforts to elide climate change from all government scientific reports and studies. Thus, an effective marriage of the corporate and the political - ie fascism, albeit a modern form.

Fasicsts would also loudly claim that efforts to identify their lies and try to stop them were tyrannical. So yeah, there's straight up fascism at work here, but you're on the wrong side of the equation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Forget for a moment you you think is right or wrong in this, or any argument. The case for/against censorship is logically prior to the question of who is right or wrong, because it has to do with how you determine that.

Censorship, (And that IS what we're talking about here.) doesn't magically distinguish between truth and falsity. It only distinguishes between what the censor wants heard, and what the censor wants silenced.

It's as powerful a tool for lies as for truth, it doesn't CARE which it's being used for or against.

The truth has the facts and reason on its side, lies do not. This is the ONLY advantage the truth has, the only thing helping it prevail. Once you allow censorship, you strip the truth of the only weapon only it can wield, and put lies on an equal footing with the truth.

So if you want truth to prevail, you must oppose censorship. You only favor censorship if you want the censors to prevail regardless of truth. Favoring censorship amounts to an admission that you don't care if your side is right, you just want to win the argument at any cost.

[Nige]

If you don't regulate deliberate, targeted well-funded disinformation campaigns, truth will become meaningless and/or irrelevant - that's the point of flooding the zone. Of course regulation is problematic - but so is pretending there is no dilemma.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you regulate deliberate, targeted well funded disinformation campaigns, everything the government wants silenced will be declared to be deliberate, targeted, well funded disinformation. That's how this works, as I expect you know, and just don't care.

[Nige]

If you don't regulate, you hand over control of the truth to competing, powerful, well funded disinformation campaigns, some of which will be governments, as I expect you know and don't care.

[Brett Bellmore]

I dispute that "control". You seem to think that lies are actually more powerful than the truth, that the only hope the truth has of prevailing is if lies are silenced. It's actually the other way around. It's the lies that need the truth silenced.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you are a prime example of how awfully humans truth-detection can be their priors.

You are willing to believe anything about the left, and nothing about the right.
Your unearned certainty is legendary even around here, unearned certainty central.

It's become clear over the years that there is nothing we can do to talk you out of it, but as noted last week you are courteous and engage, and it's fun to at least formulate arguments against what you say, even if you yourself are immune to them.

[Don Nico]

"you are willing to believe anything about the left, and nothing about the right."
So what does that prove? Zero!
Some of us don't buy the dictatorial censoring through the police power of the state to "preserve democracy"

[MaddogEngineer]

After the back and forth thread between Brett and Nige, THIS is your reply? It's not Brett's truth detection impaired by his priors.

His point is eminently obvious, and should be incontestable: it's impossible to control/censor misinformation, because no one agrees on what is true. That realization is why we have the First Amendment case law we do today. But that reality goes beyond government, to all corners of human interaction.

[Nige]

But that's the argument of the side with the disinformation - or at least the most disinformation and the most dependant on it. You can't claim it's impossible to regulate without examining its sources and how it spreads. Those algorithms that, eg, target young men and radicalise them via edgelordism and incel culture bullshit are designed to do that, they're not neutral agents - you're already being manipulated and your content is being controlled - the question is would you be better off if there was accountability and transparency involved?

[David Nieporent]

. You can’t claim it’s impossible to regulate without examining its sources and how it spreads.

I can claim it's impossible to regulate it because the first amendment does not allow regulation of political speech. So there's no need to examine its sources and how it spreads.

[Nige]

The first amendment does not apply outside of the US for a start, and this is a global problem. If the first amendment disarms us from dealing with Eastern European office blocks full of people paid to put out lies and propaganda through privately-owned social media platforms on behalf of wealthy state or non-state actors, well, no wonder we get Trump.

[Nige]

'It’s the lies that need the truth silenced.'

How do you think they do that? They flood everything with their lies, and they seek control the way information is directed at disparate groups. You seem to be arguing, on the other hand, that the truth requires no support, defence or advocates, it just needs to exist, somewhere, if not impossible to access then only accessible after long hard gureling work of wading through oceans of bullshit, but that's fine, it's out there. somewhere, pure and unsullied. To stand up for the truth is censorship. To stand up for lies is freedom.

[DaveM]

"You seem to be arguing, on the other hand, that the truth requires no support, defence or advocates, it just needs to exist, somewhere, if not impossible to access then only accessible after long hard gureling work of wading through oceans of bullshit, but that’s fine, it’s out there. "

And this is where your argument goes off the rails. The only thing that would make information impossible to access is the very censorship you are championing. Having to wade through "oceans of bullshit" is just another way of saying "I have to listen to people who don't agree with me". Welcome to the conversation, pal. It's called a pluralistic society, and putting on those waders is the price everyone has to pay to listen.

[Nige]

In this day and age the idea that the sort of online bullshit I'm talking about is synonymous with mere disagreement is faux naivete. But if you want to argue that it's a good thing the truth is being systematically buried under increasingly large mountains of shit, go ahead.

[SimonP]

The point that Ardern and others are making, Brett, is that we now live in an age where it no longer seems to be the case that the truth will prevail, due to being supported by facts and reason. You yourself are a textbook example of how frequently facts and reason fail, since you reliably reject reasonable accounts of available facts in favor of conspiracies and theories that have no support whatsoever in any kind of public evidence. Just yesterday you were arguing that an extreme construction of Idaho’s law prohibiting the use of public money to “promote” abortion or contraception could only have been some kind of “false flag” intended to inflame liberals, because no conservative could possibly take such an outrageously wrong position. To say nothing of the various ways you’ve spun the raid on Mar-a-Lago, at every step of the way.

Brett, you are nothing if not a textbook case of how our sick media environment makes democratic exchange and public discourse significantly more difficult, if not impossible. There is no way to ever debate the merits of different public policies with you, because you will never agree to a set of facts that could possibly lead you away from your desired conclusions. I don’t know what media you consume, but rest assured that it is leading you further and further away from reality, from facts and reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

Making the point, or just claiming?

Look, if we now live in an age where the truth can't prevail on the basis of being the truth, we are just doomed, period. Embracing censorship won't save us, it will just doom us faster, more comprehensively.

Censorship isn't your salvation from lies. It's the One Ring, that tempts you and corrupts you.

The left is losing its faith that it can win arguments, and wants that ring to guarantee it the wins. I think we know where that leads, if the 20th century is any guide.

[Nige]

'Look, if we now live in an age where the truth can’t prevail on the basis of being the truth, we are just doomed, period'

The avowed tactic of the campaign of the man you voted for President was to 'flood the zone with shit' - the truth not being ble to prevail is what you're working towards.

This isn't about arguments. All argument is rendered obsolete noise if all arguments are based on disinformation, and that disinformation is curated and designed and fed specifically to you and your demographic by billionaires and state-sponsered hackers and edgelords using platforms and algorithms.

[DaveM]

"All argument is rendered obsolete noise if all arguments are based on disinformation..."

And yet somehow you are able to argue in spite of all that so-called "disinformation" out there. How is that possible, according to your theory? You should be literally unable to find the truth anywhere for all the bullshit, as you opined previously. Yet here you are.

[Nige]

How much of the arguing on here is devoted to wild disagreement about basic facts and debunking and counter-debunking massive lies? It’s already nearly impossible to have proper discussions about important topics with people you disagree with because of a refusal to accept a shared reality. That is only getting worse. How many other forums are there where liberals and conservatives have what passes for conversations?

[Sarcastr0]

We've never lived in an age where truth prevails merely because it's the truth. Look at history around the world.

Myths are foundational and fervently adhered to; state propaganda is common and effective.

Even in US elections, people have been profoundly ignorant about the reality of their candidates personal lives until recently. The golden age of US journalism was as full of partisan sleaze as any Internet rag, and just like now people were into it.

But we muddle through; we've done alright; hardly doomed.

Embrace uncertainty; embrace the inability of flawed humankind to glean the perfect truth. This is reality. Just try your best; that's all you can do.

[Commenter_XY]

Even in US elections, people have been profoundly ignorant about the reality of their candidates personal lives until recently.

Really? What is recent, just so I follow?

[Don Nico]

Nothing is C_XY. Nada.

[Sarcastr0]

Up until Gary Hart.

[OtisAH]

Here is a summary of literally every discussion ever with Brett Bellmore. If “The left is losing its faith that it can win arguments” then their crisis of faith is well-earned…

https://youtu.be/W2Rdf0n_Lsg

[SimonP]

You’re not thinking carefully about any of this, Brett.

It’s a system design problem. Our previous model assumed that the truth would necessarily and eventually prevail in any “free speech” market. Someone peddling falsehoods would eventually be shown, by argument and demonstration, that they are peddling falsehoods; and they would be discounted and ignored. As long as everyone is free to speak, we could trust that to happen.

That model turns out to have been a bit naive. Even conservatives recognize this – look at how they go on about the “left domination” of the media and higher education. True, they ascribe this to nefarious scheming behind the scenes, but just the same, it shows how leaving the media and higher education “free” to speak failed (in conservatives’ framing) to ensure diversity of opinion or promotion of the “truth.”

Now, conservatives are morons, so they can’t reconcile these apparently contradictory views. But leftists can explain – the reason why the corporate media seem to speak with one voice, and can shape public discourse the way they do, has to do with their size, their profit model, their being able to blot out competitors who may contradict them. Good journalism, and especially journalism that cuts against “common sense” and “accepted truths,” is hard and expensive to do, and getting it out there, to the public, is even harder and more expensive. Similarly, while conservatives froth at the mouth in their corner about the dark intrigues and dirty money in academia, leftists are able to explain apparently mistaken academic consensus in terms of coherentist epistemology. In any case, it is clear to conservatives and open-minded liberals that the “truth” does not necessarily win out, in media and academia, as much as we might believe that it should.

Social media presents the same problem, amplified. Because in social media you dispense with the superficial transparency and barriers to entry that you have with the media and academia. Social media not only does not reward “the truth”; it rewards falsehood, the more outrageous the better. Users are inundated with misinformation and exaggeration; they learn to react rather than to read. And if they are not convinced outright that the false is true, they are open to skepticism about things that are clearly, demonstrably true, due to their exposure to social media. Meanwhile, the media is adapting their own coverage practices to conform to those same incentives, finding in it the path to profit.

“Censorship” comes in when you find a powerful media platform like Facebook wanting to preserve everything that’s awful about their algorithms – which serves their bottom line – while recognizing that their algorithms promote and reward extremism and falsehood. They try to come over the top and make decisions about what is permitted to say; and I think that’s how you get administration officials concerned and involved in the process.

So, no, we don’t want the government deciding that no one on Facebook should be saying, “COVID is just a bad flu,” and coordinating with Facebook to try to catch every utterance to that effect and remove it. But we do want Facebook to work in a way such that its users can understand what’s true, and what’s false, about a statement like that. And it’s a fantasy to think that’s how it works now.

[DaveM]

"That model turns out to have been a bit naive. Even conservatives recognize this – look at how they go on about the “left domination” of the media and higher education. True, they ascribe this to nefarious scheming behind the scenes, but just the same, it shows how leaving the media and higher education “free” to speak failed (in conservatives’ framing) to ensure diversity of opinion or promotion of the “truth.”

This is a strawman argument, however, so unfortunately the rest of your argument is negated. The conservative argument is that the left dominates the media because it silences them, not because there's just too much free speech goin' on 'round here.

[Randal]

I've never heard that argument. Please explain how the left silences the media.

Are you talking about cancel culture? That doesn't make sense. The conservative line is that the media and academia are the perpetrators of cancel culture, not the victims of it.

You seem to have gotten your (moronic, as Simon pointed out) arguments mixed up.

[SimonP]

This is a strawman argument, ...

Um, no. You may not think it is a valid description of the conservative complaint about the media and higher education, but the point I'm making is not contra some putative conservative conspiratorial claim, but rather that even conservatives believe that the "truth" hasn't won out there, which requires some explanation in light of the older "model" of free speech, where it is presumed that truth wins out.

In other words, feel free to supply whatever account for left-wing dominance of the media/higher education you like. Whatever it is, if you believe the left-wing dominates those forums, and tells only its version of the "truth," then how has that come about? Why doesn't the "truth" win?

[Randal]

Yes, this has been exactly my takeaway from observing the young'uns raised within the modern media culture. It's not that they believe the disinformation, it's that they don't believe anything.

I haven't decided what I think of that yet. Maybe it's fine. Anyway, it's the obvious logical conclusion of the sort of self-aware postmodernism that my generation foisted onto the world in the 90's. It's not that far to go from "truth is subjectively perceived" to "the truth is unknowable."

[SimonP]

I don't think people no longer believe that there is no such thing as objective truth, or even that the truth is "unknowable." I think that people who consume disinformation and regular media believe there is something true about the world. They've just learned to distrust just about every source we might point them to.

[Nige]

I wonder if young people treat all the online disinformation as particularly wild and chaotic forms of fan-fiction about reality, only with enormous stakes fronm which they feel largely excluded.

[Randal]

Yes exactly. Having given up on ever knowing what's really going on outside their immediate perception, they feel like they have little to no agency outside their immediate lifestyle.

(Which is part of why "identity" has become such an important mode for exerting power, but that's an aside.)

This is where I'm torn. I am kind of in favor of having the "national discourse" just go away as much as possible. It's no longer healthy. So if the kids have learned to just ignore it, isn't that a good thing?

[Nige]

Given the well-documented process of radicalisation of young men in particular, it's not something that can just be ignored.

[Randal]

I don't think young men know what to do with themselves in this society.

American culture was previously focused on the "provider" model of masculinity: get a job, support your family and community. That version of male gender identity is almost gone since it's sort of inherently sexist.

We've never really had a strong "monk" culture, which is the other male gender role in the rest of the world: detached, benevolent, and wise. The closest American example is the cowboy, which itself is essentially extinct. (This is what The Big Lebowski is about, if you ask me. Everyone in that movie is having gender role problems except for The Dude, who has found monkhood, and Maude, the Diva.)

What other option is there? "Soldier" is really it, and that's what I think a lot of these guys are drawn to. Find a leader and a cause, and just exert violence on command. (This is what "Fight Club" was about.)

We as a society need to figure out what to do with the guys. If we don't have a need for that many provider / leaders anymore, then we could make them all proper soldiers with like, required military service. Or, role-model monkhood as a legitimate option. That means devaluing monogamy and marriage, among other things. (Monks are not always religious. Luke Skywalker and the Jedi is another great pop-culture monk example... although I guess that one is essentially religious.)

[Gandydancer]

Except that Ardern lies with almost as much regularity as Biden and we know THEIR misinformation isn't going to be interfered with, amIright?

[Nige]

But perhaps on an internet where the flood of disinformation has been checked, calling out lies would be easier?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the censors would never declare the calling out of lies to BE disinformation, would they? We can absolutely trust them on that.

[Nige]

But you can be damn sure the purveyors and beneficiaries of disinformation will scream about censorship.

[SimonP]

Ardern rightfully expresses concern at the way that online social media algorithms seem to be promoting violent extremism and terrorist content, and suggests studying that and developing rules that balance an interest in a free, secure, and open internet with protecting democracies from violent overthrow by a bunch of goobers driven to violence by a steady diet of propaganda and misinformation.

Kazinski has no way to respond to that other than to call it "fascism."

No - Kazinski, you and your ilk are part of the problem. The fact that you feel targeted by politicians worried about violent political extremism tells us everything we need to know about your rotting core beliefs.

[David Nieporent]

Fascism is a stupid label for what she said, but that doesn't make her statements any less appalling. Yes, truth is good and lies are bad. The government deciding what's true and what's a lie, and taking action against the latter, is worse.

Do you people think that any illiberal leader, any dictator, ever says, "I'm suppressing that speech because it disagrees with me?" No, they say, "That speech is false and harmful to society."

The only possible rebuttal to that is, "Too bad. That's not your call to make. Period."

Special pleading of, "Oh no, that's different because we're right and they're lying" is not feasible.

[Brett Bellmore]

It didn't take long after the Catholic Church gave up on the doctrine that "Error has no rights", before the left picked it up and dusted it off. But that is their excuse today for censorship: It's OK, because they only plan on censoring lies. And things that aren't known to be false, but might mislead. And truths that cause people to arrive at the wrong conclusions.

It's OK because they only plan on censoring what THEY plan on censoring, and they're the good guys.

[bernard11]

May I gently point out that "the left" is just wee bit lwess monolithic than the Catholic Church.

Your repeated generalization of anything a Democrat anywhere says to all liberals/progressives/ etc. is yet one more reflex that impedes your ability to think.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You think the "Catholic Church" is monolithic?

Whooo boy.

[Nige]

It's an actual top-down hierarchy, unlike 'the left.'

[SimonP]

The government deciding what’s true and what’s a lie, and taking action against the latter, is worse.

I don’t think that’s what Ardern is actually calling for; it’s almost like the only parts you’re reading are the bolded parts.

She affirms a commitment to the values of free speech; she recognizes that even studying the effect of disinformation on public discourse makes people nervous. All that she seems to be calling for are rules to govern these platforms, so that free speech will be protected, without making it impossible in real life to tackle real-world challenges like climate change and violent extremists.

It’s like crying foul when we try to study gun violence, its causes, its vectors, with an eye towards reducing gun deaths. Gun rights! Well, we understand that. We just want fewer people to die. Why is this so hard?

[Kazinski]

The fact that she adds climate change to her list is a big tell, she doesn't want people debating the issues where the elites have already made up their minds.

I can't think of anything more fascist than deciding some topics of debate are off limits.

Now of course people like you and Ardern will cite violent extremists, and nobody should defend actual calls for violence, but that isn't the real goal and you know it, its "election denialism", both here and Venezuela and Iran. Its " Covid Misinformation" so they can censor people who think Ardern's draconian covid lockdowns were unnecessary.

That's the way it always works, you cite the worst horrible as the reason for censorship, then end up censoring the most banal.

And that is fascist.

[Nige]

By the elites, you hardly mean the monstrously wealthy and powerful fossil fuel industry and everyone in positions of power and influence corrupted by their money? Because if you count them out, I'm not sure how much of 'the elite' is left.

I can't think of anything more fascist than the union of political and corporate power to push propaganda and lies in order to keep a small number of people extremely rich while polluting, poisoning and destroying the planet.

[shawn_dude]

This is a New Zealander and that nation isn't irrational about climate change. That nebulous "ozone hole" that people talked about in the 80s and 90s was right over their heads and they all felt it. They're watching their two glaciers dissolve in front of their eyes as temperatures rise. The notion of climate change is taken more seriously there than it is here. (for now)

This should go without saying, but not every country has the same beliefs as we do here in the USA.

[Kazinski]

They're uninformed if not irrational, 59% of New Zealanders have no idea how much warming there has actually been since 1850, 30% thinks its 2-4 times as much as it actually has been, and only 9% get it right, and a miniscule 2% underestimate it.

It's similar numbers around the world.

Ask how many New Zealanders are willing to have give up meat and dairy and flying, and are willing to have their food, gas, and heating bills go up 25-50% to see how they really feel. Because that's what their government is trying to sign them up for, despite the fact it won't meaningfully change the trajectory of temperatures.

[SimonP]

The fact that she adds climate change to her list ...

The fact that you don't seem to agree that climate change is happening - setting aside the different question of what we should do about it - is a good indication of why you find an attack on disinformation to be disconcerting.

[Bob from Ohio]

"How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists?"

Only one side can be heard, her side.

NZ has the population and GDP of Alabama. She's a gnat.

[Commenter_XY]

Gnat? I might have picked an organism a wee bit bigger. Maybe tapeworm. 🙂

[Kazinski]

Sand fly would more appropriate.Sandflies: New Zealand’s blood-sucking summer nightmare (actually, it’s year-round)

[Nige]

'Only one side can be heard, her side.'

Bob: 'Look, I know we're just relentlessly lying the world into global suicide but you have to keep listening to us or it's censorship!'

[shawn_dude]

You're delusional.

She's recognizing a fact that anyone else paying attention has already recognized. She saying she doesn't know what the solution to the problem will be but she's funded a study to start to get to some of the answers.

Meanwhile, in the USofA, we have laws against defamation and laws against inciting violence. What happens when the incitement is caused by a computer running an algorithm that has the effect of radicalizing citizens? What happens when a hostile nation uses tools like this to destabilize governments? Your answer is that trying to answer these questions is itself "fascism."

Bizarre.

[VinniUSMC]

Watching Sarcastr0, Nige, SL, etc arguing "it's better 1000 innocent people go to jail than 1 guilty person to go free" really makes me sad for the future of humanity. Fuck off slavers.

[Michael P]

Hypothetically (or not), what charges might one face for firing a "warning shot" for an alleged trespasser armed only with a clipboard? What additional charges might accrue if one leaves one's finger inside the trigger guard and later "accidentally" shoots the signature gatherer while trying to use one's rifle as a blunt weapon?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Depends if the administration likes your politics or not.

[Sarcastr0]

You think that'd be a federal crime?

Or are you just finding persecution wherever you can?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Prosecutorial discretion is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

You can ignore the murderers who kill the people who you don't like, and go after the guys who accidentally shove a guy you do like.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure if you understood my comment. There is no federal nexus; the administration's thinking doesn't even matter.

[Ed Grinberg]

Well, it all depends -- on whether the authorities like you better than the person you shot. If the person you shot (in the back!) is a "wrongthinker" -- you've got nothing to worry about!
John Derbyshire calls this "who-whom-ism."

[Gandydancer]

I see Derb exhibits there his self-discrediting mania about James Fields, who was guilty as hell and deserved execution even if that would be an out-of-ordinary sentence for his crime. He's right about just about everything else, though.

[Kazinski]

Depends on how deep you bury the body.

[Michael P]

One can assume the gunshot victim in the hypothetical case was able to drive herself to a nearby hospital, so there was no dead body to bury.

[OtisAH]

The body of the person you accidentally shot with your warning shot?

[John F. Carr]

A year or two ago Eugune Volokh had a post on whether it is legal to display a gun to deter a trespasser. In some states it is, in others it is illegal use of deadly force where only non-deadly force is allowed. Firing a warning shot may change the outcome.

As for an "accidental" shot, the jury decides whether it was an excusable accident. The legal standard is likely to be whether the gun was handled recklessly, creating a strong risk of injury.

[jb]

Probably you should be charged with a crime for being stupid with your gun and then the governor should pardon you, amirite?

[shawn_dude]

Having read the article you linked to... I get why you put "accidentally" in sneer quotes. You have excellent telepathy, apparently.

Three old farts having an argument with one of them refusing to leave private property who is agitated enough there were legitimate concerns for safety.

Google says Michigan has both a "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" law but both of them are limited in ways that I (IANAL) don't think apply directly. The old geezer admits he might get in trouble for shooting a disagreeable trespasser.

I think if the anti-choice dingbat doesn't drop charges, the conservatives in that area are going to have to weigh whether they care more about gun rights and private property rights versus their right to harass liberals on their front porches during the jury trial.

[not guilty]

It appears that Elmer Stewart Rhodes, and perhaps other members of the Oath Keepers, will argue at their pending seditious conspiracy trial that they expected then-President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act on January 6, 2021 regarding Congressional certification of the electoral vote. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-22/oath-keeper-can-invoke-insurrection-act-defense-in-jan-6-case The theory appears to be that even though Mr. Trump never did invoke the act, the Oath Keepers believed that he was going to do so.

There is no such thing as a frivolous criminal defense, but I fail to see how this claim is helpful to the Defendants, either factually or legally. Several of the seditious conspiracy defendants in fact did breach the Capitol on January 6, which undercuts any claim that any agreement to use force was merely preparatory, awaiting action by Trump.

The relevant portion of the Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 252, states:

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

Will the Oath Keeper defendants adduce evidence that they were part of the militia of any State or part of the armed forces? I hardly think so.

[apedad]

So their defense hinges on Trump stating that Congress meeting to count the electoral votes (which is actually a constitutional requirement, Art. II, Sect. 1, Cl. 3), was somehow unlawful?!?

What jokes they are.

[Brett Bellmore]

The only way it's helpful to them is if they're working out a plea deal with the prosecution, where they get off lightly in return for implicating Trump. It really makes no sense otherwise.

As I understand it, the Democratic leadership are taking the position that they don't actually have to convict Trump of insurrection, or even produce evidence of guilt that would be admissible in a criminal trial, they just need to vote him guilty by a simple majority, in order to invoke Section 3. (That's the way their latest Electoral Count act amendment would do it.)

But even so, they'd at least like some illusion of evidence to hang the charge on, and genuinely guilty people pleading guilty to have done it at his direction, even if they have no evidence that he directed it, would probably qualify.

[SRG]

Rhodes is going to attempt to get the jury to nullify, IMO. He's long argued in favour of nullification as a jury right and he may see it as the only chance of avoiding conviction.

[Brett Bellmore]

It probably is his only hope, but they'll be quick to call a mistrial and start over if that starts to look like a real prospect; The legal establishment is REALLY hostile to jury nullification; They'd probably abolish the right to jury trials entirely if they thought they could get away with it.

[not guilty]

Why would the prosecution seek a mistrial after attachment of jeopardy? That would seriously risk being unable to retry the case.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure you can call a mistrial and retry a case at any point short of a verdict, even after the trial while the jury is voting.

[Brett Bellmore]

Looking it up, you do need the prosecution to not be responsible for the mistrial, but the defense arguing for nullification would easily clear that bar.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Glad you thought to look it up (after confidently opining) but no, that is not the standard.

[not guilty]

"I’m pretty sure you can call a mistrial and retry a case at any point short of a verdict, even after the trial while the jury is voting."

Uh, no. Where the defendant does not consent to a mistrial, the prosecution must show that there was a manifest necessity for the declaration thereof in order to retry the case.

[Sarcastr0]

He Googled right after and corrected himself. That's pretty great by the standards around here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Qualified, not corrected. Timing vs cause, like I said.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, not disputing that. You're talking cause, and I'm talking timing.

The defense making a(n explicit) nullification argument to the jury would pretty much always qualify as "manifest necessity", I believe.

[not guilty]

That is a peculiar take on the manifest necessity standard. Once jeopardy attaches, an accused person has a valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal. "[T]he State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that, even though innocent, he may be found guilty." United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 479 (1971), quoting Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187-188 (1957).

The possibility of nullification in a criminal case is inherent in the right to trial by jury, although the trial court may not inform the jury of the option thereof, and it is improper for defense counsel to expressly advocate nullification. Be that as it may, instruction from the court during closing argument should suffice to remedy any perceived problem -- the law presumes that jurors follow instructions of the trial court.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Once jeopardy attaches, an accused person has a valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal."

A valued right they can violate, mind you. But it's valued, so that's OK.

[not guilty]

No rational prosecutor would risk a trial judge granting a mistrial with prejudice because of defense counsel's suggesting nullification during closing argument. An appeal to nullification is the longest of long shots. An instruction to disregard will ordinarily suffice. An admonition of defense counsel in the jury's presence would severely undercut the remaining defense argument. If the trial court or a reviewing court disagrees that manifest necessity for a mistrial existed, the accused would walk free, never to be prosecuted again.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Are you aware of a single example of a 1. a prosecutor asking for a mistrial following a nullification argument 2. a trial judge granting it and 3. a court permitting retrial? Or is this one of those outrages that's confined to your imagination?

I have to confess that I (an actual lawyer who actually handles criminal cases) have never even heard of 1. happening.

[SRG]

Many years ago I wrote to the owner of some blog on jury nullification, pointing out that the attitude towards it in Britain was very different, citing the Clive Ponting case as an example (and it was common enough both in secrets and obscenity cases) , and when he responded, he cc'd Stewart Rhodes in the email.

[OtisAH]

Rhodes is going to jail for a long time.

[Bob from Ohio]

The Republic is saved!

[John F. Carr]

The sentencing guidelines are not doing a good job here. The lead charge is seditious conspiracy. Another defendant pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and was to be sentenced under the same guideline, obstruction of an official proceeding, as the QAnon Shaman and other less culpable defendants. There is no guideline sentence specifically tailored to seditious conspiracy, it being such a rarely charged crime.

That said, I think he'll get 10 years or more. Which is probably enough. By the time he gets out nobody will care enough to give him a seven figure advance on a book deal.

[Bob from Ohio]

"seven figure advance on a book deal"

Like he'd get that now.

10 years in prison for doing nothing while unarmed, but wearing scary clothing? Did he even enter the building? "seditious conspiracy" is a Soviet type crime.

[John F. Carr]

"There is no such thing as a frivolous criminal defense"

The judge can exclude evidence of any defense he considers frivolous. It happens a lot. It gives appellate counsel something to do.

[not guilty]

The judge can exclude evidence that is not relevant and material and can preclude argument by counsel that misrepresents the law or misleads the jury. That having been said, even an accused with no facts in his favor is entitled to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the charged offense. In that sense, no criminal defense -- no matter how unsupportable on the facts -- is frivolous.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There is no such thing as a frivolous criminal defense

It's never frivolous to assert at trial that there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. But it seems to me that there are an infinite array of frivolous defenses in any given case.

[shawn_dude]

We already pretend that "well regulated militia" applies to every single adult in the country. Given that, why can't they claim to be part of a "militia of any State?"

Does the law require that they be part of the militia of the state the action is taken in? And since DC isn't a state, what does that mean? And since they were beating cops with clubs and fire extinguishers, does Trump invoking the Insurrection Act mean the insurrectionists themselves are empowered or only those engaged in preventing the insurrection?

And what does this have to do with the lizard people in the extra-dimensional pizza parlor basement eating children's brains with Hillary Clinton? (Remember when the National Inquirer was a joke and not a serious belief system adhered to by 30% of the country's voting population?)

[not guilty]

How would an Oath Keeper Defendant adduce admissible evidence before the jury that he was part of a “militia of any State”? Sure, he could testify that he was, but that ipse dixit would be subject to withering cross-examination.

[Armchair Lawyer]

GOP Congressman Matt Gaetz "unlikely" to face charges.

In a situation that surprises no one, after more than a year since the initial supposed "sex trafficking" investigation, sourced with "anonymous leaks" to the major newspapers, the Feds are likely decline to charge Matt Gaetz on sex trafficking/sex crime charges for supposedly sleeping with a 17-year old.

Turns out having your primary witness previously charged/convicted of fabricating evidence on someone else makes a poor witness.

But hey, the damage has been done in the political arena. And that was the point.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/26/the-fbis-matt-gaetz-operation-sidelined-an-effective-republican-voice-at-a-crucial-time-that-was-the-point/

[Nige]

If you believe the anonymously sourced claims in the Washington Post, anyway.

That article is rich in detail abut how awesome Gaetz is and how unfair the investigation is and leaves out any mention of the enormous pulsating mass of sleaze that is Gaetz's friend, Greenberg, who is the actual source of the investigation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If having a sleazy friend makes you guilty, well....have I got a story for you.

[Nige]

Having a sleazy friend who implicates you in his sleaze doesn't make you guilty but it sure as hell makes you subject to an investigation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

When that friend has already been charge/convicted with manufacturing evidence against someone else they had a disagreement with?

Nah...

Unless you want a REASON to investigate a political figure. Then, you just offer a deal. Then, well...if they're going to manufacture evidence once, I'm sure they'll do it again, especially if you offer to drop some charges.

[Nige]

So what? Can't tell if the evidence the friend provided on Gaetz was manufactured without investigating it, can you?

[Armchair Lawyer]

And of course leaking it to the major media companies without any context. Just anonymous sources. Right? Gotta do that.

[Nige]

You mean the one that just claimed he's not going to be charged?

[Gandydancer]

You mean the one that just ADMITTED he was not going to be charged.

Just because you’ve promoted the significance of a partisan hit piece doesn’t mean you want to ride it all the way into the ground. At some point the slimesters want to get out their parachutes and bail, grabbing for fig leafs as they do so.

[Nige]

Oh, I'm sorry, has there been official confirmation of that? Just because you're hoping your sleazey slimeball politician gets away with his sleaze and slime, doesn't mean he has, yet.

[Kazinski]

Especially since the charges were so serious: "people having sex."

To be sure at one time it was alleged that a minor was involved, but that allegations fell apart quickly.

Then they tried to make it that Gaetz paying for a woman's expenses to come meet him was sex trafficking, which its not.

[Nige]

Fantastic defense which shows Gaetz isn't a complete sleazebag - 'no, she was only ALMOST a minor, maybe, fingers crossed.'

[John F. Carr]

Is Gaetz damaged? He's a Trump fan and the normal rules do not apply, in either direction. There's nothing he can do to make Trump haters like him and very little he can do to make Trump fans dislike him.

[Bob from Ohio]

He was never going to be anything but a congressman. Safe district, he can get re-elected as many times as he wants.

[bernard11]

He was never going to be anything but a congressman.

True. Then why a complex plot against him?

Isn't just possible they reasonably had something worth investigating, and then decided the case was not strong enough to pursue?

Or is it just impossible a cultist could be guilty of anything?

[Bob from Ohio]

IDK, ask someone who alleges a plot.

[bernard11]

OK. I'll check with A.L.

[Gandydancer]

Not seeing the "complex plot". Do elucidate.

[SimonP]

Got it. I'll mark you down as, "supporter of interstate sex trafficking of underage women."

Setting aside the practicality of pursuing criminal charges with these witnesses, we the public can certainly come to our own views as to how plausible we think these underlying claims were. This isn't an example like Kavanaugh's, where we're talking about some hazy and dubious recollection of a college hook-up decades ago, and scant evidence otherwise. There's contemporary statements, electronic records. The fact that Gaetz is so deep in sleazeballs that he can hope to escape conviction - because no one will believe what the sleazeballs say about him - should not shield him from our scrutiny.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Got it. I’ll mark you down as, “supporter of interstate sex trafficking of underage women.”

You're a vile piece of shit.

[SimonP]

(^ 3 ^)

[Armchair Lawyer]

FBI abusing its raid powers again...

Mark Houck, is a Catholic pro-life activist and father of seven in Philadelphia, who got into a minor shoving match outside an abortion mill a year ago after an activist intimidated his 12-year-old. More than a year ago.

Pro-abortion campaigners sought charges at the local level and failed. They tried to sue Houck in civil courts but failed there as well. So finally, last week, they got a few dozen armed federal agents to raid Houck’s home, and then charged him with the federal crime of “interfering with a provider of reproductive health care.”

This is unbelievable. There are real crimes and issues out there. But apparantly intimidating people for political causes is the real reason the FBI exists.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/28/why-the-fbis-raid-on-a-christian-family-is-its-most-dangerous-abuse-yet/

[Nige]

Didn't he knock an elderly person to the ground? Isn't that assualt? Isn't that a real crime?

[Armchair Lawyer]

The district court threw out the charges...

[OtisAH]

I haven’t found a single report confirming that. I did find this though…

https://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/story/news/local/2022/09/26/fbi-denies-excessive-force-in-anti-abortion-arrest-in-pa-mark-houck/69520181007/

And considering the elderly person Houck assaulted twice required medical treatment, I doubt your claim even more.

[Brett Bellmore]

"“While it’s the FBI’s standard practice not to discuss such operational specifics, we can say that the number of personnel and vehicles widely reported as being on scene Friday is an overstatement, and the tactics used by FBI personnel were professional, in line with standard practices, and intended to ensure the safety of everyone present in and outside the residence,” the statement read."

This is a non-denial denial; They're not saying it didn't happen, or that their people weren't armed in the manner alleged, you notice, they're just disputing how it's characterized. Perhaps the FBI regards the behavior alleged as being professional, and in line with standard practices? And thinks that overwhelming force is intended to insure safety?

[OtisAH]

I know what it says me and what it doesn’t, Brett, but thanks. One thing it doesn’t say is they used “overwhelming force” to arrest him. In fact, that’s the characterization they’re pushing back against. But that would never stop or give you a moment’s pause, would it? “That’s Our Brett!”

Another thing it doesn’t say is “The district court threw out the charges…” Probably because it was a lie when AL decided to post it.

[Brett Bellmore]

It doesn't say that they didn't, either, or that they weren't wearing body armor, or that they weren't toting rifles, or that none of those rifles got pointed at anybody. It denies very little of the account, if you pay attention, it mostly just disputes how it's characterized.

[Nige]

Getting outraged that FBI agents are armed and wearing body armour in gun-lovin' America?

[Gandydancer]

You are a retard. The fact that we don't like the Feds disarming us obviously doesn't mean we must approve of the murders of Ashli Babbit or Daniel Shaver or this incident for consistency's sake.

[Nige]

Yes, when they arrest people, white Christian people anyway, they should let them hang on to their guns the whole time and bring them along to the jailhouse.

[Bob from Ohio]

"number of personnel and vehicles widely reported as being on scene Friday is an overstatement"

It was 29 in other words, not 30.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, the FBI officially denied it.

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

[Nige]

As usual, you've got the right, who lie all the time, and law enforcement, who lie all the time. So did they knock on the door or kick it in? Who can tell? What was once the party of law and order is now the party of compaining about egregious over-policing when white Christians and Republican politicians break the law and get caught, though.

[Gandydancer]

So, now you've decided to attest to the veracity of those who you say "lie all the time" as long as its your side that's pulling the strings? And you're accusing "the right" of being hypocrites?

Look in the mirror.

[Nige]

My side isn't pulling any strings - the FBI arrested the guy on federal charges and turned up to arrest him armed with guns and wearing body armour, which wouldn't rate a peep if he wasn't this white Christian dude.

[David Nieporent]

No district court threw out any charges.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The family says otherwise.

The incident occurred Oct. 21, 2021. The assault claim against Houck is so weak that not only did Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Soros-backed rogue prosecutor, refuse to file any misdemeanor charges against Houck, but, the family says, a civil lawsuit filed by the escort was thrown out of court

Do you have evidence to support your point?

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/fbi-justice-department-twist-federal-law-arrest-charge-pro-life

[Nige]

'a Soros-backed rogue prosecutor'

STACKS of credibility right there.

[David Nieporent]

1) There are no district courts involved that narrative.

2) As I mentioned in another context earlier this week, a civil lawsuit is not "charges." A civil suit being dismissed is not "charges being thrown out of court." That story sounds implausible. How would a civil suit have been dismissed that quickly? ("The claim is weak" — even if that's true — is not grounds to dismiss a lawsuit.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's another link.

"Ryan-Marie Houck said that a similar charge against her husband was thrown out by a district court this past summer."

https://www.deseret.com/2022/9/27/23374885/fbi-mark-houck-planned-parenthood-pennsylvania-ryan-marie-houck

Now perhaps you would like to argue she's incorrect and it was the criminal case which was just dropped, and the civil case which was thrown out. But I'm accurately reporting what was said.

[David Nieporent]

I found a different source, which seems to clarify things:

When both the city police and the district attorney declined to file charges against Houck, the escort filed a private criminal complaint in Philadelphia municipal court, Middleton said. The case was dismissed in July when the man repeatedly didn’t show up in court, Middleton said.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252385/mark-houck-fbi-arrest-abortion-clinic

So, if this is accurate, they actually were charges, rather than a civil suit, but the implication that it was "thrown out" because the court decided the case was weak is false; rather, it was thrown out because the alleged victim decided not to proceed with it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So....in other words...the case was thrown out.

And when you say "No district court threw out any charges." you would be.... (fill in the blank)

[shawn_dude]

...responding reasonably to someone who started the thread with the phrase "abortion mill."

[David Nieporent]

Okay: correct, because a municipal court is not a "district court."

[DaveM]

Why yes, the next time there is a sidewalk altercation and someone shoves someone else, by all means send in 30 armed FBI SWAT team members armed with long guns to that person's house and arrest him in front of their screaming children and frantic spouse.

I'm totally onboard with that, as I'm sure you are, too, Comrade.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well at least they haven't seized all of his property yet.

[Armchair Lawyer]

To date there have been 397 homicides in Philadelphia. There are nearly 200 missing children in Pennsylvania.

But apparently what is absolutely critical is to send a full FBI SWAT team after a guy who got into a pushing match a year ago with another guy, when the second guy said some dirty things to the first guy's kid who was sitting there praying quietly. Especially since charges were already dismissed at the district court.

[Nige]

Wow I wonder if that is an accurate and full accounting of the story.

[OtisAH]

Elder abuse/assault are specific crimes (maybe “enhancements”).

[Mr. Bumble]

So will Dr. Jill be arrested soon?

[bernard11]

There was no fucking SWAT team.

He was arrested peacefully. The FBI knocked on the door, he came out, and was arrested.

Goddamn Federalist is a lying POS.

[Brett Bellmore]

Were any of the people knocking on the door pointing guns at the time, perchance?

[Armchair Lawyer]

How many were there?

How many armed body shields were there?

[bernard11]

I don't know if they were.

Possibly they were armed. Houck seems to be kind of a confrontational guy, who likes to carry a big knife, so it's possible they reasonably feared violence

[Bob from Ohio]

"Possibly they were armed."

Of course the FBI agents were armed. As you well know.

[Nige]

Why wouldn't they be? Should they have disarmed themselves out of respect for his whiteness and his alleged Christianity?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bernard seemed to question that they were armed. Seems odd.

[bernard11]

Bullshit, you lying POS.

I didn't question anything. I said it was possible. If FBI agents are always armed, I guess they were armed.

I also pointed out that, given Houck's history it would sensible for them to be armed.

[Nige]

You're either claiming armed FBI constitute a SWAT team or are mad that they were armed at all, it's hard to get a proper hold of what's causing the outrage.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"who likes to carry a big knife,"

Evidence for that statement?

[bernard11]

Evidence:

But Dayle Steinberg, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, described Houck’s frequent presence differently — as a gadfly who had terrorized patients outside the clinic for years with verbal assaults, intimidation tactics, and threats of violence.

“Mr. Houck, who often carries a large knife on his belt, poses a threat to the safety of those seeking entrance to our facilities,” she said. “Violence and obstruction of clinic entrances is unacceptable and illegal. It’s good to see justice served.”

An interesting quote:

Asked whether his efforts might be viewed as intimidating by women seeking access to reproductive health, he added: “Some people might characterize harassment in a way differently than I would.”

[shawn_dude]

This a guy who took his minor child to a violent anti-choice protest at a women's health clinic. Sounds like the sort of guy that is totally protective of his daughter's safety rather than using her as prop in his political activism.

[SimonP]

That's what's alleged, yes. And the FBI has denied the account that AL is sharing here. I guess AL is just another liar, sadly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Read the FBI's denial closely. They're actually denying very little.

[Commenter_XY]

I wonder if there is Ring footage?

[SimonP]

Yeah, and who am I going to believe? The government agency that can easily be called out for stating obvious falsehoods, or the aggressive schmuck who assaulted a 72-year-old and is now panhandling for a MAGA handout? They've already got $300k, Brett - go throw them a G!

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I'm not going to trust the government agency with a history of lying and faking evidence. It's at least possible the aggressive schmuck is an honest aggressive schmuck, the prospect of an honest FBI is dead already.

[SimonP]

As far as I'm concerned, there's not a pro-life activist in this country who tells the truth. Not about abortion, not about the science, not about their views, not about where they ultimately want abortion policy to land in this country. I absolutely, 100% believe that this schmuck will say whatever the fuck he wants to say in order to paint himself as a hero and victim.

[Gandydancer]

You are often observed "absolutely, 100% believ[ing]" all sorts of stupid nonsense, so the value of your testimony as to what you believe is depreciated accordingly.

[SimonP]

I am not pleased to see your name once again polluting this board, but it's some solace that your contributions are indistinguishable from the rest of the trash.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You mean...the guy who asked the abortion extremist to stop insulting him and his child with vulgar language, repeatedly, and when the extremist wouldn't step away and got right next to his son while insulting him vulgarly...decided to make some space?

[shawn_dude]

Again... he brought a minor to an anti-choice action at a women's health clinic where violence between protestors trying to interfere in women's healthcare and volunteer escorts designed to protect those women is common. "I'm was only trying to protect the child I put in harm's way by attacking an elderly person" is a totally reasonable defense? How about not brining your kid to an event likely to get violent and then using them as a legal shield?

[Armchair Lawyer]

It doesn't actually sound like it was that common. The pro-life person was there regularly, without incident.

[SimonP]

I'm sorry, are you excusing shoving an elderly man to the ground because he's too mean?

[Gandydancer]

Try "threatening" rather than "mean".

[Sarcastr0]

He was abusive, but if you find the elderly threatening, that's on you.

[David Nieporent]

He was abusive according to the defendant's wife, who as far as I can tell wasn't even there.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You think an elderly person can't be threatening and abusive?

[Nige]

According to whom? The guy who harasses and intimidates people trying to use a health care clinic?

[Nige]

Yeah, this guy sounds like quite the piece of work. Harassing people trying to access medical care, brings along their kid to help with the harassment, obviously just itching for someone to offer him an excuse to violently 'defend' his kid, assaults the same 70 year old escort twice.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yeah, this guy sounds like quite the piece of work.

"liberal" approach to equality before the law:
Do I like the victim of government overreach / brutality?
Yes -- Government overreach!!! Government brutality!!!
No -- What's the big deal?!

[Nige]

Just because I don't buy your whitewashing of a clearly nasty individual, and because I notice the lies of commission and omission being spun around the story?

[Mr. Bumble]

No, because you are a fucktard plain and simple.

[Nige]

Yes, it must be frustrating for you when your lies get noticed, let it all out, there there.

[Gandydancer]

You would know if it’s frustrating when people notice that you are a fucktard, but don’t bother sharing. No one cares.

[Nige]

You're both defending a guy who engaged in verbal abuse of people trying to enter a health clinic, so it's to be expected.

[David Nieporent]

"raid on a christian family"

LOL. They're not even trying to hide it.

[shawn_dude]

Well, they did a bit. They didn't include "white."

[David Nieporent]

FBI abusing its raid powers again…

Um, even if you accept The Federalist's version — you shouldn't, because The Federalist are garbage people who lie about everything — there was no "raid" at all.

Now, I'll happily stipulate that there was no need for what they did do. Given the nature of the events, they could have called him up and asked him to come in and surrender himself. If only I heard you saying something similar about Brianna Taylor, I might take your concerns about the overuse of force by cops seriously, as opposed to this being special pleading because the guy is a conservative.

[Commenter_XY]

Thought experiment. If it was a pro-choice person (instead of pro-life) arrested by armed FBI agents in front of his children and wife, would you make the identical argument?

The cops who shot Brianna Taylor should be in jail, pure and simple.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I can't speak for David M. Nieporent, but from my perspective, if a pro-choice protestor assaulted a 70 year old volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center that would be an equally blatant violation of the FACE Act, and an equivalent federal response would be exactly as warranted.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This is the supposed assault

"She said that her husband sometimes brought their eldest son with him. She added that on multiple occasions that a “pro-abortion protester” would say “crude … inappropriate and disgusting things” to their 12-year-old son, such as “your dad’s a fag” and other vulgar slurs.

Her husband repeatedly told the man to stop verbally harassing his son, Ryan-Marie Houck explained. But the man didn’t stop. On one occasion, the man “kind of came into [the son’s] personal space,” Ryan-Marie Houck said. “Mark shoved him away from his child, and the guy fell back… He didn’t have any injuries or anything, but he tried to sue Mark.”

Brian Middleton, a friend of the Houck family, told The Daily Signal that “[Mark] was defending his son from a man who was verbally abusing his son. He stepped between them and asked him to stop. The man continued to lean in and verbally abuse. Mark extended his arms to get the assailant away from his so.”

[bernard11]

There's an impartial account.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Can you find a different one?

There's a reason that any local charges were dropped. And the civil suit was thrown out.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"there was no “raid” at all."

Uh huh...What do you call it when 25 armed FBI agents show up to your house in 15 different cars, slam on the door yelling to "Open up", then 5 of them draw their guns on you and your unarmed family?

[David Nieporent]

A good piece of fiction.

Not a raid, though. It's not a raid when you knock on someone's door and wait for them to come out.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Wait"...With 5 agents with guns out and another 20 agents behind body shields....

Uh huh...and if they "hadn't" opened the door?

I mean, how long are you going to take this fiction of yours? Seriously. This wasn't 1-2 agents just knocking on the door. You get that, right?

[David Nieporent]

I mean, how long are you going to take this fiction of yours? Seriously. This wasn’t 1-2 agents just knocking on the door. You get that, right?

No, I don't "get that." Why are you repeating uncritically the claims of the suspect's wife?

The story I linked above has a picture of the FBI agents at the door, provided by the Houcks. While it does not, of course, show a complete picture of everything that happened, it does not appear to reflect dozens of armed agents pointing their guns at anyone.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/storage/image/houck-fbi.jpg?w=600

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Why are you repeating uncritically the claims of the suspect’s wife?"

Because she's the witness? Because the FBI had the opportunity to make a statement to the contrary...that there weren't 25 agents there...that they didn't pull their guns out and aim them at the family...

And the FBI conspicuously failed to make such a statement.

[Gandydancer]

"...there was no 'raid' at all..."

Sounds like a "raid" to me. What necessary component of "raid" is missing?

[David Nieporent]

The actual raid part.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Biden calling out for dead people now...

https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/white-house-struggles-explain-president-asking-dead-congresswoman-she-was

OK, Houston, we've got a problem. Can Nancy Pelosi please take over the Presidency?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not unless you somehow get Harris out of the way first. And I don't know what they could offer her at this point to get her to resign as VP, when she's this close to being President.

[Mr. Bumble]

This has the makings of a horror film. Talk about going from the frying pan (cast iron of course) into the fire.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yeah, Harris is the problem.

I mean, I'm not exactly a Nancy Pelosi fan, but at least she's competent. Biden's not competent in one respect, and Harris isn't competent in another respect.

Maybe they can just impeach Harris first.

[Brett Bellmore]

Really, picking Harris only ever made sense as insurance for Biden against removal. And it's functioning fine in that regard, even the Democrats are appalled at the idea of her actually ending up President.

So I think they'll go on pretending Biden is actually functioning as President, while continuing to us him as an increasingly run down and unreliable sock puppet for his Cabinet. And just hope like hell he continues to be functional enough to even serve as a sock puppet.

Of course, it's in Harris' interest to delay any 25th amendment action against Biden for a few months yet; If she can just keep this going past the halfway point of his administration, she can have a bit under 2 years as President, and still imagine she'll be elected to two full terms. And I doubt she's up to realizing that she has no hope of that at all.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Maybe they can just impeach Harris first."

Impeachment has been shown to be a dead end.

[Brett Bellmore]

Impeachment is a dead end if you don't have both parties on board. Nixon could have been successfully impeached, that's why he resigned. Clinton couldn't be, because the Democrats didn't really care if he was guilty, and Trump couldn't be because the only case they ever had against him was hating him. They were literally talking about impeaching him before he was even elected, remember, but it took years for them to invent a pretext that even they could take seriously.

The problem with impeaching Harris is making the case that being a clueless incompetent is a high crime or misdemeanor. What are they going to charge her with, violating the Peter Principle? Being feckless isn't a crime.

Setting the question of charge aside, it's possible you could get a bipartisan agreement that Harris would be such a disaster as President that even the Republicans would agree to President Pelosi for a couple years, but is there really time at this point to pull it off before Biden becomes totally non-functional?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not much time left for a possible "President Pelosi" if the Republicans win back the House.

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends on how ugly the Republicans think the prospect of a President Harris would be.

Biden is pretty bad at this point, but is sufficiently compromised that his staff and cabinet can successfully mitigate the damage. Harris may be feckless, but would be a lot harder to work around, because she could put up a fight about it.

[Gandydancer]

As I am sure you have been told many times a "high crim and misdemeanor" doesn't have to be a crime.

But Dems impeaching the first black woman VP? Tilt!

[Krayt]

Pelosi may be competent, but it's another octogenarian.

[Gandydancer]

Or she may not be. Have you seen her recent appearances?

[Moderation4ever]

A lot has been made of President Biden's slip and yes, he is an old man. I remember after my mother death, my father's priest taking my dad aside and telling him that he would find himself calling for my mother or looking around the house for her. The priest pointed out that it is a normal experience. There is a reality that we sometime forget people are dead. It is embarrassing, but it also happens.

That said, the 2020 election gave us the choice between two septuagenarians, we need a better choice in 2024.

[Brett Bellmore]

They say that the time to worry isn't when you forget where your car keys are, it's when you forget what they're for. But Biden seems to be edging into that latter territory now.

Democrats are NOT acting like they genuinely disagree with this, either. A cognitive function test would settle the matter, but Democrats don't WANT the matter settled. That's not the position they'd take if they were confident he'd pass such a test.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems to be!

A cognitive function test would settle the matter, but Democrats don’t WANT the matter settled.
Horseshit. See Obama's birth certificate. Nothing is settled with the right. Even you should recognize this.

Biden is absolutely too old; so is Trump. Never seen you criticize Trump's issues in this realm. Because it's you who don't really care about the issue; just another partisan cudgel! Which is why nothing is going to ever get done about it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

And nothing is settled with the left either. There are still plenty of people on the left out there who swear by the Russia hoax.

I don’t think Biden should be compelled to do a cognitive function test. He’s acting now like he did during the election campaign. There are people around him who could invoke the 25th amendment if needed.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd favor a statute requiring all Presidents to take one periodically. But Biden should have to be compelled. He should volunteer for it.

He won't, because on some level he's afraid himself of what the result would be.

[Sarcastr0]

He won't because people you would move the goalposts. It doesn't have any updside.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, weren't you making that same argument about Obama's birth certificate? And yet his finally relenting on releasing it massively changed things.

You've got a guy on your side who often acts mentally compromised, and you're just making excuses for not formally confirming whether it's true.

[Sarcastr0]

I was, and the right immediately moved the goalposts.

IIRC, you suddenly became skeptical to the point of not knowing unless you were in the room.

Not a great example to come back on.

Slipping some words is not proof of being mentally compromised, Brett. I know you're super into conclusions both psychiatric and criminal when it's a liberal on the other side.

[bernard11]

Correct.

He could get a perfect score on the GRE and the Bretts of the owrld would claim:

1. It was rigged
2. Even if it wasn't he should take the SAT also.

[Brett Bellmore]

He could forget that the dead woman he's honoring isn't in the audience, and the Bernards of the world would claim there was nothing going on.

[Commenter_XY]

I don’t think Biden should be compelled to do a cognitive function test. He’s acting now like he did during the election campaign. There are people around him who could invoke the 25th amendment if needed.

That is where I net out. I pray for his health, because I don't think the country would do better with a POTUS Harris.

[Don Nico]

"Biden is absolutely too old; so is Trump."

Amen! Neither should be on another ballot

[Gandydancer]

A cognitive function test would settle the matter, but Democrats don’t WANT the matter settled.
Horseshit. See Obama’s birth certificate. Nothing is settled with the right. Even you should recognize this.

Horseshit. A "passed" cognitive function test would settle nothing because that can be faked. But Dems getting a FAIL result would have much more credibility. That cannot of course be risked by those that aborted consulting their voters and chose Biden-Harris.

[David Nieporent]

Horseshit. A “passed” cognitive function test would settle nothing because that can be faked.

And there you go. To Gandydancer's "credit," he admits that the whole thing is a bad faith request because he'd never accept the results unless they came out the way he wanted.

[Bob from Ohio]

"my father’s priest taking my dad aside and telling him that he would find himself calling for my mother or looking around the house for her'

Biden wasn't married to her for decades. She was one of 535 and a GOPer to boot. He barely knew her.

[Gandydancer]

I see. So they just wheeled him out in public with no prep? They must be even more foolish and incompetent than I've imagined them to be. And that's doing the limbo under a very low bar.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A lot has been made of President Biden’s slip and yes, he is an old man. I remember after my mother death, my father’s priest taking my dad aside and telling him that he would find himself calling for my mother or looking around the house for her. The priest pointed out that it is a normal experience.

What were the priest's credentials WRT being a mental health/medical care professional?

There is a reality that we sometime forget people are dead. It is embarrassing, but it also happens.

That's odd, because I've never forgotten the living/non-living status of anyone I know, nor have I ever known someone to do so...that is, nobody who wasn't suffering from Alzheimer's/advanced dementia. Have you ever just forgotten that someone you personally know is dead? If so, you might want to talk to your physician about that.

[Gandydancer]

"There is a reality that we sometime forget people are dead."

Who is this "we"?

[bernard11]

Do you ever read any honest news?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Honest news"; an oxymoron, when the NYT and WaPo win Pulitzers for Russiagate reporting .

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's almost as if there might be more to that story than you like to pretend.

[Gandydancer]

non. seq.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree it's a little odd to cite that source, but it's not like there's any real question about what happened. The whole thing is on video.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sure. This is honest, but I read news from all over the spectrum.

Do you?

[Sarcastr0]

I read news from all over the spectrum

Do you though? Your links suggest otherwise.

Though I suppose maybe you only believe one side of the spectrum. Which is not better.

And asking a liberal who is reading VC if they have a diversity of politics in their diet is...self-refuting.

[bernard11]

You don't.

Otherwise you wouldn't post all the crap you post.

And I don't read sources who only tell the truth by accident, like the ones you constantly link to.

It's true I don't read much RW media - the WSJ or an NR article, or a column by a conservative sometimes - but that's because it's mostly blatant, deliberate, lies.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"you don't"
I see. You know what I do better than I do.

"blatant, deliberate, lies"
If it was mostly "blatant, deliberate, lies" you think they would be sued out of existence. And yet, they aren't...

It seems there may be an alternate view out there which you would rather pretend just doesn't exist.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Do you ever read any honest news?

Given that the incident is readily available for viewing on video and audio and there's no dispute over what happened, your response is especially stupid and pointless...even for you.

[Gandydancer]

By definition "honest media" is media that reports that Biden humiliates impertinent questioners by defeating them in arm-wrestling contests. And that Mao swam right across the Yangtze, no problem.

[Gandydancer]

"Pressed on Biden's apparent confusion at not seeing Walorski at the event, Jean-Pierre responded: 'I just explained, she was on top of mind.'"

He remembered that he was supposed to thank her for her help in passing the bill, but not that she was dead.

At this point this kind of thing cannot be a surprise.

[apedad]

Counselor for War Crimes Accountability Eli M. Rosenbaum Opening Statement Before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Unfortunately, however, the Title 18 war crimes statute does not cover the vast majority of war criminals who have come to the United States, who are here, or who will eventually come here – because it confers jurisdiction only when a victim or perpetrator is a U.S. person, not on the basis that the perpetrator has immigrated to our country or is otherwise on U.S. soil.

There’s a second major gap: the federal torture statute doesn’t confer jurisdiction based on the victim’s U.S. nationality. Thus, even if a civilian U.S. citizen or a U.S. military servicemember becomes a victim of torture abroad under color of law, the U.S. ordinarily has no jurisdiction to prosecute unless the perpetrator is a U.S. citizen or is subsequently present here.

And there’s a third major gap: we don’t have a statute criminalizing “crimes against humanity.” Such laws – the first of which the United States famously co-prosecuted at the post-World War II Nuremberg trials – allow for the prosecution of certain criminal acts, such as enslavement or mass murder, when committed as part of a systematic or widespread attack against a civilian population, even if those acts occur outside the context of an armed conflict or a genocide.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/counselor-war-crimes-accountability-eli-m-rosenbaum-opening-statement-senate-judiciary

I can agree with points 1 and 2 because they deal with direct jurisdictional issues and something the US can deal directly with.

Not sure about point 3 though as that seems too vague.

[SRG]

IIRC sometimes the only sanction the US has arises from the immigrant lying on his immigration or naturalisation documents.

[John F. Carr]

We need a question on the immigration forms: did you serve in Ukraine as a member of the armed forces of Russia, DPR, or LPR, or a private military company? If the answer is yes, provide evidence to prove you are not a war criminal.

[apedad]

". . . provide evidence to prove you are not a war criminal."

Just a logic question....how do you prove a negative?

[John F. Carr]

Start with a narrative account of service. If you served as a garrison in occupied towns, go back to Russia. If you drove a fuel truck, probably OK. If you were conscripted on September 30 and sent as part of a human wave to be captured in Bakhmut on October 1, probably OK. Run the story by intelligence agencies and Ukrainian prosecutors to check.

[Gandydancer]

Yeah, we do such a good job sussing out these things. Low work-loads for our public servants, who get unlimited resources to pursue the jobs they are so dedicated to doing, and the benefit to us who pass through ore extreme vetting are so valuable to us.

Or, in the real world, how about we skip the paperwork and just say "no".

[Bob from Ohio]

Rosenbaum is the classic bureaucrat who inflates things to preserve his job. He was hired to harass old minor alleged Nazis and once that supply died off, he got his job changed to free ranging crusader against crimes against humanity.

We should only prosecute war criminals who are Americans, who harm Americans and who illegally enter the US. Leave the others to the ICC.

[bernard11]

He was hired to harass old minor alleged Nazis and once that supply died off,

No such thing as a "minor" Nazi. Someone who "only" killed, or helped kill, one or two people is still a murderer and war criminal, and most these guys ran up bigger scores than that.

They needed to be pursued into the grave, no matter how old.

[shawn_dude]

If we don't start grading Nazis and neo-Nazis from major to minor, how will we excuse the jack-booted Christian nationalists giving the GOP its recent boost of new blood and energy?!

[Gandydancer]

What you know about "Nazis" fits nicely in the ignorant vacuum between your ears.

[Gandydancer]

Point 3 is self-discrediting since the absence of any statute criminalizing “crimes against humanity” obviously did not in fact prevent the Nuremberg trials from going forward.

[DaveM]

Note to VC admins

Please tell your software devs that there is a bug in how HTML tags are cleansed in comments. When a comment is first made, one can use HTML elements such as UL, OL, LI, and BLOCKQUOTE. However, when you edit a comment, they are stripped.

Steps to recreate the bug:

1. Create a comment with a BLOCKQUOTE element, save and view. The tag is rendered.
2. Edit the comment. The BLOCKQUOTE element is stripped.

[John F. Carr]

And maybe hire a company to test these forms for security vulnerabilities. When I worked for a company providing cloud services we hired hackers to attack a copy of our system without any customer data on it. They found a good number of bugs related to sanitizing HTML.

And for the nostalgic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samy_(computer_worm)

[Krayt]

I noticed this and complained about it, too.

When you edit a comment where you used HTML tags (e.g. blockquote), they are stripped out. You don't notice this, of course, and then save and your indented quote block is realigned full-left. So you have to edit a second time and add them back.

[Krayt]

I haven't checked, but the 5 minute timer should be reset to 0 and start again after a save, and not continue from the initial posting.

[Gandydancer]

I'm just grateful that they've finally allowed ANY editing, after letting the egregious former version of their software go on abusing us for an unforgivable period of time.

Not that the HTML stripping isn't worth pointing out. I hadn't yet noticed it.

As long as we're making wishlists, a tag menu would be nice. But I assume they know that. But this is a vote to prioritize it somewhat.

[Gandydancer]

...that the Conspiracy is so much harder to peruse that it was before is, on the other hand, a massive dis-improvement.

[John F. Carr]

The New York Post reported a verdict for the plaintiff in a malpractice suit in Manhattan court, including dollar amounts, based on a statement by the plaintiff's lawyer (https://nypost.com/2022/09/24/michael-cox-scores-in-case-against-manhattan-doctor/). When the Boston Herald tried to confirm the report, "A Manhattan court clerk supervisor said the documentation of the verdict was under seal and not available, as is apparently common practice there because of 'the rules,' the supervisor said."

[Michael P]

Seems like that kind of thing shouldn't be sealed, even in a settlement.

I wonder how the doctor (is supposed to have) committed suicide by means of a knife in his own chest. Sounds difficult.

[Brett Bellmore]

Heard of "falling on your own sword"?

I know of a case where somebody slipped in the kitchen, and ended up with a carving knife in their chest. It was touch and go for a while but she lived, and did even manage to convince the police that, no, her husband hadn't stabbed her.

So, it's feasible, but a fairly unusual way to do it these days.

[bernard11]

Reminds of a cartoon I saw once.

Guy with a pair of scissors through his chest is standing at the usual pearly gates, and St. Peter says:

"You know, in all the time I've been here, this is the first actual case of running with scissors I've ever seen."

[Commenter_XY]

Shades of Donald Manes = sticking a knife in your chest

[Krayt]

Open dishwasher doors with the lower tray pulled out are a source of many an emergency room visit, as people fall on upturned knives in the silverware holder.

Put the sharp knives down, everything else can point up for better cleaning.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a standing rule in our house: All knives (Except butter knives!) go point down in the dishwasher. (Carving knifes are laid flat on the upper shelf.) Not so much for the tripping scenario, but for the "reaching in and cutting yourself" one; A point on knife might not be seen when you're unloading.

[apedad]

Saw that too and had the same thought.

The death investigation would have been able to confirm if/how he bled to death with blood patterns showing if he moved/was moved.

For example, if he stabbed himself and then laid down on the floor/couch/bed and slowly died, then the blood pattern (along with livor mortise), would be evidence that he killed himself.

Even the stab wound would show how he was stabbed (single entry? multiple wounds [which would be questionable about suicide then), angle of the wound [e.g. if he was right handed but the wound was on his far left side, etc.).

So lots of stuff to show whether it was a suicide or not - or course if there's not some kind of cover up like with Epstein's "suicide."

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you've never heard of Seppuku, although that was done by self disemboweling.

[Ridgeway]

Seppuku aside, people do occasionally kill themselves with a knife to the heart.

[Gandydancer]

Usually attempted self-disembowelment interrupted by beheading by the suicide's second.

[Michael D]

“The [Tennessee] Supreme Court granted Defendant’s application for permission to appeal to clarify any uncertainty arising from recent case law concerning the appropriate standard of review to apply to claims of alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument when no objection was lodged at the time of the alleged misconduct but the claim is raised in a motion for new trial. After reviewing the applicable case law, the Court clarified that failure to object to a prosecutor’s statements during closing arguments results in waiver on appeal and that the plain error standard of review applies to claims that are treated as waived. Therefore, it applied plain error review to Defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and concluded that, even if the statements by the prosecutor were not appropriate, the claimed misconduct did not affect the outcome of the trial.”

https://www.tncourts.gov/press/2022/09/13/tennessee-supreme-court-clarifies-standard-review-claims-prosecutorial-misconduct

STATE OF TENNESSEE V. TYLER WARD ENIX State of Tennessee v. Tyler Ward Enix E2020-00231-SC-R11-CD

My opinion: the failure to raise an objection at the time is not a waiver. Prosecutorial misconduct has no place in our system of justice and should be reviewed at any point a valid and credible allegation is made.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The alleged misconduct is that the prosecutor said

And we told you at the beginning a premeditated act does not have to be in the mind of the accused for any specific period of time. It can happen in an instant. But did it happen in an instant here when you think about how long it took him to kill her: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47.

We talked about judgment, and thinking about that—I’m out of breath and I’m not even wrestling with anybody.

If this was in fact improper (which is far from obvious to me), then we want the defense attorney to bring it to the judge's attention at the time so that corrective action can be taken. Under your rule, a defense attorney would be better served by not objecting, so they could get a shot at a new trial if the verdict went against them.

[Ridgeway]

Yeah. Even more egregious examples, like withholding exculpatory evidence, need to be raised once the defense becomes aware of them. "No sandbagging" is a good rule of thumb.

[Michael D]

One would think that type of misconduct would result in overturning a verdict as well as ethics violations against the prosecutor. Once in a blue moon, I read about a case being overturned. Rarely do I read about sanctions against the prosecutor.

This is one reason I think absolute immunity should be abrogated. Imbler needs to be overturned.

[John F. Carr]

Stoughton, Massachusetts continues its long history of bad cops. Twenty years ago the town held a referendum on police corruption. Corruption won. Formally, it was a vote to recall the selectmen who voted not to renew the contract of the dirty chief. The chief was later convicted and forced to resign. Then there was the entirely separate burglary ring involving the police. There was another major incident I forget now. The cops just have a bad reputation. (Revere, Abington, Springfield... some places are magnets for bad cops.) Most recently, the department's "youth explorer" program involved exploring the bodies of underage youth. Three officers resigned or fired. A 23 year old woman pregnant by a police officer committed suicide.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/09/22/metro/three-stoughton-police-officers-had-inappropriate-relationships-with-young-woman-who-came-them-mentoring-town-report-finds/

[Moderation4ever]

Until yesterday, Florida Gov. DeSantis has had to make news through political stunts, not judging stunts just staying the actions were stunts, now he has a real problem he can attack. This will be the thing where the rubber meets the roads. Can he bring Florida through the recovery and rebuild after Hurricane Ian. I think will define whether he has the right stuff to be President. Here is what I am looking for, does he set politics aside and focus on the work? Does he use the resources he has effectively?

[Ben_]

How will you know? Do you think there's a news organization you can trust to fairly report enough information to decide? Why do you think that?

[Sarcastr0]

Ahh yes, when you become so partisan you advocate for an epistemological crisis.

[Bob from Ohio]

Before twitter and other social media one might plausibly argue media was not biased against GOP and conservative. Now, we know their thoughts.

[Nige]

More like GOP is biased against most media, depsite it generally being owned by billionaires, because they still have to satisfy audiences by having some sort of passing relationship with the truth, while the GOP does not.

[Ben_]

Doesn’t answer the question.

Everything won’t go perfectly for everyone hit by the storm. It’s easy for dishonest people like you to pretend anything imperfect for anyone is all DeSantis' fault. No doubt you will.

Hence my question. How does he plan on determining how well the response was?

Florida's response to the Covid disaster was among the best.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Ben, you've convinced me. You cannot be sure of anything, ever, that we haven't fully seen with our own eyes.

No one and nothing can be trusted! I am a very serious person serious about interfacing with the real world!

[Ben_]

Still no answer on how he intends to judge the results.

Mocking a question isn’t answering it. It just shows how much of a jerk you are, in addition to being completely dishonest.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I encourage the federal government to do as little as possible to help Florida.

Bootstraps!

[SimonP]

Given that one of his first steps was to ask for a blank check, upfront, for disaster relief, I suspect that he has a whole crooked plan for the "recovery." It's too bad it'll take a while for us to look under all the rocks to see where all the cash is going.

[David Nieporent]

It's no less Bellmorian conspiracy theorizing when you do it.

[Krayt]

So we should be careful dumping uncounted federal billions into a corruption machine of the Florida government?

Like Puerto Rico?

[BrianL.]

Well, he thanked Biden for his cooperation:

https://www.newsweek.com/desantis-biden-florida-hurricane-ian-1746899

[Moderation4ever]

This will be the trick, void the Chis Christy handshake, but keep a civil relationship. I also think that Gov. DeSantis will need to work well with Democratic mayors.

Would I be right in thinking the path of the storm went through strongly Republican areas? Fort Meyers, Naples, Sanabel, Sarasota, ect.

[apedad]

Yes but also through Tampa which is blue and heading towards Orlando which is also blue.

https://www.270towin.com/2022-house-election/states/florida

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It appears the Republican areas were hardest hit . . . and somewhat unexpectedly. Maybe there could be a slight chance there is a God?

[shawn_dude]

Tampa barely got grazed. (I'm a former Tampa resident with a lot of friends there.) The most widely distributed shot of Tampa post-Ian is of Ybor City which is less than a mile from the bay, on low ground, and it's not flooded. Tampa's biggest issue will be all of it's huge trees that occasionally fall over and take out the power. I was there during Charley, which took a similar path. There may be some post-Ian issues with the river overflowing, depending on the rain dumped across the I-4 corridor.

[Bob from Ohio]

" Here is what I am looking for, does he set politics aside and focus on the work? Does he use the resources he has effectively?"

And how will you tell? The media has already written their narratives, New Trump fails!

[Ben_]

Dateline Tampa: Usually everything goes perfectly during a major hurricane and the residents who experience it are better off than they were before. But this time, the Florida response led by DeSantis has some left some hurricane Ian survivors with big unsolved problems two days after the storm arrived …

[Sarcastr0]

Hypothetical double standards seem your main diet these days.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"You cannot trust the media, they are biased. Only believe what I tell you."

[Nige]

Wow, you've already started covering up his impending failure by blaming the media?

[shawn_dude]

He's already whined about how Biden called some mayors before calling him. He voted against money for Sandy but wants a blank check for Florida. Both of those are worthy of a good eye roll, but he still has the opportunity to do right by his citizens.

Which won't do him much good.

Florida has had a far-right legislature for long enough that its "free market" and low tax credentials are iron-clad. And that's been bad for the average homeowner that cannot get homeowner's insurance except from the state's insurer of last resort. And while Desantis has made some loud proclamations about "fixing" that issue, the insurers keep leaving and Florida's homeowners are slowly accumulating into a single, state-sponsored insurance plan that is poised for disaster should there be a big enough storm. Ian may be that storm; the jury is still out. What is absolutely true, though, is a failed homeowner's insurance market has major implications for the Florida housing market, and home values in general. If Desantis cannot get that under control (in a state that insists on low taxes and a free market approach), a lot of people will see him as the reason their home values plummet.

I'd wish him luck, for the sake of the good people living in his state, but I'm rather hoping he loses his next election.

[grb]

I admit it : No clue whatsoever who sabotaged Nord Stream. The candidates :

1. United States, playing extra-extra hardball.
2. Europeans, burning the bridge behind them to wean off Russian gas.
3. Ukrainians, to make European resolve a non-factor.
4. Russians, to claim the U.S. did it as agitprop aimed at Europe.
5. Martians, fed-up about all those probes landing on their planet.

The problem with 1-3 is they involve a massive risk-for-return if exposed. After all, the pipes were sitting unused. Anyone caught sabotaging them would do massive damage to their political aims. The Russian theory may not make sense either, but it's the kind of brainless imbecility we've come to expect from Putin's rule. Which brings up another point : Remember when Right-types used to gush about what a genius he is? They used to swoon over him like a tweener girl her boy-band idol.

[OtisAH]

Tucker Carlson was on the air last night insisting the US did it and offering helpful advice to the Russians on how to get back at the US. And of course his bit is on all the Russian televisions. But he can do that because it’s just entertainment, nobody takes Tucker Carlson seriously, and he’s our greatest and most real Patriot™️.

[Brett Bellmore]

1. Semi-plausible, (Biden has made some threats that seem relevant.) and if so will be denied to the ends of the Earth.

2. Probably not, because they're still shutting down nukes, they haven't reached the point of that level of resolve. But possible, because it would only require one actor.

3. Very plausible.

4. No, because it's not in their interest. That's some really expensive PR from their perspective, foreclosing the Europeans caving as it does.

5. Probably not, they'd have better targets.

6. Incompetent Russian maintenance. Can't be ruled out.

[SimonP]

Christ, you are retarded.

The only scenario you deem to be off the table is the one that most informed people seem to think is most likely.

Biden has no interest in causing an energy shock in Europe. He can see what's happening over there - right-wing parties are winning in elections, and they're riding a wave of discontent over energy prices. Right-wing parties in power break the EU consensus on Ukraine and sanctions on Russia, which could ultimately lead to a humiliating retreat in the face of Russian aggression. Russia gets to keep the Donbas, sanctions are lifted across the board, NATO and the EU walk back with their tail between their legs, etc.

Meanwhile we have prior history with Russia, where they have claimed to need to engage in "maintenance" as a ruse to reduce gas supplies to Europe. When that excuse ran its course, they came right out and said that they wouldn't resume supplies. It is absolutely in line with that for them to stage a coordinated set of explosions across the two Nord Stream pipelines, in order to cut Europe off from supplies.

What is his interest? He sees what's happening in European politics, and he see in it a vindication of his theory of the case - that democratic governments will have a hard time staying the course, particularly when right-wing parties are busy repeating the Russian propaganda line that Ukraine is not worth all of this inflation and economic uncertainty. No one on the right in Europe (or in the US) is connecting what we're going through to the Russian war in Ukraine - they are attributing it all to economic mismanagement of their centrist governments. So Russia is tightening the screws, just in time for winter.

It's war, and this is a kind of pincer move by Russia to get the west to retreat on sanctions and isolation efforts. He is making up what he's losing by selling at higher prices to India, China, and other countries that haven't bought into the sanctions regime.

[Brett Bellmore]

The end game Russia is aiming for here isn't Europe becoming energy independent from Russia. It's Europe deciding that they ARE dependent on Russia, and caving on Ukraine in return for restored energy supplies.

The pipeline bombing took that victory off the table. It was hardly in Russia's interest. The people it was most in the interest of is the Ukrainians, who no longer have to worry about Europe caving in return for energy supplies Russia can't supply anymore.

Russia could shut down the pipeline non-destructively any time they wanted, it WAS shut down. They didn't need to deprive themselves of the ability to quickly turn it back on!

[Sarcastr0]

The end game Russia is aiming for here isn’t Europe becoming energy independent from Russia

By this logic, Russia shouldn't have invaded Ukraine.

Russia under Putin is demonstrably not a rational actor, nor a long-term thinker.

[Nige]

He thought a Europe energy-dependant on Russia wouldn't react effectively. That may or may not have been rational, but oh boy was it wrong.

[gormadoc]

He is rational. It doesn't mean he can't be wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

If he is rational, his predictions have of late proven so consistently wildly wrong it's indistinguishable from a non-rational actor.

[Nige]

Yeah, the point where he doesn't seem to have stopped, demanded more realistic asessments about military capabilities and Europe/US cohesion and acted accordingly is where he left rational behind, or is going all in on some big gamble.

[gormadoc]

The "big gamble" could be that Germany and other less important parts of Europe will have to drop effective opposition in order to deal with internal issues, whether that's simply acquiescing to Russian desires, taking up more of the world's attention, or refusing to increase punitive measures on Russia. German ministers unwisely suggested similar issues as they hemmed-and-hawed before agreeing to further sanctions in the early summer.

[Nige]

I’d say his more immediate concern is the supply of arms and money from the US, to be honest. Even if the sanctions are dropped, that’s not going to fix the mess at the front or the dysfunction of his military.

[shawn_dude]

And all he had to sacrifice for this masterful plan was the worldwide belief that Russia had a powerful military able to stand up to NATO nations by letting the Ukraine hand him his ass in the battlefield while his male citizenry bolts for the borders.

Brilliant!

[Commenter_XY]

I disagree....strongly. Putin is utterly rational. He knows exactly what he is doing.

gormadoc said it well....he can be rational and still be wrong.

[gormadoc]

That's the perennial Russian problem: the information the decision-makers rely on is wrong. The state is just too large and corrupt while the power is too centralized. The underlings aren't motivated by efficacy but by accruing power and wealth so they regularly report whatever will make the bosses happy. Putin did not know how shambolic the army was as the military has consistently maintained that the morale problem was only with a few mentally disturbed recruits and that the draft-dodging problem was due to money trouble. He was assured by the separatists in Ukraine as well as the unchanging civil war that Ukraine could not put up effective resistance. He did not anticipate the extent of the sanctions because his men (and the German government) insisted that their German relationship gave them special closeness and insights. He correctly figured that a war-footing would allow him to get rid of domestic enemies. He knew that China was fuel-hungry and could not afford to sanction Russia. We know how it all turned out but Putin cannot see the future and is hobbled by Russian intelligence deficits.

I will also point out that the US, France, and Germany are also involved rational actors but they've disagreed on prognoses and actions. Germany was sure Russia wouldn't invade at all, France anticipated more intra-EU cooperation, and the US expected that Ukraine wouldn't last long enough for complicated equipment to matter. Germany was (and is) hesitant to sanction Russia or to provide Ukraine with much more equipment than it already has but most of Western Europe and the US don't have issues with either. Is Germany suddenly irrational or have they just been consistently wrong because of their beliefs?

[shawn_dude]

All you've pointed out here is that he has an irrational trust in his sources of information. He claims to be a student of Russian history, which you outline admirably, but cannot seem to take the same lesson you have. And when he has humiliating defeats on the battlefield, his response is to double down on the same approach and attempt to take direct control of the war himself.

[Currentsitguy]

It was perfectly predictable if you take into consideration Russia's history, and mindset. First and foremost they are always obsessively convinced the rest of the world is chomping at the bit to invade them. Any attempt at defense or any alliance they do not control is a direct threat, and the closer it comes to their border the more urgent the threat is.

The second thing they take as an article of faith is that the West is hopelessly corrupt and degenerate and that they lack the ability or will to oppose them. To this minute they are sure that fear of energy shortages this winter, and more hysterical threats of nuclear annihilation will cause the West's resolve to fracture at any moment.

Their need to control a ring of buffer puppet regimes around their border is compulsive, bordering on pathological. In their mind the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 was an existential threat to their existence.

Given that, combined with their unshakable belief in their own ethnic superiority and the belief it is their god-ordained destiny to rule Eurasia and everything that has happened makes perfect sense.

[grb]

Putin isn't rational. His decision to launch a war of conquest in Europe was predicated on unhinged contempt of the West's "degeneracy". He was given repeated warnings on the consequences of war before the invasion (including specifics on the status of Nord Stream) but he ignored everything in favor of his prejudices. Addled over getting away with his previous petty mischief - bloated with vanity - he thought he was invincible. This is a man whose masturbatory fantasies apparently involve seeing himself as Czar Peter the Great, a subject he went on about at length in a recent interview.

Want Putin's measure? Just before the invasion, he presided over a meeting to "decide" whether to recognize his two proxy states in east Ukraine. This was a televised spectacle, with Putin sitting a massive desk thirty or forty yards from his audience of nervous flunkies. One by one, each mechanically recited his lines while Putin lounged in his chair smirking. One flubbed his speech and Putin played with him at length, like a cat a mouse. This wasn't the look of a rational actor. Putin has severe psychological issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/21/putin-angry-spectacle-amounts-to-declaration-war-ukraine

[gormadoc]

You're falling for the same Russian propaganda he uses on Russians nostalgic for the USSR. He doesn't give a shit about the Soviet Union or Imperial Russia besides what the memories can get him. He's been able to get rid of many opposition figures and oligarchs who weren't all behind him in half a year. They confiscated a bunch of Western and anti-Putin wealth, much of which was funneled into the state (and therefore himself). If he loses and manages to get out with his head he's still fabulously wealthy. Even if his image is tarnished for a time, the Serbs have adequately proven that even the most disgusting people can be successfully rehabilitated in the eye of the public.

For all the talk of Russian coups, everybody forgets that Putin's closest advisors and allies are long-time friends, heavily indebted to him or those friends, or have married into his family and friends. The most effective Russian forces aren't even the military at this point, they're mercenaries who directly back Putin himself. The military is spread so thin and so ineffectual that I wouldn't bet on their success. I think Putin will live, absent incredible Ukrainian success or other nations getting more directly involved.

[grb]

Actually, my Putin take is as follows :

(1) To consolidate power, he destroyed Russia’s nascent democracy.
(2) To eliminate threats, he destroyed all opposition.
(3) To prevent challenges, he destroyed Russia’s judiciary.
(4) To silence dissent, he destroyed Russia’s media
(5) To enrich himself & cronies, he hardwired corruption into the state.

So his position was finally secure and it was time to think about a “legacy”. But what possibility was left? Twenty-plus years of corrosive misrule had blighted any chance of Russia ever becoming a normal country. The only thing left was nationalistic fever dreams and imperialistic theatrics. When you’ve done everything possible to destroy your own nation out of greed, vanity and ambition, it severely limits the options for “greatness”…

[gormadoc]

I would agree but I think it's only part of it. Absent a coup, assassination, or a shockingly complete defeat, Putin will have more money and his more "liberal" opponents will have mostly fallen out of windows. Even if his image suffers after a defeat it'll be rehabilitated eventually. In 2015, Serbia overturned the verdict of Mihailovic for his collaboration with Nazis, even though he was committed to the idea of expanding Serbia by killing or terrorizing all of the Muslims (national pastime, I suppose). This year, during one of the many pro-Russian marches in Serbia, a flag with Putin's face was flown higher than flags with Mihailovic and Saint George. The Russian state has been able to partially rehabilitate Stalin, and while Putin is bad he isn't Stalin-bad, so I think he'll be okay in the long run.

[SimonP]

The end game Russia is aiming for here...

No, the end game, for Russia/Putin, is to solidify Putin's place as an historical figure responsible for reconstituting the Russian Empire, and staying in power until death.

The immediate strategic need is to break western military support for Ukraine, allowing Russia to either proceed with its initial military objective or to stake out a strong position in peace negotiations, where Russia keeps Crimea and the Donbas, and Ukraine is left a defeated "rump" state, outside of NATO, and always subject to further military incursions.

Putin has been counting on western solidarity to flag, as the war drags on. He believes that will happen as citizens of the EU and the US grow weary of high energy prices, inflation, and economic insecurity. And if you look at the past several months, you can see how he as tightened the screws, bit by bit, to help that process along. No doubt he is funding a lot of the right-wing propaganda flying around the EU, right now, as well.

Bombing the pipelines achieves an important objective, right before the winter. It cuts off supply while Europe has been trying to stockpile for the winter; it pushes prices upwards while movements in Italy, the Czech Republic, and Spain gather steam. If that results in breaking the EU consensus on Ukraine, that makes the war much easier for Russia to end, if not win.

Russia may eventually wish to restore gas to Europe. But that's not the point of the war, and for now global market prices and markets in China and India are helping make up for losses in Europe. And the European shutoff was already in the cards anyway; Putin is just accelerating the schedule on them in order to create a political crisis that can help him in Ukraine now.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It cuts off supply while Europe has been trying to stockpile for the winter;"

What part of "Russia could shut off the gas, and already had" did you not get? It's their own pipeline, they don't have to bomb it to turn a valve.

[Nige]

Now, maybe Putin REALLY isn't thinking straight, but just flat out bombing the pipeline is NOT going to have the effect of making Euorpeans LESS determined to end energy dependency on Russia, or do anything that would benefit Putin.

Huh. Maybe it actually was the Ukrainians hoping to blame Russia...

Whoever it was, they just highllghted the vulnerability of Russian gas supplies, whether its Russians out to make a point, or enemies of Russia basically making the same point.

[OtisAH]

What relevant threats to euro energy (or any other kind) infrastructure has Biden made, Brett?

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden threatens: No gas pipeline if Russia invades Ukraine

“If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2,” Biden said. “We will bring an end to it.”

[Sarcastr0]

Always announce in February what you plan to do covertly in September!

[Brett Bellmore]

It was a relevant threat. Remember, I think the Ukrainians having done it is actually the most likely choice. The US I just ranked as semi-plausible.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This analysis seems basically sound to me:

Going to make a ???? on this, since it's easier than ten different responses: who damaged the Nordstream pipelines?

The short answer is: we don't know, and we won't know for some time, unless the WH chooses to declassify info. But we can at least parse the possibilities:

1) Russia did it. Four potential explanations for why:
1a) Putin was signaling that he can damage European energy infrastructure at will and might do so in future. Fits with the last few days of escalation, but not with Russia's caution about attacks outside Ukraine so far.

1b) Putin was tying his own hands and that of any future Russian leader by making it harder to back down from the war in Ukraine, even in the face of Western concessions. This matches pretty well with Russia's choice to hold annexation referenda in Ukraine.

1c) Putin was creating Force Majeure: a legal basis to avoid lawsuits against Gazprom for failure to supply gas to Europe. Convenient, certainly.

1d) It was Russia, but not Putin (ie, hawks carried this out to prevent Putin himself from backing down). Pretty improbable.

2) Someone else (not Russia) did it. Several possibilities, all fairly unlikely.

2a) The US did it. Weird tweets and off-the-cuff remarks from Biden aside, it stretches credulity to think that this administration would throw caution to the wind & act against European states.

2b) The Ukrainians did it. It makes logical sense - Nord Stream has always undermined Ukrainian interests, and they don't want Euro states to back down this winter. But unclear if they have the capabilities, and the risk of backlash if revealed is extreme.

2c) Poland or the Baltic states did it. Again, some logic here; these are states who are most committed to the war and want to undermine Germany's influence. But again, the backlash would be extreme, and these states have to know that the United States would likely find out.

...

Two other possibilities in the replies:

- China. This directly undermines China's interests in ending the war quickly and maintaining cheap energy supplies.
- Accident. On two different pipelines, built in different years, preceded by what seismologists say were explosions?

https://twitter.com/EmmaMAshford/status/1575137413340561411

[grb]

If Russia did it, the aim is European dissention and anxiety. Follow the statements of Putin, his diplomats, spokesmen & flunkies and you see a relentless focus on Europe: their “best interest” is to abandon Ukraine; the U.S. is selfishly causing them harm by “forcing” them to act against Russia. If Putin thought sabotage of Nord Stream could be sold on the European streets as the United States moving against Europe, that might be an acceptable trade-off for putting an unused pipe out of commission for half a year. It might be just the thing to appeal to his small-time-crook thuggish mind. I note the TASS headline of the day claims NATO recently conducted exercises in the incident vicinity.

At this point, Putin’s only hope for salvaging his bungled debacle lies in the West abandoning Ukraine. Europe is the tip of the spear for that, though I’m sure the Russian leader is also rooting for the GOP in the midterms, thinking they’d be more inclined to cut off aid to Ukraine. To be fair, the majority of Republicans & their leadership has shown no inclination to do that (or make aid a political issue) but there is a undercurrent of Putin support. Witness the loathsome Tucker Carlson as an example.

As for the Ukrainians, the risk for them would be enormous, and they same is nearly as true for the U.S. Possibly it was some state like Poland. The hate of Russia still runs strong in many ex-Soviet states.

We can probably eliminate Hungary though. Orbán is too busy cleaning Putin’s boots with his tongue to give the order. I just did three weeks backpacking the Kungsleden in Sweden and spent time hiking with a Hungarian. He despised Orbán with raw passion, and described how heavy and oppressive the state’s power has grown.

[Nige]

I would say his real hope is to hang on long enough for a Trump presidency.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who will leave the scene first, Putin or Biden?

[grb]

Who'll go on trial first, Putin or Trump? That's a race whose outcome is so pleasing you want to root for each contestant equally....

[apedad]

There won't be a trial (in any western sense anyway), for Putin.

Two shots in the head and a burial in some god-forsaken Siberian swamp.

[SRG]

Or a defenestration

[shawn_dude]

He'll take his uncounted billions and go into exile in some other country, probably Serbia.

[Bob from Ohio]

"real hope is to hang on long enough for a Trump presidency."

Russia attacked Ukraine under both Obama and Biden, not Trump. Putin can smell weakness.

[Nige]

His sense of smell really let him down this time.

Will Trump end military and financial aid to Ukraine if re-elected, Bob?

[Bob from Ohio]

Congress appropriates money.

Poland and the UK shamed the US into finally acting. Our diplomats fled straight away, since we thought Kiev would fall in 2 days.

[Nige]

What a dodge!

Biden was all over the Ukraine situation, getting diplomats out of a warzone might be construed as weakness, if you were really short of actual evidence of weakness.

[gormadoc]

I apologize: it was me.

[David Nieporent]

Aha! J'accuse!

[M L]

I have no idea either, of course. However, one conclusion I am increasingly persuaded of is that our federal government is run by morons.

Everyone must watch this video of Biden from February if you haven't already: https://twitter.com/abc/status/1490792461979078662

Pres. Biden: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"

Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."

_____________________________________

Some in Europe are making suggestions. There's a few headlines about a Polish guy. I don't have access to this full article: https://compactmag.com/article/nord-stream-and-the-west-s-self-sabotage

On Tuesday, Radek Sikorski, Poland’s former foreign minister and a sitting member of the European Parliament, sent a tweet thanking the United States for blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, which carry natural gas from Russia to Europe. The tweet came in response to reports that the pipelines had suffered simultaneous, unexplained pressure losses.

American involvement remains unconfirmed, but it’s far-fetched to think the Russians are behind the sabotage. Nord Stream 1 and 2 represent a massive investment for Moscow. Plus, if the Russians want to cut gas flow, they can simply turn off the tap. Sailing across the Baltic to the small island of Bornholm to sabotage their own underwater pipeline would be strategically nonsensical.

Meanwhile, Victoria Nuland, the US undersecretary of state for political affairs, and President Biden himself are on the record saying that in the event of war in Ukraine, Washington would find a way to “stop” Nord Stream 2, no matter what the pipeline’s German customers thought.

[apedad]

Here's a long article that's accessible.

http://www.financetwitter.com/2022/09/sabotage-this-ex-defence-minister-believes-the-united-states-blew-up-both-nord-stream-pipelines.html

[Nige]

Whoever did it, it's not farfetched to think that the Russians will be pushing the idea that is was the US with all their might.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Radek Sikorski, Poland’s former foreign minister and a sitting member of the European Parliament"

Husband of Anne Applebaum at WaPo, who is the major molder of DC/NY media and Democrat opinion towards Poland and rest of Eastern Europe.

[grb]

Who knew the Deep State ran thru Radek, Anne, and their two children Aleksander and Tadeusz? Bob is to be congratulated for exposing this conspiracy. Who needs QAnon when Bob's on the case! No doubt Radek & Anne can summon fleets of black helicopters by telepathy (like Trump declassifies documents).

[Commenter_XY]

I don't see conspiracy. I do see influence on opinion, though. I don't think it is wrong to point that out, the notion that one's opinions can be influenced by the company you keep, or in whose bed you sleep.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Hyperbolic straw men are among the most pathetic of rhetorical tactics.

[M L]

#2 - It seems if they don't get gas from Russia through Nordstream, then they get gas from Russia through Ukraine or Eastern Europe.

"BTW, there's no shortage of pipeline capacity for taking gas from Russia to Western Europe, including Germany. Nordstream's only logic was for Putin to be able to blackmail or wage war on Eastern Europe with impunity."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-environment/polish-politician-suggests-us-sabotaged-russia-germany-gas-pipelines

[David Nieporent]

The Russian theory makes some sense. Gazprom's contracts (as is typical) have major financial penalties for failure to deliver. But if the pipelines are inoperable for reasons outside the company's control, force majeure clauses protect the company.

I can't guarantee that's what motivated it, but it's the only explanation that involves rational self-interest. Well, that or the Martians.

[Krayt]

The leader of your nation ordering gas stopped would also count, as government has the power to set foreign policy at any time. No need for blowing up the pipeline as an excuse to shield lawsuits.

[gormadoc]

Gazprom is majority state-owned. That could make it harder for them in some states, depending on how they do contracts with state-owned companies.

[John F. Carr]

A Russian blogger claims a US helicopter was in the area at the right time.

In case (2) it's not "Europeans burning the bridge behind them" but "non-Germans burning the bridge behind Germany." Germany is the weak link. Like France during the Cold War was ready to fight to stop Soviet forces from crossing the Rhine, Germany might treat the countries to its east as an expendable buffer zone. Now Germany can't sell them out for cheap gas.

NPR is more worried about the greenhouse gas emissions than the political angle. I am not. Methane has a shorter lifetime than carbon dioxide. If we solve the greenhouse gas problem we can wait for methane to dissipate.

[Don Nico]

"we can wait for methane to dissipate."
Roughly 70 years

[Commenter_XY]

grb, it is #4, and there is more to come. And it has nothing to do with making agitprop aimed at Europe. We need to be very careful; thusfar, POTUS Biden's team is managing the conflict Ok, in that the armed conflict hasn't spread beyond the borders of Ukraine.

I question the wisdom of energy sanctions, though. I also question the wisdom of direct arms transfers from the US to Ukraine. We are getting progressively more entangled in a fight that is not our fight.

[grb]

I'm inclined to go with Russia, simply because this looks like a non-productive act by somebody and Putin is the only one involved who regularly does non-productive & self-destructive acts. Also, no other player is so desperate and panicked.

As for motive, I still believe the European audience is a major factor. If salvaging his bungled war is an existential imperative for Putin, then convincing Europe's leaders & citizens to abandon Ukraine takes on extra-existential importance. There's been a regular stream of statements from Russian officials saying the Europeans will change their tune during this winter's cold. This seems to be the basis of their last remaining hope. If they've stopped believing that, who knows what half-assed measures they'll take?

[Commenter_XY]

There’s been a regular stream of statements from Russian officials saying the Europeans will change their tune during this winter’s cold. This seems to be the basis of their last remaining hope. If they’ve stopped believing that, who knows what half-assed measures they’ll take?

This was a great question. Answer: Nothing good.

I have colleagues in the EU. It is not a happy time right now. They're watching the incremental ratcheting up of tensions over Ukraine and the pucker factor is increasing.

Russia has oil and gas pipelines that supply China. They signed a 20-year agreement in the last year, I believe. Pipelines are funny things, they require regular maintenance. If you don't maintain them well, who knows what can happen. Accidents do happen. We know this from our experience with our Alaskan pipelines. It would not surprise me at all if there was a pipeline accident that crippled pipeline delivery of oil and gas to China, given the poor maintenance state of the Russian military.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative
blog has operated for

FORTY-THREE (43) DAYS

without using a vile racial
slur* and has operated for

THREE (3) YEARS

without imposing (new**) hypocritical,
viewpoint-driven, partisan censorship

* so far as we know; frequency indicates we might have missed one or two

** previously imposed censorship is still in effect, of course

(Forty-three days? That's great improvement, although this blog is still on pace to use vile racial slurs more frequently than monthly this year. I am nonetheless grateful for any small role my periodic messages might have had in reducing the Volokh Conspiracy's disgusting use of vile racial slurs.)

[Mr. Bumble]

You have reached the limit of your free, meaningless post. Please comeback tomorrow to resume posting.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does identifying the striking frequency with which this blog uses vile racial slurs seem meaningless to you? If so, I blame your racism, low character, and Republican registration.

[Krayt]

As with any claim, we need to see comparable statistics for other blogs.

"200 people were killed!" Well, that's bad. But maybe 300 were killed last year, so things are way better.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog has used a vile roughly slur roughly every three weeks (that's per discussion, not per use) during the most recent couple of years.

What is your opinion of that frequency, Krayt?

(This white, male blog welcomes bigoted comments, so you may speak freely.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I didn't expect an answer. The bigots on the right tend to be cowards who fold quickly.

[Michael P]

Veep Thoughts from Kamala Harris during a visit to the (non-DPRK) Republic of Korea: "The United States shares a very important relationship, which is an alliance with the Republic of North Korea."

I suppose she could have said something more awkward, like "Corea del Norte".

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hopefully she doesn't make a similar mistake when she's President and the 3am phone call comes.

[apedad]

Queen's death certificate.

Occupation: Her Majesty The Queen

Cause of Death: Old Age

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/queen-elizabeth-ii-cause-of-death-published/

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Let me ask for input on election misinformation and ballot suppression:

-When is it appropriate to omit the name of a candidate or party from the ballot?

-When is it appropriate to throw out a write-in vote and not count it?

[Moderation4ever]

I can answer the second question. The voter cannot use the write-in line to circumvent a partisan primary. For example, in a partisan primary the voter can only chose candidate from a single party. So the voter selects their party B candidates for Senator and Congress, but for now Governor they want to choose one of the candidates on party C's slate. The voter cannot write in their party C choice and have it counted.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Great, what about general elections?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It depends on the election laws of a particular state. For instance in Maryland, there is a process to be followed to have a candidate placed on the list of approved write-in candidates. If a voter writes in someone or something not on that list, that vote isn't counted.

Removing a candidate or party from the ballot also depends on the laws and procedures of the particular state.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm afraid that wasn't what I intended to ask.

I know there are various types of laws on the subject. It takes no ghost come from the grave to tell us this.*

But as the late Earl Warren was accustomed to asking: yes, but is it fair?

*Stolen from Shakespeare, thanks, Billy.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Maybe I could get more responses if there was a flute involved.

[shawn_dude]

It is fair in the sense that state laws are nominally* within the power of the electorate to change if they see them as not fair enough.

*Depends on other laws like referendum powers. May require getting other elected officials to support the change which, from recent experience, they may be unwilling to do given the difference between primary and general election voters.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Some states presumptively throw away write-in votes. Some of these states graciously provide circumstances in which they *won’t* throw away such votes, but the bad principle remains the same: A voter can write in the name of a qualified person for an office and have that vote thrown away.

That is vote suppression.

But allowing write-in votes isn’t enough. The government should also avoid engaging in election *misinformation.* That is, the ballot should not mislead the voters by leaving out candidates, based on the government’s conclusion that voters wouldn’t want to vote for those candidates anyway.

It would be OK to tell parties and candidates to pay their own freight by paying nondiscriminatory fees to cover the printing of their names, so long as those fees are the same for all candidates and parties, the big ones as well as the small ones.

It would be OK – or, rather, unavoidable – to list only candidates who filed in time to get the names printed when the ballots went out. Last – minute candidates would have to rely on the write-in process, not because the government doesn’t like them, but because the ballots have already been printed up.

But for the government to distort the ballot by refusing to print the names of candidates who timely file and pay their fees – that’s election misinformation, and I have trouble taking seriously anyone who wants the government to mess with the First Amendment to punish supposed private misinformation, while being OK with the government perpetuating election misinformation itself.

[David Nieporent]

What do you think requiring people to pay a filing fee is, if not the government restricting who can appear on a ballot?

There are two possibilities:

1) The fee is so nominal that it doesn't keep anyone other than perhaps a homeless person off the ballot. In which case, you're going to have a ballot with 5,000 names on it.

2) The fee is substantial enough that it does prevent people from getting on the ballot.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I said “the ballot should not mislead the voters by leaving out candidates, based on the government’s conclusion that voters wouldn’t want to vote for those candidates anyway.”

If they don’t pay a filing fee, then another commenter would complain about the expense to the taxpayer. So you guys have me coming and going. But if you’re willing to make the taxpayer bear the expense, then it would arguably be a better use of taxpayer funds than many of the other things it’s spent on.

In any case, so long as the ballot is considered as advertising space, available on equal terms to anyone who pays for the “advertising,” then it makes sense.

Analogy: If the Democratic Party speaker reserves space at a public park for a reasonable fee, then a Green Party speaker offers to pay the same fee to use the same space, then what would you think of the government if it refused to rent the space because “you don’t have enough public support as determined by us”?

I’m not sure you see that the key issue is *viewpoint discrimination.*

And nowadays, there’s an extra problem with these petition requirements – maybe people don’t want to be doxxed and harassed, which would be easy enough since their names and addresses are on searchable public records.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When it has a name the Democrat ballot counter doesn't approve.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Glenn Kessler@GlennKesslerWP
In a first, U.S. appoints a diplomat for plants and animals."

Glad the adults are back in charge.

[Michael P]

The vegetable in the Oval Office is hoping for a letter from home.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The right wing Twitter dorkosphere talking about how degraded and humiliated they felt by Lizzo (a classically trained flautist) playing Madison’s crystal flute which is somehow a legendary part of America (that they just heard about) was pretty funny.

[Bob from Ohio]

I was just happy she didn't eat it, or do other "things".

[LawTalkingGuy]

Nope. She just demonstrated way more talent, joy, and grace than you or the dorkosphere can ever hope to achieve.

[Bob from Ohio]

Slaveowner possessions are good now.

[LawTalkingGuy]

When reclaimed from the descendants of the enslaved and making right wing dork-ass losers seethe with rage and admit their own humiliation, yes, yes they are.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Maybe you should call him a "dork" one more time just to make sure everyone got it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He gets it.

[Nige]

Interesting way of phrasing it, since one slaveowner possession was 'slaves.' Who were black people. Unpack that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'm just glad that people like Bob from Ohio are doomed to be vanquished casualties of America's culture war, and that better Americans and better ideas will continue to prevail as America becomes less religious (more reasoning), less rural (more modern), less bigoted (inclusive, tolerant), less White (diverse), and less backward (progressive).

Cue the soundtrack concerning the fate of can't-keep-up places like Bob from Ohio's Ohio.

Here's a live version, featuring --what else? -- an immigrant.

[Nige]

The hell is wrong with you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He is an antisocial bigot.

He is a disaffected, demoralized, desperate culture war casualty.

He lives in Can't-Keep-Up, Ohio, and proofreads $36,000 residential deeds for a living.

He hates modern America, with all of this damned progress, education, reason, diversity, science, and inclusiveness.

You'd be bitter and cranky, too.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm glad someone's using *something* associated with Madison. If they can't use the Constitution, they can at least play a flute he owned.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Dolly Madison snacks are pretty good.

[Nige]

That sounds like a useful compromise.

[Ben_]

This is why no one should ever listen to leftists when they talk about "norms" or complain about "microaggressions" or any other bad behavior.

Look at what complete jerks they are in posts like this. Also Kirkland.

You don’t owe them any better in return. Nor should you listen to them when they pretend to care about how anyone is treated — they treat people worse and you know it.

(For the record, I don’t personally care about antique stuff. Leftists are going to destroy everything historic in America because they hate America. We need to focus to keep them from destroying the future.)

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Nor should you listen to them when they pretend to care about how anyone is treated — they treat people worse and you know it."

You are giving yourself license to behave immorally and like a jerk on the faulty assumption that no one, especially self described liberals, are truly moral, caring, and empathetic. But it turns out, many of the people you hate do in fact behave better than you, so your self-justification is based on a lie. You also mistake being called out for shitty behavior as itself shitty behavior. But its not, it's just a statement of reality.

There is an obvious difference from claiming a musician is degrading America for taking joy in playing an instrument at the request of the instrument's handlers, and others calling that behavior wrong.

For some people, which appears to include you, the greatest sin is when people actually don't suck morally. Because it destroys your worldview.

[Ben_]

I’m giving everyone license to ignore you when you complain about anyone else’s behavior.

Jerks don’t get to complain about others' behavior and get listened to.

[LawTalkingGuy]

They do so at their peril. If you listened to me you’d be a better person, and feel better about yourself in the long run.

[Jimmy the Dane]

If anyone out there needed more proof that you lack any kind of self-awareness BEHOLD the above.

Also, seriously dude, get some help.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Again, me realizing I’m a better person than the paranoid grievance freaks With violent fantasies is plenty self-aware.

Also your insincere requests for me to get help aren’t helping your case.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Once you are in a hole, keeping digging, right? That is your personal motto or seems to be....

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean you double down on ridiculous things all the time so it’s not like you’re a quality judge of self-awareness here.

[Sarcastr0]

Black lady played a flute. She had a great time. Lots of us had a great time watching her have a great time.

This is not an assault on whiteness, nor America. It's just a cool thing that happened.

[Bob from Ohio]

"lady"

Another word being re-defined.

"This is not an assault on whiteness, nor America."

Who here said it was?

[LawTalkingGuy]

“lady”

“Another word being re-defined.”

You are a MASSIVE dick, dude.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is a reason guys like Bob from Ohio call the people they resent the "elite" -- they recognize that we are their betters.

I doubt my law firm would have hired Bob from Ohio as a paralegal.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Where would people get any idea that the left of today hates white people? How could that even be an unreasonable interpretation?

The lack of self-awareness demonstrated by leftists is absolutely amazing and borderline delusional.

[Sarcastr0]

Racists think letting black people do things is an assault on white people.

Most everyone else either doesn't care, or thinks it's cool.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"do things"....yeah they are just people doing stuff....who are we to judge these innocent, simple actions, right?

Can you believe all these people suggest that Hitler is evil when he just did some stuff????

This further proves that leftists have absolutely no sense of self-awareness.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Jimmy,

HTF are you lecturing people on self-awareness when you compared Lizzo playing a flute to Hitler?

[Jimmy the Dane]

If you are a practicing lawyer you really don't read all that well. Either that or you are just in the middle of a delusion.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Sarc: “Racists think letting black people do things is an assault on white people.”

This is in reference to Lizzo, a black musician playing a flute, and the backlash from racists and right-wingers.

You: do things”….yeah they are just people doing stuff….who are we to judge these innocent, simple actions, right?

Can you believe all these people suggest that Hitler is evil when he just did some stuff????“

Again the “thing” we were talking about was a black woman playing a flute…and you obviously compared that to Hitler.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Look at what complete jerks they are in posts like this.

This blog regularly uses vile racial slurs. Its comment sections are infested by racism, gay-bashing, misogyny, immigrant-hating, and Islamophobia . . . not to mention illiteracy and violent threats.

But from the perspective of a white, male, conservative blog the liberals are the jerks here.

Carry on, clingers.

[VinniUSMC]

The right wing Twitter dorkosphere talking about how degraded and humiliated they felt by Lizzo (a classically trained flautist) playing Madison’s crystal flute which is somehow a legendary part of America (that they just heard about) was pretty funny.

Well, that's one way to tell people to never take you seriously.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Because I accurately described a situation?

[Bob from Ohio]

"CNN Breaking News@cnnbrk
Revised GDP data shows US economy shrank in the second quarter, solidifying two straight quarters of contraction"

I'm sure its transitory.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You know, the one thing that bothered me . . . the one thing that stayed in my mind and I couldn't get rid of it, was . . . why?

Why would Eugene Volokh, a tenured professor of law at a good school, repeatedly and publicly use a vile racial slur? What was his motive for such disgusting, seemingly counterproductive conduct?

Was it just flat-out bigotry? Not likely. He associates with and flatter bigots, sure, but I sensed this was not pure bigotry. And even if it were something as simple as him being just another right-wing racist, even the average racist has learned to keep the overt racism on the down-low these days, and Prof. Volokh plainly is far smarter than your average conservative bigot.

Was it jealousy, or some sort of personal issue with his dean, or desire to hurt his employer? Did he enjoy aggravating his dean, requiring her to apologize for his objectionable conduct, or making UCLA look bad? Again, it doesn't add up. The damage to his reputation has dwarfed any heartburn he precipitated for others. If he wanted to depart UCLA, there are a half-dozen or so conservative-controlled law schools that would welcome him and any number of right-wing donors who would subsidize a nice spot for him.

Was it just the tone-deafness, disaffectedness, contrarianism, and awkwardness -- perhaps autistic -- that marks so many of the misfit fans of his white, male blog? No. It would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to watch Prof. Volokh conduct a presentation on legal issues and conclude he is anything like the Volokh Conspiracy's fans in this regard. This one is a non-starter.

Was he just trying to curry favor among his fans? Again, this seems a wrong number. The fans adore him for his gun nuttery; his incessant and repetitive "own the libs" sniping at mainstream culture and strong liberal-libertarian schools; and his faithful service as a partisan mouthpiece and hack for hire in culture war litigation. There would be essentially no additional benefit to launching frequent racial slurs, let alone enough to offset the counterproductivity.

So why?

Today, I found out why. And ladies and gentlemen, it was not bigotry or tone-deafness. It was not a beef with his employer or pandering to his downscale fans. You know why?

It was just an audition for a sweet government position with a DeSantis administration all along.

(Hat tip: Arthur Kirkland.)

[Jimmy the Dane]

Reminder that both the old Governor and Lt. Gov of Virginia (Dems) seemed to like similar or related costume choices. Then when resignations calls went out for these two, turned up that everyone else (all Dems too) had similar incidents.

Also, don't forget the great hypocrite "banana boat" Trudeau. That was pretty special.

But, hey, those don't fit the narrative so obviously they don't get the propaganda.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Someone needs some attention. lol get bent loser.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Pardon me . . . am I interrupting this conservative blog's bigotry?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Pardon me....didn't you see I dedicated lots of time to virtue signaling here????

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I authorize anyone who wishes to print this comment and display it on a bulletin board at UCLA's law school to do so. Maybe on the door of the ACS chapter? Why not place one on the door of the Federalist Society chapter, too?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Please advertise my virtue signaling! Can't you see I really mean it?!?!

[Jimmy the Dane]

Hasn't been getting much press over here, but Europe is in a lot of financial trouble right now. Currency is at historical lows and lots of economic warnings coming out of EU institutions. Will be interesting to see if this gets amplified any in our propaganda cycles. In the meantime, assuming the dollar holds, might want to lining up your discount European vacation.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I wish (formerly) Great Britain nothing but the economic pain in deserves so long as it votes for conservatives and puts up with the royals. A fifty-cent pound would be magnificent. A twenty-five cent pound would be even better: they could call it the quarter-pounder!

The French, of course, would stick with Royale With Cheese.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So it turns out that Pastor that the Democrat FBI terrorized last week didn't have charges pressed against him by the Philly DA because they didn't think there was a crime committed.

So here have just some dude who committed Wrong Think, being a Christian in a Communist Country, and the evil vile subhuman filth at the Democrat FBI raided him with guns drawn, even after his attorney had notified them he would come in and surrender voluntarily.

These monstrous Democrats at the FBI are committing the vilest of crimes and I hope they see the severest of justice.

And I tell you right now if I saw some Democrat FBI agent writhing in pain and on fire on ground, I would point, laugh, and drop a duke and hope that piece of vile filth rolled into my filth.

[Jimmy the Dane]

But we are supposed to care about supposed authoritarian abuses of power down in Florida when warrants were executed on people who cast illegal votes....

The lefties here were outraged about that but literally in the same thread laughed about how voting rights protesters being politically prosecuted, held without bail, denied speedy trials, was funny.

And these people truly have no idea as is evident by AK above.

[Nelson]

"when warrants were executed on people who cast illegal votes…."

Since several illegal voters that were caught before DeSantis' intrepid group of investigators joined the effort were Trump voters in the Villages who intentionally and knowingly cast illegal votes, I wonder why people might think he is just performing for his base.

Obviously if Trump voters were getting caught, DeSantis had to do something to prevent the fallacy of widespread Democratic voter fraud from being exposed. With the added bonus of throwing red meat to his shock troops ... I mean supporters.

"about how voting rights protesters being politically prosecuted, held without bail, denied speedy trials"

I think (and I fear) I know the answer, but I have to ask: are you trying to refer to Jan. 6th rioters as "voting rights protesters"?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I hope no Floridian bloggers or commenters here were adversely affected by the hurricane.

[Nige]

+1

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I agree -- I wish pain or loss no one in this context.

Looking forward, however, and hoping to avoid readily avoidable problems, I hope market-driven insurance rates and decisions (rather than government subsidies) and sensible public policies (rather than short-sighted, uninformed regulation) influence decisions about the location and strength of structures in hurricane-prone locations.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Elections can never be rigged according to the left.

Except in Russia. Then they use the word "sham" in the headline to describe votes without including any actual evidence within the article. Also, just in case you did not know the Russian elections were not legit, they made sure to state it sixteen times within the article, again without referring to any evidence.

This is how propaganda works. Just most people still think it is "news."

[Michael P]

The leftists say that elections can only be rigged by right-wingers like ol' Vlad Putin. Left-wingers never rig elections in places like North Korea, Cuba, or Philadelphia.

[LawTalkingGuy]

With the exception of some online tankies no one on the left in America thinks North Korean or Cuban elections are legitimate.

And they don’t do it in Philly either. As is often the case Adam Serwer nailed you guys two years ago:

“When they say the 2020 election was stolen, Trumpists are expressing their view that the votes of rival constituencies should not count, even though they understand, on some level, that they do. They are declaring that the nation belongs to them and them alone, whether or not they actually comprise a majority, because they are the only real Americans to begin with.”

[Michael P]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-philadelphia-judge-elections-convicted-conspiring-violate-civil-rights-and-bribery
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/former-abscam-congressman-e2-80-98ozzie-e2-80-99-myers-is-headed-back-to-federal-prison-e2-80-94-this-time-for-election-fraud/ar-AA12lGuk

You deniers make it too easy.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Those aren’t the 2020 presidential election, which was heavily observed by trump people, and for which there is no evidence that Philly “stole” anything.

[Michael P]

You must be very strong, moving goalposts like that all the time.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, proof that elections officials were being paid to rig elections, repeatedly over a period of years, and you assume that they were scrupulously honest in one election in particular, anyway?

[LawTalkingGuy]

When that particular election is heavily monitored by lots of lawyers and media and at no point did Trump come up with anything close to proving widespread fraud, such that his claims were rejected by every single court and dismissed as nonsense by tons of conservatives, then yes.

[Nelson]

I see your links providing details of legally admissable evidence that specific people in specific places did specific things for which they were prosecuted and imprisoned.

Can you do that for 2020? Can anyone?

Pointing to people who are Democrats who engaged in fraud in specific places with limited impact and pretending it’s evidence of implicates every Democrat everywhere and proves that, in your evidence- and detail-free instances, the entire election was stolen is lunacy.

Ignoring the fact that there are just as many corrupt Republican actors (remember when North Carolina had to re-do an entire election because of Repiblican fraud?) as Democrat is another clue that partisan blindness is in play.

It also shows that anyone who claims there is “evidence” of “widespread voter fraud” that “stole the election” doesn’t understand how evidence works.

Even the Herculean goalpost-moving from fraud to complaints about “illegal” and “unconstitutional” changes in voting processes can’t hide the fact that more people voted for Biden than Trump in every state that he won (and in the country as a whole).

[David Nieporent]

I'm sorry your feelings were hurt because the media was mean to Vladimir Putin.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes the regions militarily occupied by Russia definitely had legitimate elections to joint Russia. That’s a very smart point you made.

[Jimmy the Dane]

How is that different than the democrats occupying major american cities and clearly rigging their election for their own gains? I mean we don't call them "Russia" but still....

[LawTalkingGuy]

People living and voting in their home city is definitely the same as a military occupation. Another very smart point you just made.

[grb]

Two smart points in a row! Jimmy's really hitting'em out of the park today!

[Nige]

You are huffing your own farts.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

On the off chance that this isn't your usual straw man nonsense, who on the left says that "elections can never be rigged?"

[Randal]

Jimmy are you ok? This is inane garbage even by your standards. Either you're dangerously close to giving yourself away, or you're dangerously close to succumbing to mental divergence.

If the former, try toning it down a little, nobody is that stupid and still able to figure out the Reason login system. If the latter, seek help before you've lost your tether back to reality.

[bernard11]

Is there a more disgraceful judge than Trump toady Cannon?

Is she the living refutation of claims by Alito, et. al. that judges are motivated by the law, and their integrity should not be challenged?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Idk I’m starting to think she’s just real dumb. I mean Britt Grant and Andrew Brasher on the 11th circuit, who are young enough to be SCOTUS nominees in a Republican presidency, were like: you’re real dumb.

[Nige]

She seems smart enugh to be a pretty good legal advocate for Trump. If only she wasn't the judge, it would be almost admirable.

[not guilty]

I don't think so. Her low quality legal analysis would get a law clerk fired.

[Nige]

Not from Trump's team.

[Bored Lawyer]

I have seen plenty of bad ones. And mediocre ones. And good ones.

As my old partner loved to say, everything in life is a bell-shaped curve. Judge Cannon may well be in the bottom 10%. But trust me she has company.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another step toward enlargement of the Supreme Court.

Conservatives are bringing this on themselves, which is fine by me, See you down the road apiece, clingers.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Why don't you talk about how there is a plan to replace us too? Yeah make sure to hit that same old track too. Hopefully people start believing your kind actually believe the stuff they say.