Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[David Nieporent]

Some of our right wing commenters here who love to nurse persecution complexes whined that Rudy Giuliani's license was suspended for lying to courts but that the Molotov cocktail lawyers were getting away with Molotov cocktailing.

Well, not so much.

[Jerry B.]

And it only took 2.5 years.

[John F. Carr]

Giuliani’s suspension was discretionary. Molotov's suspension was mandatory.

[Reallynotbob]

So.... all's well that ends well?

[Bored Lawyer]

Lying to a court and throwing Molotov cocktails at a police car are orders of magnitude different. We will see what sentence they receive.

[Sarcastr0]

Love the new goalposts.

[Bored Lawyer]

Your snark is showing. There are no "new goalposts." Anyone who thinks the two things are the same is an idiot or a partisan hack. Giuiliani did deserve disbarment for lying to a court. Not jail. The Molotov cocktail throwers deserve more than that. We will see what they get.

[EscherEnigma]

More then jail? You want to see them executed?

[Bored Lawyer]

More than disbarment. That should be obvious from my comment.

[Sarcastr0]

The OG goalposts:
Some of our right wing commenters here who love to nurse persecution complexes whined that Rudy Giuliani’s license was suspended for lying to courts but that the Molotov cocktail lawyers were getting away with Molotov cocktailing.

DMN is right. Y'all claimed scott free. Now you are instead saying the real issue is the particular punishment (which hasn't been decided on yet).

Now, I don't know if you in particular were claiming there would be no comeuppance. But don't claim DMN was strawmanning.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Y'all."

There is no "y'all." Get a life. Not everyone here is part of a single unified group.

[Nige]

How dare you we are one big family here on Volokh.

[Bored Lawyer]

He was only referring to some of the posters.

[Michael P]

Maybe you should link to the comments that you are talking about. Otherwise they sound like you're just making shit up.

[Bob from Ohio]

"qualified for automatic disbarment based on their guilty pleas in June."

Very brave of the court. I mised Rudy's criminal conviction.

Now let's discuss the real double standard:

"Prosecutors have recommended a sentence of 18 to 24 months for Rahman and Mattis, who have agreed to each pay $30,137 in restitution to New York City."

Left wing violence gets a relative slap on the wrist compared to non-violent Capitol Rioters.

[Nige]

They just had better lawyers. Or were better defendants.

[jb]

You're generally going to get more jail time for breaking federal laws rather than state laws. Maybe that shouldn't be true, but it's not unique to this comparison.

And most of the long sentences for Jan. 6th rioters were for violent acts. Curious to see actual examples of non-violent protestors on Jan. 6th who got more than 24 months.

[ragebot]

You seem to have missed the point that arson usually has greater jail time than BSing to political hacks that happen to be in a position of authority.

[Life of Brian]

Curious to see actual examples of non-violent protestors on Jan. 6th who got more than 24 months.

Curious to know why we're supposed to be relieved that merely walking around inside the Holy of Holies costs only two years of your life.

[jb]

Because Bob claimed that the non-violent protestors were actually being treated more harshly than these two.

[Nelson]

I haven't seen anything close to 24 months for people who were just trespassing. I could be wrong, though. Do you know of any cases that were over 6 months or a year, let alone 2 years, for trespassing?

[Bob from Ohio]

"actual examples of non-violent protestors on Jan. 6th "

Shaman Dude. 47 months. No violent acts.

[jb]

It's true that he did not directly engage in violence himself, but he did carry a weapon, was one of the first to break through the police line, left a note threatening Mike Pence, and was egging on all of the people who actually did engage in violence. Not sure I'd want to use him as the poster boy of folks who were peacefully protesting.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You’re generally going to get more jail time for breaking federal laws rather than state laws. Maybe that shouldn’t be true, but it’s not unique to this comparison.

Rahman and Mattis are being prosecuted federally.

[Randal]

Like, ok. I'm glad the Republicans are blaming Trump for their disappointment. And he did have something to do with it... just not in the way they think. The key factor was Dobbs... as Trump himself predicted, despite ironically being second only to McConnell on the list of responsible parties.

Abortion has been one of a handful of defining issues in American politics for a long time, by which I mean it's helped define the contours of the two parties. Structurally, the United States naturally gravitates towards two parties of roughly equal strength. Prior to Dobbs, pro-lifers tilted the calculus towards Republicans, since pro-choice voters were satisfied with the status quo.

Most political shifts are gradual as the parties slide around that 50 / 50 split. Dobbs is the rare sudden shove off balance. It'll take a few years for the country (including pollsters) to find the new equilibrium.

To remain competitive and preserve the 50 / 50 split, Republicans are going to have to make up for the abortion issue in some way, inevitably pushing the party leftward. It could be Trump's ultimate revenge on DeSantis... by appointing three Roe-killing justices, Trump may have made it impossible for the Republicans to win with a candidate as extreme as either of them.

[Krayt]

I support the right, but was it a big deal this election, or was Trump's yapper?

Trump seems the much bigger gift to Democrats.

[grb]

It was a lot of things, abortion included & Trump most certainly. But let’s face it: When your national agenda is opposition to kitty litter in schools for children who want to identify as cats, you’re gonna lose the votes of people who don’t find that compelling.

Today’s Right delights their base with endless drivel about CRT in high school classrooms (which is bullshit), the risk to the nation from transgender folk (which is bullshit), the national security danger of a “woke” military (which is bullshit), the scourge of voting fraud (which is bullshit) and shrieking hysteria on crime (mostly bullshit). You had an oppositional midterm and horrendous economy to work with, but still blew it.

The reason is simple: At this point the Right isn’t a political ideology, it’s an entertainment industry. As long as its main point is delivering WWE-style entertainment to the cheap seats, you’re going to bleed the votes of normal people. Oh, the faithful get to hoot & holler, slapping their knees with glee – but that only takes you so far….

[Jonathan Affleck]

The effect of deplatforming Republic activists on the midterm election results should be studied.
I am studiously apolitical, but I consider the exercise of alleged but nonexistent First Amendment rights by a social medium platform/message common carrier to be unconstitutional and unlawful.
See 9th Amendment Challenge to Social Medium Abuse.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/9th-amendment-challenge-to-social-medium-abuse
A social medium platform has no right either to remove a user or to remove his content -- whether the user is Donald Trump or a pro-Palestine activist.

[Jonathan Affleck]

My current petition to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari is the second I have filed in my case.
As I point out in the instant petition, I filed the first petition under SCOTUS Rule 11
1. because abridgment of the public’s freedom of speech by major social medium platforms might affect the coming elections[7] and
2. because § 230 caselaw effectively vitiates all civil rights, public accommodation, and common carriage anti-discrimination law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_11

Note
[7] Joachim wonders whether social medium platform discrimination had a role in the midterm elections.

[David Nieporent]

A social media platform has the absolute right to remove a user or to remove his content. You're a loon. And a genocidal one, at that. HTH.

[Jonathan Affleck]

A high schooler could understand the following example even if a white racist dummy can't.

Explaining Why Hosting is Bailment, Not Speech

The following question-and-answer may clarify the legal situation.

Question: Does a notice board accessible to passers-by – in the entrance of a supermarket for example – offer a common carriage service? If not, how does Twitter differ from a notice board beyond Twitter’s attachment to a network that offers public access?

Answer: The described public notice board is a material board to which a shopper affixes a material message. The material board provides neither message switching nor message common carriage. Twitter provides store-and-forward message switching as well as message common carriage among users. Twitter temporarily stores a message in a backend database system (bailment) while the message is on the way to an end-user by means of message common carriage.

Discussion: The question confuses the frontend model (a pure concept or abstract idea[29]) with a material notice board. The frontend model makes it easier for an end user to interact with Twitter’s backend system.

In other words, Twitter’s service has no similarity to the material notice board. The question shows lack of comprehension of Internet technology.[30]

Hosting is not the speech of a social medium platform. Hosting is bailment, and from the standpoint of common carriage law, storing digital personal literary property in a backend server of the social medium platform hardly differs from temporary storage of a paper letter in a satchel at a USPS sorting location or at a FedEx office until the paper letter can be sent on its way to its destination by common carriage. A message common carrier has no First Amendment right to discriminate against a user (customer) either (a) with respect to carriage or (b) with respect to bailment.

Notes
[29] Abstract idea in this context has similarity to the abstract idea exception to patent eligibility. A discussion of confusion of virtual reality with physical reality can be found in Reply to Twitter’s Appellee’s Brief.
[30] The terminology of full-stack software engineering is somewhat confusing. A software engineer generally uses the Model-View-Controller design pattern to design a web or cloud service. The end user invokes a browser on his end host (a laptop or mobile computing device) to access the service. A single-page application is frontend social medium platform software that runs in a web browser to access the service of the social medium platform – an older design might use Jakarta (or Java) Server Pages, but such a design does not affect the argument. A mobile device typically runs a mobile app (provided by the social medium platform) to complete the common carriage service, which the social medium platform's backend provides.

[David Nieporent]

Explaining Why Hosting is Bailment, Not Speech

It's not a bailment, you loon. A user is not giving over the user's property to a website.

Question: Does a notice board accessible to passers-by – in the entrance of a supermarket for example – offer a common carriage service?

No.

If not, how does Twitter differ from a notice board beyond Twitter’s attachment to a network that offers public access?

It doesn't differ in material ways. The technology is different, but also irrelevant. The service — hosting other people's communications — is the same.

Hosting is not the speech of a social medium platform.

Actual courts and sane people disagree.

[Jonathan Affleck]

David Nierporent is such a legal ignoramus that I doubt he even knew what bailment was until I forced him to look it up. I went into overdrive in providing an originalist and textualist argument for the purpose of nailing a social medium platform. It will be interesting to learn the reaction of this SCOTUS to such an argument.

1. Nature of Digital Literary Property Needs to Be Clarified (Question: 1)

When the District Court asserted Joachim did not present property for common carriage in the sense of M.G.L. c. 159 § 1, the District Court wiped out Joachim’s monetary claim by abuse of discretion and undermined legal protections for purchasers of digital merchandise. The wrongness of the District Court’s legal conclusion must be demonstrated.

Samuel Morse received letters patent (1,647) to the telegraph on June 6, 1840 long before Alexander Graham Bell received letters patent (174,465) to the telephone on March 7, 1876. Morse’s patent was later the subject of O'Reilly et al. v. Morse et al., 56 U.S. 62 (1853), whose proceedings also concluded before Bell received his patent.

Not only is it an unsound legal conclusion, but the District Court makes an argument that violates causality when it asserts that the General Court of Massachusetts excluded denial of common carriage of digital personal literary property from penalty under M.G.L. c. 159 §§ 1 & 2 because voice was not “other property” in the original intent of the legislators.

The District Court seems to believe these legislators prophesied Alexander Graham Bell would invent the telephone seven years later.

Controversies, which pertain to personal literary property (e.g., common law copyright), go back at least to the time of Milton’s publication contract with Samuel Simmons for Paradise Lost in April 1667 and have continued in Estate of Hemingway v. Random House, 53 Misc. 2d 462, 279 N.Y.S.2d 51 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1967); Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 105 S. Ct. 2218 (1985); and Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987).

In 1976, Congress amended the Copyright Act and almost entirely absorbed common law copyright into statutory copyright. See 17 U.S. Code § 301. Some space remains for common law copyright at least in California and in Massachusetts as the following two case seem to indicate:
• Hemlock Hat Co. v. Diesel Power Gear, LLC, Case No.: 19-cv-02422-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2020) and
• Lyons and Homecoming Farm, Inc. v. Gillette, Case No.: 11-12192-WGY (DC District of Massachusetts, Memorandum and Order, July 31, 2012.

While statutory copyright provides in personam rights, common law copyright included at least in part in rem property rights to personal literary property. Such rights were long-established at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution and are protected by Amendment IX. Without a Constitutional amendment in rem property rights cannot be extinguished and remain relevant in the context of a social medium platform
1. to the issue of common carriage of unpublished digital personal literary property and
2. to the issue of conveyance of unpublished digital personal literary property from one person to another or from one person to the public.

Since the 1840s, a plaintiff has often prevailed over a telegraph (a message common carrier of digital personal literary property) for denial of common carriage or failure to deliver a writing or personal literary property long before Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 159 §§ 1 & 2 were enacted in 1869.

When the District Court uses a voice precedent like Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. IMR Cap. Corp., 888 F. Sup. 221 (D. Mass. 1995) to deny that Joachim has a valid monetary claim against each social medium platform (App. 6-7), this assertion cannot represent a correct legal conclusion based on sound legal reasoning and on the precedents of federal and state telecommunications law.

When a letter writer uses a common carriage letter-transportation service to cause a letter to be received by the letter’s recipient, the letter writer conveys his personal literary property to the recipient. In the early 20th century state and federal legislature realized that the medium (or substrate in patent law terminology) for personal literary property need not be paper, and statutes like 17 U.S. Code § 102 were modified to reflect new technology.

Joachim and the public have an Amendment IX right to non-discriminatory common carriage, which he wishes to use to convey and dedicate his unpublished digital personal literary property to the public. Not only does each defendant violate common carriage law, but each Defendant violates 42 U.S. Code § 1982. In so doing, each Defendant applies contractual Terms of Service differently and with unlawful discrimination to separate classes of users and violates 42 U.S. Code § 1981.

[David Nieporent]

David Nierporent is such a legal ignoramus that I doubt he even knew what bailment was until I forced him to look it up.

"The reason I keep losing in court is because all the lawyers and judges aren't smart enough to understand my arguments" is certainly one possible interpretation of events.

"My arguments are literal gibberish" is a more accurate one, though.

[Jonathan Affleck]

I notice that white racist dummy David Nierporent did not deny that he had to look up the meaning of bailment, and I understand that an originalist argument is incomprehensible to a white racist legal clown.

The clown still does not get it. I've never been in trial court. My attorney was a procedural guru and was dying but did not tell me. Before he died, he wrote out a strategy that would make it possible to go directly to SCOTUS without any waste of time in a district court trial.

So far everything has gone exactly as he predicted it would even if my attorney did not predict the presence of a Section 230 circuit split and 3 other cases
1. which are before SCOTUS and
2. to which Martillo v. Twitter would be an excellent companion.

In my petition I slightly modified arguments that pre-Breakup AT&T lawyers used before the FCC and the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Unlike the racist nitwit, who did not know what message common carriage or the 1956 Consent Decree were, the AT&T lawyers understood perfectly what common carriage and bailment were in the context of a packet-switched or circuit-switched network.

[Randal]

Or some sort of new, wonderful form of comedy, too funny to be real but too mad to be made up.

[Jonathan Affleck]

I've vetted the arguments with attorneys with whom I worked at AT&T and with several Constitutional scholars. Twitter and Medium considered the case serious enough to participate at the Court of Appeals. I'm the only Section 230 litigant that understands Internet technology and operation of a social medium platform. I expect the other four defendants to respond to the petition to SCOTUS.

[Randal]

I’m the only Section 230 litigant that understands Internet technology and operation of a social medium platform.

Hilarious! I'm telling you.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The white racist clowns, who support social medium platform discrimination, need only identify one participant

1. who took part in a Section 230 litigation and

2. who understood how the Internet or a social medium platform.

I’ve researched the cases. I have yet to identify any participant that could be considered more knowledgeable than a user.

When AT&T was involved in similar litigation, there were normally expert reports and expert testimony. It is disconcerting to see no similar material in a Section 230 litigation.

[Nelson]

I'm not a lawyer, but this guy seems to be saying things that don't make sense, but are strung together like he believes they are a cogent argument.

Am I missing something? Does his argument make any sense? Has it been successful in past litigation?

[Randal]

So, on re-(re-)read it’s not totally incoherent. But it’s so bad stylistically that it’s difficult to parse. I’ve never seen somebody so in love with jargon… both legal and technical (and even scientific… “the District Court makes an argument that violates causality“). Every other word is unnecessary or irrelevant jargon, which makes it a joy to read.

But it’s still entirely wrong. The lawsuit was dismissed for failure to state a claim and the First Circuit affirmed. SCOTUS won’t grant cert.

He’s making two classic mistakes simultaneously:

1. He thinks that because he knows some technical jargon he “understands the Internet.” He does not.

2. He thinks that because tech uses logic, jargon, and abstractions, and law also uses logic, jargon, and abstractions, the two fields use them in the same way. They don’t.

An example of the first mistake is when he says

Twitter provides store-and-forward message switching as well as message common carriage among users.

His suggestion being that because Twitter operates this sort of low-level communication network, its end-user offerings should be subject to common-carrier rules. But Twitter doesn’t operate the low-level communication network, it depends on ISPs to do that. The common-carrier rules apply only to the low-level network (the ISPs), not to Twitter’s use of it. It would be like saying that because the New York Times provides instructions for sending letters-to-the-editor through the postal service and then publishes some of them, the NYT editorial page is subject to common carrier regulations since it provides a service for “the conveyance of unpublished personal literary property from one person to the public.”

An example of the second mistake is when he says

The question confuses the frontend model (a pure concept or abstract idea) with a material notice board. The frontend model makes it easier for an end user to interact with Twitter’s backend system. In other words, Twitter’s service has no similarity to the material notice board.

Tech is built on abstractions. Imagine someone saying “I found a driver for my sound card, so I opened your memory stick, saw the song file, and clicked it with my mouse so I could copy it to the clipboard and paste it into the window on my desktop with the web in it” fifty years ago. The law is also built on abstractions. What, exactly, is a “tax?” A “search?” A “recess?” A “taking?” But they use abstractions in totally different, really opposite ways.

Tech uses abstractions to create specific new concepts within the blank slate of software, so that there’s something to work with besides ones and zeros. A “tweet” has 280 characters. A “tiktok” can’t be longer than a minute. Put this “bitcoin” in your “wallet.” In tech, it’s abstractions all the way down… from “tweets” to “web pages” to “Internet” “packets” to “bytes” to ones and zeros. For that to work, the abstractions have to be extremely well defined.

The law uses abstractions to generalize over all the existing complexity in the world in order to express principles. The abstractions are intentionally vague so that the principles have the best chance of applying in novel situations. In law, abstractions are intended to organize existing concepts, not create new ones from scratch.

When someone doesn’t understand the difference between how tech and law operate, they can get seriously confused. A lawyer might think an Internet-hosted PDF file is a “web page” since they’re functionally similar and wonder why Wikipedia’s claim that web pages are written in HTML seems inaccurate. A tech person might think that Twitter’s “frontend model” is legally distinct from a message board because the underlying mechanics are very different, even though their relevant functionality is the same. It’s like what happened to Bill Gates when he decided to interpret the court’s instruction to “remove the files that comprise Internet Explorer from Windows” as technical jargon rather than through a legal lens. Not good.

If you ignore the irrelevant technical details, the legally relevant functionality that Twitter provides is akin to a public message board.

Anyway… this next passage, one of my favorites, is content-free. It’s just jargon words as might be strung together by a technobabble bot. This is how I know he doesn’t, in fact, understand the Internet.

The terminology of full-stack software engineering is somewhat confusing. A software engineer generally uses the Model-View-Controller design pattern to design a web or cloud service. The end user invokes a browser on his end host (a laptop or mobile computing device) to access the service. A single-page application is frontend social medium platform software that runs in a web browser to access the service of the social medium platform – an older design might use Jakarta (or Java) Server Pages, but such a design does not affect the argument. A mobile device typically runs a mobile app (provided by the social medium platform) to complete the common carriage service, which the social medium platform’s backend provides.

[David Nieporent]

He’s making two classic mistakes simultaneously:

1. He thinks that because he knows some technical jargon he “understands the Internet.” He does not.

2. He thinks that because tech uses logic, jargon, and abstractions, and law also uses logic, jargon, and abstractions, the two fields use them in the same way. They don’t.

Yes, but he also makes up his own jargon on the legal side. For example, "digital personal literary property" is not a thing.

[shawn_dude]

It's petty, I know, but for someone so keen on showing his technical knowledge, WTF is "social medium?!" Is that a far too friendly fortune teller? Or an agar-like substance that feeds a social environment? (oh, well, that actually exists... it's called "alcohol.")

Also, MVC architecture is just one of many approaches. He mentions "full-stack software engineering" out of context, calls it confusing, and then goes on to new buzzwords.

I'd recommend a tinfoil hat. A big one with a pointy bit to keep out the lizard people mind rays.

[not guilty]

Mr. Affleck illustrates the Dunning-Kruger principle.

[Commenter_XY]

DMN....Rather effective, and brutal takedown. 🙂

That incisiveness is why I sometimes ask for your opinion on things.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It will be interesting to learn the reaction of this SCOTUS to such an argument.

It will not be even a little interesting when your petition for certiorari is summarily denied in a two line order buried among dozens of other cases.

[David Nieporent]

They already rejected (that is, in the sense of refusing to hear it) this argument once! He’s renewing it.

[M L]

"The effect of deplatforming Republic activists on the midterm election results should be studied."

Dr. Robert Epstein seems to do good research on related topics. E.g.

Search results that favor one candidate (in other words, that lead people who click on high-ranking results to web pages that glorify that candidate) can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by up to 80 percent in some demographic groups after a single search. Carefully crafted search suggestions that flash at you while you are typing a search term can turn a 50/50 split among undecided voters into a 90/10 split with no one knowing they have been manipulated. A single question-and-answer interaction on a digital personal assistant can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by more than 40 percent.

https://dailycaller.com/2022/11/06/robert-epstein-2022-midterm-elections-google-bing/

[Drewski]

What an unfortunate name.

[M L]

I know, but it's actually a pretty common name. Law professor Richard Epstein is decent guy too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Republicans have to learn how to harvest votes.

[Jonathan Affleck]

In recent elections Republicans have been competent in harvesting votes. They need to be because there are fewer Republican voters than Democrat voters.
A social medium platform is just one more means of energizing voters, and Republicans have been disproportionately deprived of this means.

[Ben_]

"In recent elections ... there are fewer Republican voters than Democrat voters"

In the 2022 election Republicans got a clear majority of the votes: https://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/house-charts/national-house-vote-tracker/2022

[Jonathan Affleck]

A declared Republican differs from someone that votes Republican in a specific election.

[Ben_]

And?

Vote totals are vote totals.

[David Nieporent]

The 2022 election results are not final yet. You should wait until they're done and certified before you form such conclusions.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The 2022 election results are not final yet."

...and that is a whole other problem a week and two days after an election.

[David Nieporent]

Why?

[Michael P]

It is a deficiency unique to the US. Other countries do not take this long to count votes.

[Sarcastr0]

Why is it a deficiency? That is how some states decided to prioritize their resources, and absent any particular impact, I'm fine with that choice.

[David Nieporent]

First, I'm not sure why you think that's true about other countries.

Second, I'm not sure why you think it's a deficiency at all. What is the magic about determining the winner 7 weeks before that person takes office rather than 8 weeks before?

(You do know that no states have final results on election night, right? It's just that states where the races aren't close enough, they can announce results earlier.)

[Nelson]

"In the 2022 election Republicans got a clear majority of the votes"

That's not surprising. The electoral map favored Rs this election, with a heavier concentration of R-leaning and safe-R races. That's one of the reasons that Rs were favored to win significantly (they also did a better job of gerrymandering, gaining more safe seats than Ds).

I would have been shocked if there were more D votes than R. The electoral map was too heavily skewed towards the Rs.

The only time the total number of votes would tell you anything is if it was a level start point, but that never happens. To assess what the vote total means, you would have to figure out the difference between the exoected result and the actual result.

Think of it like the Chiefs playing the Texans. If the Chiefs win 13-10, it seems like they did well. But since the Chiefs should have scored a shit-ton more points than the Texans, it is a bad result for KC.

In this election cycle, the Rs were the Chiefs and the Ds were the Texans.

[Sarcastr0]

They'll never actually try this.

Because the ones in charge know that what they're claiming is going on is not actually what is happening.
And if they try to match what they claim is going on, the GOP will get in big trouble.
You already see this with individual voters getting caught doing janky voter fraud in favor of the GOP.

[Bored Lawyer]

What evidence is there that Dobbs was the "key factor?" I don't see any.
To me, the key factor is that the Republicans are closely associated with Trump and his ego driven politics. They had a good issue with the economy, but then what did they do with it? Promise hearings about Hunter Biden.
The way to win elections is to convince others that you will govern better.
As for "making up for the abortion issue," the education of children, and the push-back against woke indoctrination, seems to have done well for several politicians. Granted that is more of a state-level issue than a federal one, but still.

[Brett Bellmore]

A key factor is that a lot of the Senate challengers were vowing to oppose McConnell for Senate leader. So the Republican election PAC McConnell controlled defunded them. Surprising, that. [/sarc]

As is often the case, the GOP establishment abandoned winnable seats in order to make sure they'd remain in control of the party. Preferring to be in control of the minority party, rather than be members of a majority party controlled by somebody else. I've seen it happen many times.

The red wave everybody had been anticipating was going to crash down on the party establishment's heads, they didn't want that.

[bernard11]

a lot of the Senate challengers were vowing to oppose McConnell for Senate leader. So the Republican election PAC McConnell controlled defunded them. Surprising, that.

Not so sure. Didn't McConnell pour a ton of money into Vance's campaign?

Regardless Trump could have provided his favorites with some of the money from his war chest, but of course provided little. IIRC McConnell spent around $200 million, Trump $16 million.

[Nige]

Isn't that weird? Brett keeps accusing the GOP Establishment of underspending to deliberately blunt the Red Wave, but it was Trump that actually underspent?

[David Nieporent]

Worse: Trump tricked people into thinking they were helping when they weren't. If you donated to Blake Masters through Trump's efforts, Trump kept 99% of the money for himself. For Vance, I think it was only 90%.

[Nelson]

"Not so sure. Didn’t McConnell pour a ton of money into Vance’s campaign?"

And into Oz's race. The Senate Leadership Fund spent a crapton of money in the last 2-3 weeks of the PA Senate race. It seemed like every other ad was one of theirs.

[Randal]

One piece of evidence is the polling miss. Voters behaved differently than pollsters expected. New, abortion-driven voters are a better explanation for that then poor Republican messaging or misspent campaign dollars.

Another is exit polls showing abortion as the #2 issue behind the economy.

Finally there's the fact that Republicans underperformed regardless of their embrace or rejection of Trump. The one thing that did seem to affect Republican performance was DeSantis's culture war, although like you said, that might be a Florida-specific phenomenon.

[ragebot]

My take is that in Florida the pubs had popular candidates while the dems had shit eating candidates who lacked the skills to win. On the other hand in PA and maybe GA the pubs had shit eating candidates while the dems had morons that hid in the basement and needed someone to read questions to them.

In any case at some point pub or dem you need candidates who don't drool when in front of the press.

[Brett Bellmore]

Unless it's PA, of course, in which case drooling or even rigor mortis don't seem to mean much.

[NOVA Lawyer]

As a Trump supporter, I don't expect you to understand. But in PA, a decent man of reasonable integrity had a stroke. He faced a man of low character and no integrity. The swing voters went with character/integrity over the reasonably intelligent and charismatic low-life.

That the best candidate in the race had a stroke and clearly has a long way to go to be an effective Senator is not a good thing, but the lesson isn't that voters don't care about a "drooling" candidate. It's that they may finally have awoken to the fact that, despite Trump supporters' pleas, character does matter.

One is maybe unqualified due to an unfortunate medical event. The other is unqualified due to character deficiencies. PA voters made the right choice. A disqualifying character defect is always the worse choice.

[David Nieporent]

Not a single person who complains about Fetterman's health is arguing that people should vote for Warnock over Walker, despite the fact that (in addition to mental illness) Walker is apparently either mentally challenged or suffering from CTE, or both. (And I'm not saying they should! I'm saying they should be consistent!)

[NOVA Lawyer]

Spot on.

[shawn_dude]

Further, if Trump was the main issue, downballot candidates for the GOP would have still done as expected. They did not. See: Michigan.

[jb]

Just looking at how standalone abortion-related votes have gone make it pretty clear that voters have very different preferences than most Republican politicians. Hard to say exactly how motivating it is based on that, but it's got to be a significant drag.

[Jmaie]

"To understand the extent to which abortion influenced the GOP’s midterm pummeling, we can look to polling, preelection and exit, like this massive NORC/AP/Fox poll. Roe’s termination was a motivating factor for a whopping 70 percent of those who voted, and 68 percent said it influenced their candidate choice. Now, obviously those “motivated” and “influenced” figures can apply to pro- and anti-aborts alike, but 62 percent of those same respondents said they favor a national law enshrining abortion rights (i.e., legislative Roe). So that wind blew one-way: pro-choice."

https://www.foxnews.com/elections/2022/midterm-results/voter-analysis?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm, the Dems sure thought that Dobbs was a factor.
In the advertising against Boldoc (NH Senate race) they did everything but break out clips from the Handmaid's Tales.

[Bob from Ohio]

"To remain competitive and preserve the 50 / 50 split, Republicans are going to have to make up for the abortion issue in some way, inevitably pushing the party leftward"

Abortion will never be as motivating to Dems as it just was. GOP still took House [a mirror of the current Dem majority] and lost 1 senate seat.

I'll take eliminating Roe any day and that result.

[Brett Bellmore]

Going forward abortion will rapidly cease to be a factor in national politics. And become much less of a factor in state politics after each state achieves something like equilibrium.

[Randal]

You guys are right but for the wrong reasons. The one thing that can take away the issue is a state constitutional amendment, which settles the issue within the state. As more and more states enact one, fewer voters will feel exposed to the whims of their state's lawmakers.

But even that presumes the issue gets taken off the table federally first, whereas currently, both parties are threatening national legislation on the issue. Kavanaugh signalled the futility of such efforts, but that's not enough to satisfy voters. It'll take passing a law and challenging it up through SCOTUS -- and a Kavanaugh-style ruling -- before the issue will be finally resolved federally. Probably at least a decade.

[Nelson]

If Ds get a law passed, it will probably be centered around privacy rights, medical decision-making, personal autonomy, or some other issue that can be reasonably found in the 9th Amendment or whichever one presently protects privacy rights (I believe, from past discussions, that's the 4th, right?).

Basically anything that would need a conflict between rights-holders to overturn. That would require proving (although I'm not sure what standard would be required) that a fetus is a rights-bearing person, legally, which is an incredibly heavy lift. A libertarian-minded justice like Gorsuch and a more moderation-prone justice like Roberts could easily fail to accept fetal personhood.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Going forward abortion will rapidly cease to be a factor in national politics"

Huh. The right-wing sources I read claimed it was no longer a factor going into the midterms. They were both smug and certain about that. So keep those predictions coming! I'll enjoy watch the new batch flop just as much as the old....

[shawn_dude]

Are you saying that if abortion is baby-murder, people in one state that has outlawed the killing of pre-born babies will be perfectly okay with their neighbors crossing the border to keep murdering babies one state over? Is baby-murder merely an evil thing to be stopped in one's own state?

Either the "baby-murder" rhetoric was honest, in which case it's unlikely that people will be okay with continued abortions in nearby states, or it wasn't honest, and they'll be perfectly fine with it. In the former situation, having groups of people from out-of-state try to push anti-choice laws is going to keep the issue alive for as many election cycles as it takes for them to give up.

[not guilty]

"Going forward abortion will rapidly cease to be a factor in national politics."

I doubt that. The reasoning of Dobbs would apply to Congressional legislation as well as to the states. The coathanger coalition is likely to clamor for a federal curtailment of abortion rights, possibly including a prohibition of interstate travel to a state where abortion remains legal in order to obtain one. If Republicans gain control of the presidency and both houses of Congress at the same time, there is a real risk of such legislation passing.

[bernard11]

Like, ok. I’m glad the Republicans are blaming Trump for their disappointment.

Why should they blame Trump, rather than themselves? Trump endorsed primary candidates. He didn't hypnotize primary voters into nominating them.

[Randal]

Well, he sort of did. It's a recognition on the right that MAGA is a cult.

[Kazinski]

I think it was Trump and election denialism.

A good example is Arizona where Blake Masters and Kari Lake who were both Trump endorsed lost, and yet Republicans flipped Arizona's house delegation from 5-4 Dem to 6-3 GOP.

That's definite ticket splitting.

[bernard11]

Wonder what those who were touting Lake as a VP candidate(!!!) think now.

Cultist fools.

[Kazinski]

I agree, but the world is full of idiots.

Suggesting Fetterman as a presidential candidate is at least as absurd.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/msnbcs-katy-tur-floats-fetterman-as-potential-presidential-candidate/

[shawn_dude]

And yet Michigan went entirely the other way. All branches in the hands of Democrats and re-election of a Democratic governor.

[not guilty]

The Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, has scheduled oral argument in the Mar-a-Lago search matter for November 22. Kudos to the Court for acting expeditiously.

The parties in this round of briefing have not addressed whether Donald Trump has standing to seek injunctive relief. (The United States questioned Trump’s standing when it sought a partial stay of the District Court’s order, but the Court of Appeals there did not expressly address standing.) Article III standing is an essential component of the federal courts’ subject matter jurisdiction. I hope that the Court of Appeals will consider Trump’s standing to seek an injunction here.

I don’t see that Trump has sufficiently pleaded that he has suffered any injury in fact. I am also skeptical about whether any harm he claims to have sustained is redressable by the requested injunctive relief. Trump’s premises were searched and various items seized therefrom pursuant to a search warrant regularly issued by a United States Magistrate upon a finding of probable cause that evidence of criminal activity would be found there. That is not an injury in fact. Trump’s pleadings do not aver facts showing invalidity of the warrant or any defect in its execution.

As Judge Dearie inquired, where's the beef?

[John F. Carr]

I think Trump was injured and an injunction could remedy that. His case does not meet the standards to grant such an injunction. You could say the court does not have jurisdiction unless the standards are met, or the court has jurisdiction but Trump loses on the merits. When merits and jurisdiction merge the courts sometimes get sloppy with the labels.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You think Trump was injured? LOL

He's a thief, and a liar. His wounds are self-inflicted.

[John F. Carr]

If I get drunk and crash my car into your parked car, wrecking both, I have an injury. The injury is the damage to my car. The proposed remedy is you paying for the damage to my car. That gives a court jurisdiction. Jurisdiction doesn't mean a winning case. Jurisdiction means it's the kind of case a court can resolve.

You will find plenty of collections of stupid lawsuits that any sensible person would think should be instant losers, but the plaintiff won. The prototypical case is that of Stella who ordered hot coffee, spilled it in her lap, and sued McDonalds for giving her hot coffee. She won. A web search will get you the tort lawyer's side of the case which makes it sound less stupid. The point is not that the verdict was right or wrong, but that many lawsuits can be described as frivolous yet end up winners.

[not guilty]

Pleading and proving facts showing standing in any federal court is a jurisdictional requirement under Article III's case or controversy requirement. Absent a showing of such facts, a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Trump's unverified pleadings -- never mind that he has offered no proof whatsoever -- fail that test.

The car wreck analogy is completely inapposite.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wasn't the issue that the temperature of the coffee was way in excess of what was legally permitted and/or specified by McDonald's regs?

She may have had contributory negligence but if you are selling an unsafe product???

[not guilty]

It is the burden of the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute. A plaintiff must allege facts essential to show jurisdiction. If he fails to make the necessary allegations, he has no standing. FW/PBS v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990).

Trump's (unverified) pleadings do not aver facts (as distinct from legal conclusions) evincing an injury in fact. Merely having items seized from one's premises pursuant to a valid search warrant is not such an injury -- no legal right is invaded thereby. The pleadings show no facts evincing invalidity of the warrant nor any defect in the execution thereof. (Trump in his pleadings expressly disclaimed reliance on Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g), which permits a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property to move for the property's return.)

Redressability necessarily presupposes the authority of the court to grant the requested relief. The Eleventh Circuit in this very case has opined "that courts of equity do not ordinarily restrain criminal prosecutions." https://docs-cdn-prod.news-engineering.aws.wapo.pub/publish_document/dd14f429-6a6e-47a1-9059-6190db2df638/published/dd14f429-6a6e-47a1-9059-6190db2df638.pdf p. 20. That relief requires a showing of exceptional circumstances which is simply absent from Trump's pleadings. As the Supreme Court has opined:

The general rule is that equity will not interfere to prevent the enforcement of a criminal statute even though unconstitutional. To justify such interference there must be exceptional circumstances and a clear showing that an injunction is necessary in order to afford adequate protection of constitutional rights. We have said that it must appear that the danger of irreparable loss is both great and immediate; otherwise the accused should first set up his defense in the state court, even though the validity of a statute is challenged.

Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387, 401 (1941) (internal quotation marks omitted). Issuance of an injunction against a federal criminal proceeding would exceed the authority of a court of equity. "No citizen or member of the community is immune from prosecution, in good faith, for his alleged criminal acts. The imminence of such a prosecution even though alleged to be unauthorized and hence unlawful is not alone ground for relief in equity which exerts its extraordinary powers only to prevent irreparable injury to the plaintiff who seeks its aid." Id., at 400, quoting Beal v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Corp., 312 U.S. 45, 49 (1941).

[not guilty]

The DOJ has now filed its reply brief in the Eleventh Circuit. https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/r9PdELJDSmEU/v0 It is a cogent and persuasive response to Team Trump's word salad brief.

[Kazinski]

Not sure it matters much, the Washington Post reports that any rationale for a criminal case has evaporated:

"Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter."

No nuclear secrets, no compromat,
Nothing that would provide a business advantage.

The case is ending with a whimper.

[not guilty]

Motive is not an element of any of the offenses with which Trump may be charged regarding the documents removed to and concealed at Mar-a-Lago. He is particularly vulnerable in regard to stiffing investigators on the grand jury subpoena while fraudulently certifying on June 3 that all responsive documents had been produced. That is plainly obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. 1519.

[Kazinski]

Well then why hasn’t he been indicted?

[not guilty]

Ask the Attorney General, who will make the decision of whether and when to ask the grand jury to indict. Probable cause is there in abundance.

[not guilty]

It seems I spoke too soon. The appointment of a special counsel is a craven move, which will result in unwarranted delay in holding Donald Trump to account for his criminality.

[shawn_dude]

This doesn't seem to follow through, logically. Assuming the WaPo material is accurate, your take doesn't make sense.

If Trump keeps trophies, they're likely going to be displayed, even if only privately, to people who, like Trump, do not have the security clearance to view them. We've charged, found guilty, and sentenced people who took documents home to work on them in good faith but without permission. And these are people who have a clearance and the authority to view and use the classified information. What would make Trump, who no longer fits either of these conditions, exempt from the same laws that we used to convict others?

[apedad]

Some bitch got a hold of my credit card number and charged over $3,000 in TX (I'm in VA).

I blocked my card and am work with the Fraud Dept., but I'm wondering should I contact the police?

Anyone ever run into this before? Thanks.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You can. I would suggest asking your credit card company their position. If they report it, you may not need to.

I ran into a similar issue, where someone got a hold of my mail, decided to bleach a check, then re-write the names and amounts, and tried to cash it.

We contacted the police on the advice of our bank. It wasn't urgent by any means. But if it doesn't get reported, then the police never know.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Some bitch"? A dog got your number or are you referring to a female or a male who thinks he's a female?

[Bored Lawyer]

My dog used to have a credit card, until she maxed out. Too many bones on sale at Costco.

[bernard11]

It's OK to get your dog a credit card, but you do need to put the spending on a leash.

[Bored Lawyer]

Or at least brought to heel. 😉

[Mr. Bumble]

Welcome to Punanza Thursday.

[Moderation4ever]

My experience is that the credit card companies will alert the police. Many years ago, my wife's CC was stolen. She was on the phone, when the operator broken in with an emergency call from the CC company. The stolen CC was in use and the company wanted to confirm that it was not my wife using it. They called the police, and the user was arrested. No idea how the case ended but thrilling when it happened.

Another observation is that most thieves know the cards are good for a very limited period and will purchase all they can quickly.

[Mr. Bumble]

I believe that all CC companies will not hold a card holder liable for charges he/she did not make or authorize if you report it as soon as you become aware of it. You could play safe by reporting it to your local police, but since the fraudulent use occurred in another state they might not even take the report.
Worst part is you'll probably be issued a new card and have to update any autopay linked to that card.

[Frank Drackman]

Credit Card Fraud? It happens? thought it was like Erecton Fraud.
And even if they have your card # wouldn't they have to know the security code and your billing zip code? Good thing those aren't easily available on receipts etc. One thang though. How do you know it was a Bitch?, statistically it's much more likely to be a umm, never mind.

Frank "Cash, works every time"

[David Nieporent]

Unless you have specific knowledge of where your cc info might have been stolen, I don't think there's any need. Cops don't really do anything about situations like that, so the only reason to report such crimes is in situations where you need a police report (e.g., for an insurance company, or to combat actual identity fraud). Since you're not responsible for fraudulent credit card charges, you don't need to do that. The cc company will contact the cops if they want.

[ragebot]

My experience is not recent but forces me to disagree with your post. Several years ago my wallet was stolen from my locker at the gym at FSU. My CC alerted me someone was trying to use the card in Italy to make a four figure purchase of jewelry after successfully buying an ice cream cone there. It had also been used in Jacksonville, Florida to purchase gas. The CC company required me to contact local law enforcement. The Tallahassee Police Department, TPD, had an officer in charge of CC violations and he was quite helpful. As others have mentioned all the charges were removed from my bill and TPD worked with the CC. On the other hand the Jacksonville Police Department was less than useful in the case.

Point is that police departments vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in how they handle CC abuse.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your experience involved and was the result of a theft so it would make sense to get the local police involved.

[David Nieporent]

Yes; that's a different scenario, because then the local police in theory can track down the actual person who stole the wallet from the locker. (Not saying they will, but they could. And if there's a pattern of such thefts, they might.)

[ragebot]

While I agree it is a different situation the thing is the card was taken from my wallet (which I now leave in the car when I go to the gym) and somehow got from Tallahassee to Jacksonville (probably by car) in a few hours and was used to buy gas at a pay at the pump gas station. Next day it was used in Italy to buy an ice cream cone and then an attempt was made to buy thousands of dollars worth of jewelry at which point my CC company declined the purchase and contacted me to get confirmation of a purchase I would not normally make. In fact I have had the CC company contact me when I buy stuff like my Sony A1 to confirm the purchase. It was only at that point I was aware my CC was missing. All in all the bogus purchases were less than $US150 which the CC company ate.

[Ben_]

"Some bitch got a hold of my credit card number and charged over $3,000 in TX (I’m in VA)."

You guys taught people that spending money other people earned is ok. She just got her stimulus payment directly. Or reparations. Or UBI payment. Or housing subsidy. Or student loan forgiveness.

Now you want to complain because she got it from you instead of getting it from your neighbors whom you usually intend to stick with the bills for this stuff.

[apedad]

FOLLOW UP!

My credit card company just reimbursed (now up to) $5000+ and they could even tell how my card number was copied, and that a new card was created and used in TX.

[Ben_]

Others got stuck with the bill. Congrats.

[Life of Brian]

and that a new card was created and used in TX

It's interesting that they would have the data to know in hindsight it was a new card, but that same data (whatever it might be) wouldn't have flagged the transaction up front.

[apedad]

They knew it was a new card because they could tell someone actually swiped a card.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, they could tell that it was a duplicate card and that it was swiped. (I thought the chips were supposed to stop this.)

They didn't know that it was "new" only that it was a duplicate.

[Kazinski]

You know it's a bitch because she got ahold of your wallet when you had your pants off in a motel room?

Well it happens to the best of us,or so I've heard.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Fired because you're white....

A white sign-language interpreter says he was booted from “The Lion King” on Broadway because of his skin color.

Keith Wann, 53, was one of at least two people forced off the production by the non-profit Theatre Development Fund – which staffs Broadway shows with American Sign Language interpreters – after the group decided it was “no longer appropriate to have white interpreters represent black characters for ASL Broadway shows.”

Wann filed a federal discrimination lawsuit on Tuesday against the organization and the director of its accessibility programs, Lisa Carling.

https://nypost.com/2022/11/12/lion-king-sign-language-interpreter-keith-wann-says-he-was-fired-for-being-white/

[Brett Bellmore]

He'll lose. There's an exception for race discrimination on artistic grounds in entertainment, it's considered a "bona fide occupational requirement".

If he weren't exposed to the audience, that might be different. But as an audience facing participant in a theatrical production, he's screwed.

[ThePublius]

As far as I am aware, there are no human characters, black or white, in the Lion King, only animals.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lions are black?

[Sarcastr0]

Talking animals in Africa via puppets for visuals are not real.

They can be played as black if that's the director's vision.

[David Nieporent]

Indeed, we just had this conversation here last week, with respect to the beauty pageant that only wants real women in it. The court expressly cited the choice to use black performers for the Hamilton musical as artistic choice protected by the 1A.

[Nige]

I can see why having the only white person on stage dressed as a big game hunter might not have worked out as a creative choice.

[Brett Bellmore]

More of a mocha, I understand.

[Sarcastr0]

Talking animals.

[Frank Drackman]

Animals talk, we just don't speak their language.

Frank "Fluent in Ferrett"

[Armchair Lawyer]

We will see. Seems a narrow line to say that the sign interpreter can be classified as "artistic" in such an endeavor, simply because the audience can see them.

What's to separate the sign interpreter from the usher, or the ticket stand worker or a waitress at a venue that also provides entertainment?

[Sarcastr0]

One is someone that will be paid attention to by at least some subset of the audience as part of the production, the others are not.

This is not hard.

[Nige]

More to the point, they, as it were, knew he was white when they hired him, so maybe there's another side to the story.

[Brett Bellmore]

I expect they hired him some time back when they mostly cared about him being good at the job, and their priorities have since changed to the point where being good at the job isn't enough.

[Nige]

Or there was some other reason for his dismissal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except that they actually told us the reason for his dismissal: His skin color.

Now, theoretically, that could be pretext, but why would you adopt a potentially illegal pretext to fire somebody if you actually had a more defensible basis?

Well, they've worked themselves into a position where they think firing somebody for not being black IS a perfectly defensible thing.

But I still think he'll lose under current precedent.

[David Nieporent]

They didn't actually tell us anything, Brett. The guy suing did.

[Life of Brian]

Ackshully and as extensively quoted in the linked article, there are also a number of emails among the people involved. Perhaps most notably, the ASL director plainly stated: “Keith Wann, though an amazing ASL performer, is not a black person and therefore should not be representing Lion King."

I don't yet see any copies of the emails in the wild, so if you want to pivot to arguing their existence/authenticity, knock yourself out. But this is way beyond a bare pleading.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t yet see any copies of the emails in the wild, so if you want to pivot to arguing their existence/authenticity, knock yourself out. But this is way beyond a bare pleading.

I am not "arguing" their existence/authenticity, in the sense of denying it; I am saying that (as far as I can tell from the article) they are documents supplied by the plaintiff. Which means that they are at the moment allegations no different than the text of the pleading. They might be truthful or might not be.

[Life of Brian]

I am saying that (as far as I can tell from the article) they are documents supplied by the plaintiff.

Not sure why you'd think that from the article. It says the emails were "obtained by the Post" without attribution, and P wasn't on the key email between the two execs discussing why they should can him.

Further to that, the complaint (copy here) says the above email was sent "on or about April 1" but says the subsequent email to P was sent "on April 2," and the language the complaint attributes to the ~April 1 email has several minor differences from the parallel excerpts in the Post. Occam would gently suggest P didn't have an actual copy of that email.

[Nige]

*He* said they told him.

[Dr. Ed 2]

ASL has nothing to do with race. Hence no BFOQ.

And shouldn't they be using real lions?

[Bob from Ohio]

"on artistic grounds"

A sign interpreter is not an actor. He's performing a clerical function. A Broadway show cannot discriminate on race when it hires a stagehand. Arguably the same here.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I did some more reading here Brett, and it turns out you're not strictly speaking correct. There is no bona fide occupational requirement that allows you to discriminate based on race. Period.

What there is, and what you're thinking about, is a bona fide occupational requirement based on "physical characteristics". For example, in a play or movie about Martin Luther King Jr, you can discriminate based on how someone looks, and how closely they look to MLK Jr. Now, that correlates with race. But it's not actually discrimination based on RACE, but based on HOW THEY LOOK, and how you need that certain look, for the role at hand. So, if you had someone who looked "brown skinned" with a "Hispanic accent" who wasn't actually Hispanic (but looked like that), that would be discrimination based on race, and illegal, even from an artistic standpoint.

Where Hamilton got into problem was in inverting the typical roles (ie, white-looking people play historically white people), and then needing to justify the race-specific casting choices they made based on "artistic license." But...they got away with it, by moving from openly advertising for "non-whites" to simply moving the auditions into the director's room and looking for people who "looked right" for the role. But...it was tenuous.

Where this gets into a major difficulty is that they need to justify that the ASL interpreter's physical characteristics are critical to the role being played. They "need" a "black-looking" ASL interpreter. But the problem is, this isn't an role. This is a person translating for a broad variety of people...men and women, black and white (yes, there are white cast members). The ASL interpreter isn't typically cast in the same way as an actor or actress. The comments made "we need a black interpreter for black actors"...(but not a white interpreter for white actors?)....very much come off as this is a decision not made by artistic decision, but one by the current political climate. Note, not one who looks black, but "is" black.

Because of all this, it's more likely they will settle...or lose the case.

[David Nieporent]

Where this gets into a major difficulty is that they need to justify that the ASL interpreter’s physical characteristics are critical to the role being played.

No, they don't. (At least not if the person is considered the equivalent of a performer, rather than a stagehand.) The first amendment gives them the right to make artistic choices regardless of whether those choices are "critical" to the roles being played or not.

[Absaroka]

"The comments made “we need a black interpreter for black actors”…(but not a white interpreter for white actors?)"

If you have a play with black, white, and hispanic actors, do you need three ASL interpreters? Or if your city council has a variety of races/nationalities/etc, do you need a different interpreter for each council member? Seems inefficient.

When Biden travels to China or France, does he need to take an interpreter of appropriate ethnicity?

[Sarcastr0]

This is AL's speculative take; I don't think it's in evidence that was the actual thinking.

[Ridgeway]

How many deaf people go to Broadway musicals?

Also, if it is improper for a white person to do ASL for a black performer, what about closed captioning? Does that have to be typed out by a person of the same race/ethnicity as the speaker as well?

[Nige]

I'd wager, more go when there's a sign language interpreter.

[Gasman]

Closed captioning.
Why do we need sign language interpreters anyway? Just look at all the times you see ASL interpreters standing visible in the newsfeed merely for show. Many deaf use little ASL, might not even know any at all, due to cochlear implants, and the ability to use hearing. And many who acquire hearing issues, especially with aging, need either amplification or closed captioning, as none opt to learn ASL.

So in this instance of ASL interpreters, their presence is purely an artistic show, since they are not genuinely needed.
Is the theater adequately accommodating the vast majority of hearing impaired by providing closed captioning is the real question for disabilities rights lawyers.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe they should hire Garrett Morris:

OUR TOP STORY TONIGHT!

[apedad]

HA! Love it.

[Sarcastr0]

So in this instance of ASL interpreters, their presence is purely an artistic show, since they are not genuinely needed.

This...may not cut the way you want.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I see a lot of assertions that 'many this' and 'none that,' but what I don't see from your bullshit is a single source for any of what you alleged.

Sounds to me like you're full of shit.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Government loan forgiveness programs. Whites need not apply...

The Providence, Rhode Island, Public School District has a loan forgiveness program for new and recently hired teachers, funded by the Rhode Island Foundation, the largest charity in the state. There’s a catch, however. Whites need not apply, it’s only open to non-whites.

The complaint claims that Providence Public School District is “engaged in a continuing violation and an ongoing pattern or practice of discrimination” with a student loan forgiveness program for newly and recently hired educators that is only available to non-White applicants, billed as the “Educator of Color Loan Forgiveness Program.”

The Providence Public School District advertises that recipients can have up to $25,000 of college loans forgiven once the teacher completes three consecutive years of teaching in the district. The eligibility requirements indicate recipients must “identify as Asian, Black, Indigenous, Latino, biracial, or multi-racial.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/11/providence-ri-teacher-loan-forgiveness-program-only-open-to-non-whites-challenged-by-legal-insurrection-foundation/

[David Nieporent]

If the facts are as reported, that sounds blatantly illegal.

[Sarcastr0]

Indeed - that's a fail by some general counsel somewhere.

[Life of Brian]

The fail is that the GC didn't point out that discriminating based solely on race is blatantly illegal, not that everyone else in the equation wanted to do so?

[Ed Grinberg]

"Systemic racism"!
(They're right, of course, just not in the way they mean.)

[Sarcastr0]

People are ignorant of the law all the time; that's not some shocking reveal.

[Life of Brian]

People are ignorant of arcane minutia they have no particular reason to know or have looked into.

You are not seriously taking the position that the administrators of a public school district just flat missed or somehow forgot about the foundation of the entire Civil Rights movement.

[Sarcastr0]

I am taking that position. You can appeal to incredulity all you want, but I can tell you from personal experience that people thinking you can have an assistance program that targets minorities is quite common.

[Life of Brian]

I can tell you from personal experience that people thinking you can have an assistance program that targets minorities is quite common.

Huh. If that's really true to a significant degree, and given the hyperactive focus on civil rights that begins in the lowest grades of elementary school, you could almost walk away with the impression that people are being programmed to think that some kinds of racial discrimination are cooler than others, and that THAT is the root of the problem here.

But it's far easier (and admit it, probably a bit more fun) to just throw the GC under the bus.

[Sarcastr0]

Or, maybe, the hyperactive focus you believe is there is bullshit.

[Life of Brian]

Either you and everyone else in your social circle don't have children in school, or you don't pay much attention to what they bring home and talk about.

[Ben_]

Do you think the Biden Administration will enforce the law? Maybe they'll send FBI SWAT teams to raid the Legal Insurrection Foundation instead.

[Ed Grinberg]

In Putin’s Russia it’s a common occurrence for an attorney representing someone against the government to himself become the target of criminal proceedings.

[shawn_dude]

Question: It looks to me like the foundation is private. Is it illegal for a private foundation to offer loan repayment (not really "forgiveness" since they don't hold the loan) to people based on their race? I don't know the answer but I do know it's legal to give out scholarships that way.

[Frank Drackman]

Sun Rises in East, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin (Lloyd Christmas would be better) blames Russia.

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

I very much like to read articles and posts at the Conspiracy because in general they are challenging in their adversity, i.e. I do appreciate intelligent opposition.
As a continental European I struggle with the tension between First Past the Post and One Person One Vote. The former is particularly troublesome by inviting all the shenanigans of gerrymandering - in Proportional Representation gerrymandering does not make sense.
Having read some eye-watering stories about gerrymandering, particularly in Wisconsin a few years back, I was quite surprised about the widely under reported US-wide House totals, which broke (last time I found them) about 51% - 47% Republican. On that basis, I calculated that Dems should get 208 Representatives, a number they already exceed. There are of course gerrymandered Dem states (MD?), but their last attempt in NY miserably failed. I wonder: how do the new numbers come about? Is there an averaging-out across states?

[Brett Bellmore]

As it happens, both parties are about equally guilty of gerrymandering. Mostly in the form of incumbent protection, though, not for partisan advantage.

The Democrats pretend this isn't so by using a tendentious definition of "gerrymandering". The distribution of the parties isn't symmetric in the US, it has a "fat tail" on the Democratic end of the curve.

Republican areas mostly cluster at around 55% Republican, maybe a little higher, and max out around 70%. Democratic areas tend to be much more Democratic, and go as high as 100% in city cores. As a result, in a first past the post system the Democrats waste a lot of votes electing people with high percentages of the vote, while the Republicans' votes are efficiently distributed.

The Democrats have demanded that gerrymandering be defined in terms of departure from equal vote efficiency, they require the maps to be drawn to deliberately negate this disadvantage in order to be considered not gerrymandered. Accomplishing this can actually require genuine gerrymandering, obviously rigged district maps.

I'm an advocate of proportional representation myself. It really is the way to go if you want a legislature to reflect the voters.

[Jerry B.]

"As it happens, both parties are about equally guilty of gerrymandering"

Nope. The Democrats only gerrymander because the Republicans do, so it's self-defense. Just ask any Democrat.

[Sarcastr0]

Not this democrat – gerrymandering is bullshit and nonpartisan districting commissions assisted by computers is better for our democracy; I hope all the states, red or blue or purple, adopt something like them.

[Mr. Bumble]

So no to majority minority districts?

[Sarcastr0]

Not one of my sacred cows. How many are there above what would naturally occur anyhow?

[Mr. Bumble]

There are no "naturally occurring" districts. All are created.

[Sarcastr0]

Cute.

[Brett Bellmore]

Expecting non-partisan commissions to actually be non-partisan is foolish. Politics infects everything.

That's why my proposal was to just create a huge number of maps by computer, and allow all the ballot qualified parties to throw out a share of them in a process similar to voir dire. Then pick one from the remaining using a bingo cage.

Don't pretend you can avoid politics, just channel the politics.

[Sarcastr0]

I know Brett, you think everyone is as much a partisan tool as you.

Not that I'd mind your idea, either.

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh? No, hardly. Most people ignore politics entirely.

But the partisan tools end up in charge, because they want it badly, and devote themselves to ending up in charge.

[Sarcastr0]

There have already been nonpartisan districting commissions that, if they were partisan, managed to hide it well.

[Nige]

You know computers don't just work themselves and they have to be programmed by people, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I also know that you can open source the software, so that anybody can inspect it. Rather more difficult to do that with the minds of commission members.

[Nige]

Pretty sure most people can better understand how a person comes to a deicison than how lines of code do.

[Brett Bellmore]

Speak for your self, I have Aspergers.

[Nige]

So people with Aspergers who can't code will have difficulty with both, that sucks, but still.

[Randal]

The point isn't for every individual to personally inspect the code. It's for every individual to know that the code is inspectable, so they can disabuse themselves of conspiracy theories. Someone would inspect the code and blow the whistle, were anything nefarious going on.

[Randal]

Maybe they're "less-partisan redistricting commissions." They don't have the intense conflict of interest that state legislatures have, that's for sure.

[M L]

“nonpartisan districting commissions”

Thanks for the laugh.

Just call them nonpartisan, bro.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Michigan has one and the outcome in the state house actually mirrored statewide preferences.

[Frank Drackman]

Sort of backfired on the D's in New Yawk, with Long Island now as Repubiclan as Oklahoma... Like the idea of Proportional Representation Myself, especially when they have to pick the unlucky guy to be the 0.5....

[John F. Carr]

Multi-member districts could also help.

I remember an interview about elections and gerrymandering where the expert described Massachusetts as an example of the worst effects of our system. One third of residents vote Republican, but the Congressional delegation has been overwhelmingly blue for the past 30 years. If constitutional law required outcomes to be related to voter fractions, Massachusetts would be under a court order to elect Republicans. The Supreme Court says there is no such proportionality rule, except maybe for race and we're not sure about that any more.

[jb]

Massachusetts is an interesting example, but not related to gerrymandering. Unlike in many states, the vote distribution in Massachusetts is fairly consistent geographically, with Republicans in the minority in basically all regions of the state. It's actually not possible to draw Congressional districts there that will result in a Republican advantage.

So it's actually a great example of the value of a proportional system since it demonstrates that in a state where the minority is spread evenly across the state, our current model doesn't afford them any opportunity for representation at all.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Some version of Mixed-member proportional is the way to go I think. There are still geographic districts which elect members, but geography is not outcome determinative of who controls a majority and there are "leveling seats" to ensure the composition reflects the national vote.

This would guarantee geographic diversity in the legislature which is important because regions do need a point-person to represent their interests and some interests are truly local. But gerrymandering would be pointless because no vote would ever be wasted since the remainder of the seats would be filled to reflect the population. Even if you drew the districts to make sure one party gets all the proportional seat, the other parties votes would count towards the leveling seats, and if they are a majority of the vote, would be the majority of the legislature.

[jb]

I agree, this sounds like it would be a good system.

Do we need a Constitutional Amendment to make it happen? Or can Congress just pass a law saying that this is how seats shall be enumerated from now on?

[ragebot]

As has been pointed out already the problem is dems tend to live in the core of central cities and it is not uncommon for districts to have 100% of the votes go dem while the pubs are much more dispersed and often win a district by just over 50%.

My district in Florida was over 300 miles East to West and less than 3 miles at the narrowest point North to South till the recent redistricting that basically made it very near to a rectangle. Of course the dems sued, lost, appealed, and the case is on going. Bottom line the dems due to voter concentration will always be at a disadvantage unless districts are formed to look like crazy space monsters instead of rectangles.

[Reallynotbob]

Consider flipping that causation over. People who live in central cities tend to align with Democratic values; those who elect to live in rural communities tend to align with Republican ones. I would argue that the social understandings necessary to make cities work (80% of global GDP, by the way) are simply better reflected by current Democratic talking points than Republican ones. Concentration of population in cities will only continue to grow, so without change, the Republicans are playing for smaller and smaller communities.

[John F. Carr]

A podcast episode on this effect: Will Wilkinson on Partisan Polarization and the Urban/Rural Divide.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not entirely in disagreement with that: In cities externalities from high density living naturally make intrusive government look sensible. And if you could keep that sort of thing isolated in cities, maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing.

But the Democrats keep trying to leverage their numbers in the cities to run the entire country as though it were an urban center, and what may regretfully be necessary in mid-town Manhattan is madness for most of the country.

[apedad]

The opposite is true too.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. Which is why I say I favor subsidarity. Decisions should be made at the lowest, most local level possible.

Most of the time, that's the individual...

[bernard11]

Decisions should be made at the lowest, most local level possible.

Too bad so many ardent federalists disagree.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the federalists in the majority on the Court obviously agree. See Dobbs.

[Voize]

Roe left it up to the individual. Dobbs lets the state decide.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is how you know Brett isn’t about principle, he’s about outcome and just clothes his ideas in the jargon of principles.

Dobbs directly contradicts “Decisions should be made at the lowest, most local level possible.

Most of the time, that’s the individual…”

Yet, Brett, without irony, cited Dobbs as vindicating his proffered principle.

smh

[bernard11]

I was referring to the so often seen refusal of state legislatures - particularly GOP-dominated ones - to let municipalities make their own rules where appropriate.

Subsidiarity for me, but not for thee.

[ragebot]

"I would argue that the social understandings necessary to make cities work (80% of global GDP, by the way) are simply better reflected by current Democratic talking points than Republican ones. Concentration of population in cities will only continue to grow, so without change, the Republicans are playing for smaller and smaller communities."

This is a pile of shit and there is no way to sugar coat it. First of all you fail to differentiate between wealth and money. While cities have 80% (seems reasonable to me) of GDP (money) they have less than 1% of the food and energy (wealth) they need. Rural areas would have much less of a problem existing with out urban areas than urban areas would have a problem existing with out rural areas.

[Brett Bellmore]

Cities are where corporations have their headquarters. Especially financial businesses, which are now a deplorably large part of our economy.

So, serious question: Does ADM report their profits in farm fields, or the city where they have their corporate headquarters? Same question for any extraction based or manufacturing based company: Corporate headquarters, or the mines and factories?

Does VISA report their profits in party stores across the nation? Or in their own offices?

[ragebot]

Big corporations report their profits in the jurisdiction that is most favorable tax wise; often some shit eating country with crazy tax laws. It is how many big international companies pay little to no tax. While there is a real effort to create something like a 15% minimum tax world wide so far it has been a fool's errand since the shit eating countries are getting way more taxes than they would get otherwise so they will never sign on.

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

Thanks very much indeed to all for the answers (overwhelmingly) to the point. You confirmed my positive bias about the Conspiracy.
At first sight, I was inclined to give most weight to the idea, first presented by Brett (one up) , that the distribution of Rep/Dems is unequal. On second thought that would produce a “natural” advantage for Reps, would it not?
Aware of the constitutional problems entailed, I do think - for the sanity of all involved - that non-partisan commissions are the best solution. My impressions are anecdotal but it appears that they tend to produce fairer results (sarcastr0 1, Brett 0 ????)
I was also quite surprised that Proportional Representation got such a support. There is however a tendency to see only the advantages of the other system and the disadvantages of your own. Just ask the Israelis …

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

Sorry, “????” was supposed to be a grinning emoji.

[Michael P]

In a country where electoral fraud is supposedly difficult and rare, Philadelphia seems to be an endless font of it: https://whyy.org/articles/rasheen-crews-philadelphia-forgery-charges-2019-democratic-primary/

[David Nieporent]

While what you cite is certainly illegal, it is not 'electoral fraud.' It has nothing to do with actual ballots cast.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, trying to shoehorn every legal problem with voting into the category of "fraud" is a mistake. Most election crimes are NOT fraud, technically. Doesn't stop them from skewing elections.

[Ridgeway]

FRAUD!

[defaultdotxbe]

While it may not be strictly electoral fraud it certainly would have an impact on the number of votes cast for particular candidates in the primary (and possibly the general if one of the fraudulently-niminated candidates wins)

[shawn_dude]

This misstates the status quo. Electoral fraud is not "difficult and rare." It happens every election. What is difficult and rare is getting away with it and doing it in large enough volumes to actually make a difference. There are many examples from 2020, the majority favored GOP candidates, and ran the gamut from voting on your dead wife's ballot to getting someone with the same name as a Democratic challenger on the ballot to confuse voters.

This particular case is about getting the signatures needed to show up on a primary ballot. They got caught. The folks he "helped" were dropped from the ballot. It didn't work and they got caught. This is evidence the electoral system is able to catch fraud cases and does so regardless of the party.

[Krayt]

To the moon!

A rocket is on the way to circle the moon. Next one will carry people. The one after that will land and start building a permanent base.

Some thoughts:

1. This wouldn’t be happening except for China making moon noises, much like the previous time with Russia. Their capacity might be ephemeral at the moment, but catch up is a bad position learned the hard way.

2. Speaking of which, this SLS replacement for the shuttle and scrapped programs signals an end to a sordid decision, where the US ended that program, killed other heavy lift rockets in development to save quick cash and deny other admins credit. Can’t have Nixon standing there waxing poetic on Kennedy’s effort. Two birds with one stone.

But the US will have no way to launch its own people? Wait! We can pay Russia to launch our stuff, and keep their scientists employed so they won’t sell nukes on the black market, and buy goodwill. Three birds with one stone!

What could possibly go wrong?

[Moderation4ever]

What struck me about the launch was the number of problems that occurred prior to the launch. I think this new rocket is still problematic and putting people on board is just waiting for another shuttle disaster.

Leave space travel to the private sector and concentrate on robots and space telescopes. More return on investment.

[Brett Bellmore]

They kept having the same issues crop up, over and over, generally cryogenic fuel leaks. Even this time they had to send some people out to the pad on an emergency basis to tighten some nuts.

Liquid hydrogen is a deep cryogenic fuel, very hard to handle, and Nasa and ULA apparently had lost their institutional knowledge of how to deal with it over the years since the Shuttle was canceled.

It's a stupid choice for a first stage, anyway. Sure, it's got a higher ISP, but the density is absurdly low, meaning huge tanks, which eats most of the advantage. And high ISP is much more important on upper stages than lower. It kind of made sense for the Shuttle because the same engines were firing all the way up. But for a disposable booster it's crazy to use hydrogen. That's why Apollo used kerosene for the first stage, and reserved the LH2 for the 2nd and 3rd stages.

They should have done the same with the SLS.

And the Shuttle engines they're using were specifically designed to be reusable, at great expense, so of course they're throwing them away after one use. The whole system is designed to infuriate any sensible engineer.

[Frank Drackman]

Took 8 years of huge budgets, WW2/Korea Veteran Fighter Pilots, Mercury, Gemini, and 4 pre-landing manned Apollo missions to get to Apollo 11 (10 could have landed, but didn't have the fuel to leave, damn Suits were afraid they would make an "Emergency " landing to cheat Armstrong out of being first). Be cool to send "Buzz" Aldrin back, but he's sensible enough to know an impending disaster, besides, as the Pilots say, he's already "gotten the X"

[Brett Bellmore]

I was actually expecting the thing to blow up on the launch pad, or maybe at max-Q. I'm still expecting that on future launches; Just because you can get lucky once doesn't mean you're not being reckless.

[grb]

Expectation is one thing, but a lot of people were actually hoping it exploded. I follow space exploration news on the NASASpaceFlight.com and Ars Technica forums. The former is chock-full of real rocket scientists and is run by very prim moderators. It’s not so bad. The latter is full of SpaceX fanboys and gets pretty rowdy. Large numbers of them were rooting for what they named a “Wickwick Event” – the spectacular immolation of the rocket in a massive fireball – preferably just a few feet above the pad.

They have a point about SLS being outdated tech, and they’re right about its excessive expense, and (yes) what SpaceX is doing is exciting and extraordinary – but it still seems hopelessly juvenile to cheer for an explosion.

As for SLS, I think we’ll find most of their cryogenic problems were solved by learned lessons and better procedures. Remember when SpaceX was doing their initial test flights of Starship prototypes? They took weeks of repeated tests to solve their fueling issues too (and they’re not dealing with hydrogen)

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm somewhat of a SpaceX fanboy myself. I wouldn't go so far as to say I wanted it to explode, but if it had exploded and put an end to that abortion of a program, that would have been a happy outcome.

The original idea of using leftover Shuttle hardware to throw together a cheap and dirty big booster wasn't terrible. But it was rapidly transformed into a massive money pit.

A successful launch just means they can keep burning cash that much longer on a launch platform which will NEVER be remotely economical.

[grb]

Sure; but so what? SLS will die quickly enough if/when SpaceX delivers on its promises. Until then, SLS will play whatever part it can while still viable. I never understood the extreme fanboy rage against the rocket.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose it's just the horrific waste of it all. Reusable engines deliberately treated as disposable items sacrificed to a giant money pit.

[defaultdotxbe]

Even the shuttle had the solid rocket boosters, which provided about 5x as much thrust in what would be the "first stage" of a shuttle launch than the shuttle's own engines did.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Shuttle was originally intended to have a winged first stage, but they switched to the solid fueled boosters to economize. And then switched to building them remotely in pieces to buy one Congressman's vote, even though it cost more that way, and was more dangerous.

It was a flying mass of bad compromises by the time it flew.

[ragebot]

Back when Obama was prez there was a big dem movement to not waste dollars on stuff not on earth and Obama gutted NASA. At the time I was still going to 'star parties' (see wiki) and one of the speakers was a NASA employee who related an interesting story. Her roommate had been cut from the program; thing was the roommate's expertise was in solid rocket fuel used outside the atmosphere and there was only one other person in the world with the same expertise who was a Russian working in Russia.

The girl took her buyout and went back to school and became an anesthesiologist and tripled her salary.

[Michael P]

Ugh: https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/caterpillar-fined-145k-after-worker-falls-into-pot-of-molten-iron-osha-says

Especially if that is a repeated and known problem, why is the fine so small?

[David Nieporent]

I don't know specifically about this case, but in many cases the fines are statutorily capped at rather low numbers.

[Sarcastr0]

I took a policy course in 2015. One of the object lessons was OSHA learning how fines just made it universally hated and finding other ways to get it's rules largely enforced. Largely through bringing industry to the table in rulemakings, and subsequent compliance certification rather than the stick of fines.

Not that a fine is inappropriate here, but that might explain why OSHA's powers to fine companies have atrophied in that area since the '90s. (It should be a 'why not both' situation, but given limited time and resources, and the aforementioned working with industry on the inside, it's not hard to see how this may have happened)

[John F. Carr]

The Chemical Safety Board is like a constructive alter ego of OSHA. They investigate chemical accidents and teach people how to avoid them next time. They also make good videos that you can understand with high school chemistry and possibly not even that much.

[John F. Carr]

Somebody I know got fined by OSHA for stupid little stuff on a job site. He called up the regional director and proclaimed this is an outrage and a violation of my constitutional rights and so on. He got the fine reduced.

Ben Rich wrote a book about his time as director of "Skunk Works". As a highly classified facility it was immune from OSHA inspections until one day an inspector got a security clearance and "nickel and dimed" his way to over a million dollars in fines.

[Sarcastr0]

I read that book. It was pretty amusing, if super slanted.

[apedad]

Chinese Government Intelligence Officer Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison for Espionage Crimes, Attempting to Steal Trade Secrets From Cincinnati Company

The first Chinese government intelligence officer ever to be extradited to the United States to stand trial was sentenced today in federal court in Cincinnati.

Yanjun Xu, 42, was sentenced to 20 years in prison. According to court documents, Xu targeted American aviation companies, recruited employees to travel to China, and solicited their proprietary information, all on behalf of the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Handling of MSS spy in Chicago

In September 2022, a federal jury in Chicago convicted an individual (Ji Chaoqun) for working on behalf of the MSS under the direction of Xu.

Xu served as Ji’s MSS handler while Ji, a Chinese citizen, lived and studied in Chicago. Xu officially registered Ji as a formal MSS overseas agent in January 2014 and directed Ji to collect biographical information on people to potentially recruit to work with them.

Xu provided Ji with the names of at least nine individuals in America to attempt to recruit. Ji obtained and provided Xu with more detailed background reports on the individuals. Ji also received training on how to speak to the FBI if approached at his school.

In May 2016, Ji joined the U.S. Army through a program that allowed legal aliens with vital skills like Chinese fluency. Ji told Xu and the MSS that he had successfully infiltrated the U.S. military as an MSS officer. His plan was to obtain citizenship quickly and obtain a top-secret security clearance.

Ji reported to an undercover FBI agent that he had access to all military bases with his military ID and volunteered, without prompting, to take pictures of aircraft carriers for the MSS.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-government-intelligence-officer-sentenced-20-years-prison-espionage-crimes-attempting

Just in case you didn't know, China is by far our #1 espionage and economic threat.

[Michael P]

I wonder who Xu pissed off back home.

[David Nieporent]

He was extradited from Belgium, not China.

[VinniUSMC]

targeted [foreign] companies, recruited employees to travel to China, and solicited their proprietary information, all on behalf of the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Literally SOP for Chinese industry and government. China willfully and openly has no concept of IP or copyright. Luckily for them, they also have 1/7(?) of the world's population and a rocketship of an economy (at least, by outward appearance).

[dwb68]

People forget that in the 2016 republican primaries trump won with only a forty five percent share if the vote.

The non trump vote was split in a crowded field.

In 2024, a crowded republican primary favors trump. If desantis clears the field he will defeat trump and land slide

[Brett Bellmore]

In the first batch of primaries, Trump was only winning pluralities in a large field, and often not even that. But he won enough to be a credible candidate.

By mid-March, he was winning most of the primaries by respectable pluralities.

By April 19th, with a much reduced field, he was winning very solid majorities in every Republican primary.

This suggests to be that he didn't need the divided field to win, though it might have helped him establish early credibility. He was dominating once the field was small.

You have to remember that the early field consisted of not just a lot of establishment candidates, but also non-establishment candidates people attracted to Trump would like. The non-establishment votes were dominant in almost every state, and once Trump was the only non-establishment candidate, he was crushing it.

Basically the only reason he got a plurality of the total vote was that it took some time to winnow out the other non-establishment candidates; The GOP voters were absolutely determined not to be stuck with an establishment pick that year.

[Moderation4ever]

I would suggest that Trump won in a big field because he was overlooked. As sometimes happens the heavyweights knock each other off and the lightweight steps in the victor. That will not happen in 2024. The first task for the candidate field will be to clear Trump and then move on to each other.

I would add that Trump had no record in 2016 and he will in 2024. Gov DeSantis by all accounts handled COVID well in his state. The Trump administration showed a significant amount of incompetency over COVID. Other things as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The Trump administration showed a significant amount of incompetency over COVID."

No, not really. He pushed through vaccine development on an accelerated basis, and otherwise left the states to handle things as they wanted, which was perfectly defensible approach. If he made any mistake, it was not firing Fauci at the start of things.

In fact, in retrospect, the optimal policy would have been just exactly to throw everything at getting a vaccine as early as possible, protect the elderly from infection, and otherwise continue life as normal. The states that went crazy with lockdowns had no gain from it after controlling for confounding variables, and the economic damage was immense.

But, really, it hardly matters on a political level that he did the right thing, since the Democrats have enough media dominance to leave people with the opposite impression anyway.

That seems to me to be the real lesson for the GOP of the last few elections, and they seem to be studiously ignoring it: They absolutely must break the Democrats lock on the MSM, it is an existential priority. So long as the Democrats control the media landscape, a critical mass of voters are going to believe whatever the Democrats need them to believe.

[Moderation4ever]

I disagree.

- Trump was warned about COVID but refused to address it until forced by stock market failure.
- Completely undisciplined in messaging.
- He did not leave it the state, he was constantly interfering, criticizing some states when he thought it advantageous.
- Failed to set up rapid testing, needed to do the warp speed on testing as well as vaccines.
- Failed to develop a program to keep kids in school
- Talked a lot, but really said nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Won't argue about the undisciplined messaging: Presidents should not blue sky in public.

A lot of the rest really is a state concern under a federalist system, not the federal government's job.

[Sarcastr0]

I can't think of something more suited to a national response than a pandemic.

[Brett Bellmore]

So? Then propose a constitutional amendment, if you feel that way about it.

[Nige]

'No, we have to let thousands of people die: it's in the Constitution.'

[Brett Bellmore]

You do know that this country has state governments in addition to a federal government, right? And that the state governments are actually capable of doing things?

[Reallynotbob]

Like closing their borders to states electing not to fight the pandemic, right?

Oh, wait... no they can't.

[Life of Brian]

Effectively, many did. Checkpoints, testing requirements, and multi-week self-quarantine rules (often treating residents and visitors differently) served to discourage the riffraff.

[Nige]

Ideally, both would be working together in a GLOBAL crisis.

[Moderation4ever]

It wasn't the states' responsibilities to offer an effective warning on the pandemic. Trump had the international briefing. It wasn't the states responsibility to push for an effective test. The Fed push the vaccine and they should have pushed for effective rapid testing. The President has the war power authorities, and he should have pushed for more PPE. In an international pandemic the Federal government doesn't get to step back and say, it's the states responsibility.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually most of that stuff WAS the states' responsibility.

[Nige]

‘and otherwise left the states to handle things as they wanted’

ie his son-in-law botched the federal response through corruption, incompetence and partisanship.

‘protect the elderly from infection,’

You’d think this election would have taught you guys something about people who are disabled, or who have experienced health crises that left them vulnerable, but no.

The Democrats do not have a ‘lock’ on the MSM – that is pure fantasy. It's a useful fantasy because Republicans are opposed to journalism and reporting and basically want to control or destroy it. 'Enemy of the people' and all that.

[Nige]

He did not handle covid well in his state, he handled it in a way that appeals to Republicans, not the same thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

They did no worse than other states with comparable demographics, and refrained from tanking their economy or condemning a couple years of kids to academic failure.

If we learned anything from Covid, it's that, aside from getting a vaccine, the most important thing for public health is people not being fat, and getting a decent amount of exercise and sun. The lockdowns accomplished nothing but damage.

[Nige]

They did dreadfully. Other states did dreadfully, too, no specal awards for only being fourth or fifth worse.

The big lesson of covid is there are whole swathes of the population who are disabled or vulnerable in other ways who are simply written off by people who don't believe themselves to be.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you can do dreadfully while not suffering iatrogenic damage, that's better than doing dreadfully and damaging yourself.

Really, we should have skipped the lockdowns, and embarked on a major push to upgrade HVAC systems to all include HEPA filtration and UV-C sterilization, and a decent number of air changes per hour. And maybe handed out free Weight Watcher memberships.

They started out scared by Covid, because there was real basis to suspect it might be an escaped Chinese biowarfare agent. By the time they figured out that wasn't the case, a moral panic had set in, and nobody could back down on counter-productive measures.

[Nige]

Societies can recover from lockdowns. People can’t recover from death, or long-term covid-related disabilities.

They were not scared of covid because they thought it was an escaped bioweapon, they were scared of it because it was highly infectious, airborne, spread quickly, made lots of people sick, and killed quite a few of them.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Societies can recover from lockdowns. "
How is that working out in China, which is still enforcing lockdowns?

[Nige]

Atrociously. Don’t be like China.

[Brett Bellmore]

But why would you want to have to recover from lockdowns, when they didn't work?

Is this not penetrating? The evidence is that the lockdowns DIDN'T WORK. Unless by working you mean driving up unemployment and suicide. Stringency of lockdowns had no correlation with outcomes to speak of, once you accounted for demographics. They only ever looked like they might work because of a spurious correlation that went away once you took into account obvious confounding variables.

Why are you so obsessed about a policy that DIDN'T WORK?

[Ben_]

Do you really expect these guys to care that their policies don’t work?

[Nige]

They worked fine, if by ‘worked’ you mean slowed the spread of the virus and protected the vulnerable, a larger demographic than just ‘the old’ and the overweight,’ preventing hospitals from being even more overwhelmed and reducing the likelhood of variants emerging while a vaccine was being developed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Absolutely no proof of that.

See China.

[Nige]

Plenty of proof of that. China proves you can go too far and end up completely undermining your own efforts - it's a tricky balancing act, no question, hopefully data from covid will help in planning for future outbreaks.

[Brett Bellmore]

You are just totally immune to the data, aren't you? The lockdowns where intended to help, so they must have helped, and that's the end of it...

[Nige]

The lockdowns did help. Social distancing helped. Masks helped. Too strict lockdowns didn't help. Ending lockdowns early didn't help.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “You are just totally immune to the data….”

Speaking of data, here’s a related subject I’m sure we can all agree on: The cost of Republicans remaking themselves into the anti-vaxx party resulted in excess death rate for Republicans 5.4 percentage points higher than Democrats.

Here’s the arithmetic:

(1) The overall excess U.S. death rate during this period was 600,000, or 12%.

(2) Therefore, the D excess rate is 9.3% and the R excess rate is 14.7%.

(3) Assuming a roughly even split of D and R voters, that comes to 232,000 excess D deaths and 367,000 excess R deaths. That’s a difference of 135,000 extra Republican deaths.

You can find the numbers in the link below. Returning to DeSantis, let’s remember he shamelessly pandered to the emerging anti-vaxx crowd. He appointed an anti-vaxx loon as Florida’s Surgeon General, and smugly watched as his man spewed a steady stream of bizarre agitprop against vaccination. DeSantis was one of those politicians who refused to answer whether he’d gotten a vaccine booster. He stood by smirking as people beside him told crude vaccination lies. At a press conference, he said a person’s decision not to get vaccinated “really doesn’t impact me or anyone else.” – then denied his own words three days later. He took away the right of businesses to require vaccination (such as cruise ships). He took away the right of local governments to require the vaccine. He was the ONLY governor in the U.S. to oppose vaccinating kids.

So how many of those 135K Republican excess deaths can he claim? If there was no other reason to oppose him for president, his contemptible record on vaccines would be enough. He’s the Kyrie Irving of presidential aspirants.,,,

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30512/w30512.pdf

[Moderation4ever]

Whether Ron DeSantis handled COVID well in an absolute term is less important than the perception and that is that he did well. Gretchin Wittmer handled COVID differently but again was perceived to do well and won by more than 10%.

My point is that Trump handled things badly and he lost and will lose again.

[Nige]

Republicans perceive he did well, because they didn't care how many people got sick or died, they had their culture war response and their paranoid-conspiracy-driven base and they're sticking to it. Everyone else, not so much. People will want to forget covid, though, so that's in his favour, unless he or his supporters keep bringing it up.

[Brett Bellmore]

A reminder, yet again: Once you adjusted for age, obesity, and percentage over 65 vaccinated, state responses had virtually no predictive value at all.

Why do COVID Deaths Vary by State?

The vaccine was significantly protective if you were 65 or older, not really a factor if you were younger. The main determinants of death rate were NOT government policy, but instead age and obesity.

Sure, being a state that's on average young and skinny was a good thing when Covid came along, but is that a product of state government policy?

[Nige]

I don’t know what you think that proves, other than that old and obese people were amongst the most vulnerable. There are MANY ways of assessing deaths, many factors to be measured - for example there are many other health and disability problems associated with obesity that may be relevant.

[Brett Bellmore]

What I think it proves is that the accident of pro-lockdown states on average being younger and skinnier created the illusion that the lockdowns actually worked.

A lot of the lockdown policies were positively insane. For instance, my family were camping when Covid hit, and they were literally closing the campground as we left, as part of a lockdown. Because everybody knows wilderness camping is a superspreader, right?

[Nige]

Or that states with lots of old obese people that ended lockdowns too soon and effectively criminalised pandemic measures killed a lot of their citizens unnecessarily.

Not sure it’s insane for campground staff to also go into lockdown during a lockdown.

[jb]

Literally from the study you link to:

"Vaccination rate is the single biggest predictor of age-adjusted deaths by state."

Trump did well with vaccine policy and then absolutely terribly when it came to encouraging people to actually get vaccinated. Republican politicians who encouraged anti-vax nonsense have many, many deaths that they are responsible for.

I do agree that a lot of the lockdown stuff does not seem to have been particularly effective, but eyeballing the charts I'd note that if you remove NY (and maybe NJ and MA) as outliers that got hit early before we had any idea what we were doing with Covid there's still probably a reasonable overall correlation with stringency and overall deaths. Would be interesting to re-run the numbers trying to account for factors like how effective treatments were when the deaths happened.

[Nige]

His base is rabidly anti-vaxx and ended up going absolutely hog-wild on the covid vaxx - I've no idea how it would have worked out if he'd gone into the election championing a vaxx he was taking credit for.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Vaccination rate is the single biggest predictor of age-adjusted deaths by state.”

Yes, and the vaccination rate over age 65 was about twice as important.

It's somewhat ironic that Trump was actually a big vaccine booster, and a lot of his supporters became hostile to the vaccines. Of course, Trump was opposed to vaccine mandates, and it was the mandates that turned his supporters hostile to the vaccines, which only doubled the irony.

[Nige]

His supporters believed covid was fake and the vaccines were poisons designed to cull the human race and mandates were the proof the global elites were trying to murder them all, and variations thereof. Horribly, people on the left and far left decided this sort of thing was credible, too, so they weren't alone.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “It’s somewhat ironic that Trump was actually a big vaccine booster, and a lot of his supporters became hostile to the vaccines”

Let me gently suggest you’re missing the point. Yes, Trump had a pretty good record on vaccines and we can applaud that. But his general playbook on Covid included : (1) downplaying the risk of the disease, (2) encouraging people to ignore precautions, (3) inciting mistrust of medical professionals, (4) demonizing medical authorities in government, (5) promoting bizarre quack cures.

The new Republican Anti-Vaxx Party was born straight out of the Trump playbook – even if the man himself didn’t make the jump himself. It’s nice to know there was something so vile and sleazy even Trump wouldn’t do it, but his disciples followed his example.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Once you adjusted for...percentage over 65 vaccinated"

Nige's comment focused heavily on DeSantis's culpability in encouraging people not to get vaccinated. Citing data that factors out the percentage of vaccinated people ignores the fact that Republicans generally, and DeSantis in particular, are responsible for a large proportion of the difference in vaccination rates in red states versus blue states. Taking out that factor is just whitewashing the data.

Sure, being a state that’s on average young and skinny was a good thing when Covid came along, but is that a product of state government policy?

No. But low vaccination rates were, in significant part, a product of DeSantis's messaging and policies. If you're going to cite data, engage with that data. Don't cherry pick and pretend the only factors were factors beyond policy makers' control.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I would suggest that Trump won in a big field because he was overlooked."

Again, let me remind you, the smaller the field got, the better Trump did. Under your theory he should have done WORSE as the field contracted.

Here's my theory: There were two primary battles going on in parallel: The establishment battle, and the anti-establishment battle. In almost every race, the sum of establishment votes was less than the sum of the anti-establishment votes. Because the Republican voting base really HATE their party's establishment. With a passion.

Normally the establishment settles on a favorite fast enough to rack up an unbeatable lead before the anti-establishment candidates get winnowed down. This didn't happen in 2016, Trump was doing well enough against the other anti-establishment candidates that it came down to just him vs the establishment fairly early, and after that, he won every primary, solidly.

Now, in 2024 there will probably be only 2 meaningful anti-establishment candidates, Trump and DeSantis. If they're both stubborn enough, and the establishment manages to decide in advance who to put all their hopes on, they might capture the nomination. But maybe not, because the current polling has Trump and DeSantis capturing over 80% of the field between them right now, which means the establishment probably can't even rack up plurality wins.

And I'm expecting that, by 2024, Trump will probably have fallen far enough that DeSantis secures the nomination fairly easily. Because he's starting to lash out at people who ideologically ought to be allies, and that's not a good look.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That you call DeSantis anti-establishment is funny. DeSantis very much is the current Republican establishment. The issue isn't establishment versus non-establishment. It is populist demogague (Trump / DeSantis) versus conservative ideologues.

Republican voters are going for populist demagogues and that rarely turns out well for a country.

[Kazinski]

And yet more Americans died of Covid under Biden than Trump, despite Trump delivering the vaccines before he left office.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/18/roger-williams/williams-accurate-there-were-more-covid-19-deaths-/

But for the record, I don’t blame Biden or Trump, I blame the virus and the CCP.

[Frank Drackman]

what % did Senescent Joe get?

[Frank Drackman]

Answering my own question, Senescent Joe got 14%, 8%, and 9% in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, until "Rooster" Clyburn bailed his Honkie ass out in SC (don't blame him, Pete Booty-Judge doesn't go over well with the AME congregations, and that was before he was taking 3 months of "Paternity" leave with his store bought chillun')
of the total "Popular Vote" Senescent got 51% to Bernie's 26%, with Poke-a-Hontas a distant 3rd at 7%

Frank "loves numbers"

[Moderation4ever]

Asked and Answered.

[Aunt Teefah]

"If desantis clears the field he will defeat trump and land slide"

-Someone who's never heard Desantis talk. As soon as the electorate hears his whiny, dainty voice up on the debate stage, it's over. Trump will roll him, just like he did Lyin' Ted and Little Marco.

[ragebot]

As a life long Florida resident I have listened to DeSantis speak both in person and through the media and never viewed him as whiney or dainty. One thing that stands out in my mind is his ability to think on his feet; something that Rubion never seemed to do. As for Cruz he often comes across to me as condescending. DeSantis has also greatly improved as a retail pol over the years. Bottom line is I doubt he will have any problems debating Trump or anyone else.

[shawn_dude]

Trump is great at energizing crowds with his speech. He can get them to do quite a few things, including march against Congress and chase down Mike Pence. For good or evil (mostly evil, IMHO) he's a dynamic, motivational speaker.

DeSantis sounds like a middle-manager who's bored with life and hates public speaking.

Get the two of them on a stage together and Trump will eat DeSantis for lunch.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanksgiving is a week away. Don't forget to send in your favorite holiday recipes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Good point.

Since first trying it several years ago, this has been our approach to turkey: Sweet Tea and Citrus Brined Turkey Guarantees a nicely colored turkey, moist, with fantastic gravy. Use Constant Comment for the tea.

Then we go with a cranberry and wild rice stuffing.

Mind, this year my wife wanted to roast a pig over a fire in the backyard, Philippine style, so we're saving the turkey for Christmas.

[bernard11]

BTW, Brett, I've been meaning to thank you for the suggestion to buy a proofing box.

Very useful.

[Brett Bellmore]

Good for making yogurt, too. 😉

[shawn_dude]

We do New Zealand Spring lamb for Xmas. I normally marinate in rosemary and mustard, sous vide, and then finish off over hardwood coals in the back yard.

Thanksgiving is normally spent with parents. If it's mine, we'll have a turkey. If it's my partner's, it'll be leg of lamb. (I married a Kiwi.)

The best turkey I've made was dry-brined in a seasoned salt rub and allowed to age in the refrigerator like one might do with a good steak.

[Frank Drackman]

those Popeyes "Cajun Turkeys" are pretty good.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, their cajun chicken is excellent, so I wouldn't be shocked.

[ragebot]

Not traditional but as a true Florida Man from the Keys my standard Thanksgiving meal is stone crab claws with mango salsa.

[Kazinski]

I’m a pork belly man myself.

[Ben_]

"Thanksgiving is a week away."

Don't forget to acknowledge that America is bad because [some grievance about indigenous people].

And be sure to study the forthcoming advice from various media about how to shun specific relatives because they might have different opinions than you.

Also watch for Covid safety advice and be sure to heed everything the most extreme Covidians say. Hope you have a few dozen Covid tests on hand.

And all the rest of the safety advice. If you don't listen to all the safetyism, you'll get food poisoning and carbon monoxide poisoning and the bogeyman will get you.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or embrace the idea of giving thanks and enjoy your roast pig or stone crabs or Cajun turkey or turkey with sausage cornbread stuffing or whatever works for you.

[Ben_]

Only if you want to be one of the deplorables. If you want to be one of the enlightened elite, then grievance and fear and division and anti-Americanism are the order of the day, all day, every day.

[Sarcastr0]

You spend a lot of time insisting the other side is vastly worse than they are.

That should tell you something.

[Ben_]

Boo hoo! Our victims don’t give us credit for some of what we do that doesn’t turn out to be destructive!!

Sure we said all those things and hurt all those people, but it wasn’t absolutely every time.

[Sarcastr0]

You're making shit up. It doesn't hurt my feelings, it just makes you look really sad.

[MoreCurious]

Gosh, you sure sound like a fun guy! I'll bet there are hoards of people hoping to share their holiday meal with you.

[Ben_]

I agree, leftists are complete assholes when they say this stuff.

[Bored Lawyer]

This is not a recipe per se, but I recently tried spatchcocking a chicken with excellent results. There are videos online telling you how to do it to a turkey. Try this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ZoC4Tp8Ik
Bird cooks faster (like half the time) and white meat comes out moister. So might be worth something to consider.

[apedad]

Add baby carrots and small red potatoes on each side of the tray.

Drizzle olive oil on them with salt and pepper.

I also add brussel sprouts (w/ olive oil and S+P) but you have to bury them under the chicken so they don't burn (they're more sensitive than the carrots and potatoes).

Complete roast chicken and veggies dinner in one dish!

[Kazinski]

I’ve spatchcocked a Turkey before, it doesn’t look as good but it’s much juicer cooking in breast side down.

You need a big strong knife to cut out the Turkey’s spine, but it’s much easier than cutting out a hobo’s.

[shawn_dude]

Yes! This. Get a good pair of kitchen shears, cut the backbone out, flatten the bird, and roast away. The only negative thing about this methodology is it doesn't provide the same degree of gravy-inducing drippings as roasting it in a dutch oven. But... I've begun cooking my roasted potatoes the British way (boil first, rough up in a colander, then roast in a drizzle of olive oil until gold and crispy.) So spatchcocking works since I'm not resting the bird on the taters any more.

[Gasman]

popcorn, pretzels, jelly beans, toast

[Mr. Bumble]

Quite the menu. I guess you celebrate alone.

[Bored Lawyer]

Wasn't that Peanuts episode?

[ragebot]

Still remember the Archer toon where he said 'All I’ve had today is, like, six gummy bears and some scotch'.

[Gasman]

I thought the cultural reference was quite evident.
But for those who have missed this for the past 50 years, here is where to watch the Charlie Brown Thanksgiving special. https://www.today.com/life/holidays/how-to-watch-charlie-brown-thanksgiving-rcna55734

[Moderation4ever]

The Republicans control the House but only by a small margin. What if a group of renegade moderate members, maybe like the problem solvers caucus, put up a unity leadership with members of both parties. Proposed getting nothing big done but said it would focus on small fixes to make the government run better. Cut spending where there is agreement, immigration reform where there is agreement, and marijuana policy.

I am dreaming of course but it would be nice.

[Frank Drackman]

Like happened with the Last Congress that DemoKKKrats "controlled" by about the same margin?? But Hey, maybe Liz Chaney and Keinzinger can come across the Aisle.

[not guilty]

Neither Liz Cheney nor Adam Kinzinger will be part of the next Congress.

[Bob from Ohio]

Excellent.

[Moderation4ever]

The difference is that the Democratic Speaker had control, and the Republican will not. We don't yet have a number but how many votes will Kevin McCarthy be able to give up?

[shawn_dude]

The far right members of his party already don't support him and doubtless some are salivating at being able to be the highly courted deciding vote a la Sinema. So, he has a significant rightward tug on his speakership that may prevent any reasonable governing if he cannot beat them into submission. And with a Democratic Senate and Presidency, that means a lot of nothing is going to happen in the second half of Biden's presidency.

[OtisAH]

The endless search for the moderate MAGA would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. The last two “moderate” MAGA weren’t. They just thought a sitting-president shouldn’t try to overthrow the government. And they are no more. There will be no further heresies in the MAGA party this go around.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"small fixes to make the government run better."

That will never happen. The people in government only move in one direction: taking more power over us and taking more of our wealth.

That's all they care about.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts in 1996 Republicans voted with a minority of Democrats to elect the less-liberal candidate Tom Finneran as Speaker of the House. Other than that I can't think of any examples.

[David Nieporent]

The GOP controlled the NY state senate for much of the decade thanks to a breakaway faction of Democrats; it wasn't until 2018, I believe, that the Democrats actually took control.

[Ridgeway]

That was also a function of a power-sharing arrangement between Joe Bruno (R) and Sheldon Silver (D) that worked very well for the two of them, if not the State. At least it worked until they both ended up convicted felons (although I think Bruno got his convictions reversed on appeal).

[not guilty]

In Tennessee in January 2009, Republican Kent Williams was elected Speaker of the House with his own vote plus that of 49 Democrats. His opponent, Jason Mumpower, received votes from all 49 other Republicans.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I am dreaming of course"

More like an hallucination. A complete lack of understanding of how party dynamics work.

[SRG]

Arizona commits judicial murder with the execution of Murray Hooper - whose execution they fucked up, fwiw.

AFAIC given how cheap and quick DNA testing is nowadays, my (rebuttable) presumption is that any state which resists testing is, in effect, admitting the innocence of the person seeking tests.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't argue with that.

[Frank Drackman]

Only fuck up is it took 42 years to kill the Bastard. OTOH I sort of like the idea of 40+ years in jail, then execution, sort of gets the best of both worlds.

[Michael P]

Rolling dice is also cheap and quick, but not reliable. DNA testing can give false positives or negatives due to contamination, third parties on the scene, absence of relevant material, and the like.

It's still a good tool, but I don't think arguing against it is prima facie evidence of innocence.

[Sarcastr0]

It's absolutely prima facie evidence of innocence
prima facie: "based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise."

You seem to be arguing against it being incontrovertible evidence of innocence, which is a different thing.

[Michael P]

Nonsense. Arguing "DNA testing is not a good idea in this case [or any case]" might be wrong, but it's not evidence that the accused person is factually innocent.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's akin to spoilation: The refusal to permit relevant evidence to be examined rationally leads to the conclusion that evidence, if examined, would be hostile to the preferences of the person refusing.

[Michael P]

Not very akin. In spoliation, the person knows what the evidence says. The analogous case would be running a DNA test and then saying it should not be used in the particular case.

[Brett Bellmore]

If the prosecution has a good idea that the guy is innocent, they probably DO know what the evidence says.

I'll stick with my position: You refuse to let evidence be looked at, the rational presumption is that it's evidence against you.

[NOVA Lawyer]

In spoliation, the person knows what the evidence says.

Not true.

Obviously, you're not a lawyer:

As a general proposition, the trial court has broad discretion to permit a jury to draw adverse inferences from a party's failure to present evidence, the loss of evidence, or the destruction of evidence. While a finding of bad faith suffices to permit such an inference, it is not always necessary. See Glover v. BIC Corp., 6 F.3d 1318, 1329 (9th Cir.1993).

To draw an adverse inference from the absence, loss or destruction of evidence, it would have to appear that the evidence would have been relevant to an issue at trial and otherwise would naturally have been introduced into evidence. Even the mere failure, without more, to produce evidence that naturally would have elucidated a fact at issue permits an inference that "the party fears [to produce the evidence]; and this fear is some evidence that the circumstance or document or witness, if brought, would have exposed facts unfavorable to the party." 2 Wigmore on Evidence, Sec. 285 at 192 (Chadbourn rev. 1979).
Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 1995)

Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 148, 156 (4th Cir. 1995)

[Gasman]

popcorn, pretzels, jelly beans, toast

[Gasman]

Another satisfied customer.
Only f-up was that it took 42 years to carry out the sentence, with the convicted having lived longer than the average male in the US.
So many of those needing execution have no question of guilt, like the recent school shooters.
Should take no more than a few months for courts to review whether any appeals have merit, sign off on the execution warrant, and get it done.
42 f-ing years. that is not justice.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t necessarily disagree with your larger point, although when there’s no reason to think that it would be possible to obtain a DNA profile, and no possibility that the result could undermine the evidence of guilt, it’s hard for me to get too worked up about the omission.

[Michael P]

This year's election is over, so the Swamp can admit that neither the bogeyman nor nuclear secrets live at Mar-a-Lago:

That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said. FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets. Instead, the former president seemed motivated by a more basic desire not to give up what he believed was his property, these people said.

[Sarcastr0]

The issue was never that it was nuclear secrets, it was that dude took national records for himself, and just kept them. Which is against the law.

He also seems to have lied about it. Also not cool.

[Brett Bellmore]

Then why were they raving on and on about "nuclear secrets", if it was never about nuclear secrets?

[Nige]

Just because people were speculating about nuclear secrets, it was never 'about' nuclear secrets.

[Don Nico]

Nige,
You were one of those people not just speculating but ranting about lost nuclear secrets.

[Nige]

You must be thinking of someone else, though I have always found the relaxed nature of Trump supporters about classified documents being stolen and stored insecurely quite funny, especially after butteremails.

[Don Nico]

"though I have always found the relaxed nature of Trump supporters about classified documents being stolen and stored insecurely quite funny,"
Thanks for the irrelevant and inapplicable aside.

[Sarcastr0]

Speculators on the Internet sure do speculate!

[Bob from Ohio]

"national records "

Duplicate copies were missing, the horror.

Unless its a handwritten letter, every single item given to a President exists elsewhere and is [or will be] already in the Archives.

[Nige]

Not missing. Stolen.

[Bob from Ohio]

Still duplicates.

[Nige]

Duplicates or not, stealing is stealing.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Just like everything else you allege, you don't know that to be a fact.

You're making excuses for why it's ok for Trump to have stolen documents that were not his, lied in his response to the subpoena, and obstructed justice in attempting to keep what he knew the government was coming to collect.

You are a piece of shit.

[Nige]

'At least one of the documents seized by the FBI at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8 describes Iran’s missile program, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Other documents described highly sensitive intelligence work aimed at China, they said. The Post has also reported that some of the material focuses on the defense systems of a foreign country, including its nuclear capabilities.

'Two advisers to the former president who personally reviewed boxes of material in Trump’s White House said he often threw hundreds of pieces of paper in boxes — mixing in highly sensitive documents with years-old schedules and other mundane material.'

Remember when 'national security,' along with 'family values' and 'law and order' were values at least claimed by Republicans?

[ragebot]

I really find it hard to believe Trump threw anything, much less documents, into boxes. Not just because he has small hands which limit how much he could throw but because everything I know about Trump suggest it would be beneath him to do any type of manual stuff.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Iran’s missile program"

I think Iran already knows al there is to know about their own missile program.

[Nige]

And if not they can just pop into Mar A Lago to check.

[jb]

Hmm, I wonder if you could look at US intelligence about Iran's nuclear program and draw inferences about how the US was obtaining such intelligence.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Bob: willing to make a complete ass of himself in defense of his Dear Leader.

[Don Nico]

None of what you speculate about are nuclear secrets. As for highly sensitive, I'll believe that characterization as accurate or exaggerated when I can judge the material and imagine the sources and methods.

[Nige]

I'm not speculating about anything, that's from the link.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Anything classified as TS/SCI is automatically considered 'highly sensitive.'

I forgot though, you're the classification 'expert' and nothing should be taken at face value until you say that you agree.

[Sarcastr0]

TS means 'unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.'

[Don Nico]

I know that and know the TS stamp is not infrequently applied gratuitously. The highly sensitive usually applies to an additional characteristic, such as i the potential to reveal intelligence sources and methods.

[David Nieporent]

Note that Michael is trying to convey the impression that what Trump stole (in terms of the classified information) was no big deal, but that's not at all what the reporting says. What the reporting says is that there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to what Trump stole, that they don't see that he had any plans to do anything with it. But that doesn't mean it's not immensely damaging to national security for him to take it. (I'm not saying it was immensely damaging; I'm saying that the review didn't conclude otherwise.)

[Brett Bellmore]

If you don't think there's rhyme or reason behind somebody's actions, the safe bet is that you don't understand their motives, not that they're behaving randomly.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that Trump is all about reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, unless you have emotional reasons for going 'behaving randomly', I suppose.

[bernard11]

Because all human behavior is purely rational?

[Brett Bellmore]

There's a big space between purely rational and utterly random. We ALL live there.

I say it again: If you think somebody's actions are random, it just means you have given up on trying to understand their aims, not that they lack aims.

[bernard11]

There's also a big space between "purely random" and "driven by emotion or other non-rational motives."

"Irrational" and "purely random" are two different things.

And once you conclude that the aims are irrational you've got quite a job figuring out what they are.

[Michael P]

The investigators seem to see rhyme and reason in what Trump kept. I even quoted their summary of what they think his reasons were. Note that David acts as if he can't read that.

[ragebot]

See my post above. Trump told his minions to grab what ever and stuff it into a box and ship it to Florida. I am still convinced he is not really a hands on guy in terms of what was taken from DC to Florida.

[David Nieporent]

No; if it were just a case of negligent packing, he wouldn't have tried to keep the stuff for two years and even submit perjured affidavits about it. This escalated to this point only because he took those acts. If he had said 'oops' a year ago and given the stuff over — or if, even six months ago, in response to the subpoena, he had returned all of the stuff — none of this would've happened.

[Bored Lawyer]

But then he would be acting like a rational person. This is Donald Trump we're talking about.

[Sarcastr0]

Which is not really a defense of a crime.

OK, he didn't intend espionage. He did intend to take and keep stuff the was illegal for him.

[Bored Lawyer]

You are full of silly comments and non-sequiturs today. Who said anything about defense of a crime? DN's point was Trump could easily have resolved this a long time ago. But that would take a level of rationality beyond Trump.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not at all what the reporting says"

A true libertarian always agrees 100% with DOJ leaks.

[Randal]

It's not "no rhyme or reason," it's Trumpy reasons. Could be just narcissism and stubbornness, that's certainly sufficient. I also wouldn't be surprised if he was all too happy, on some level, to provoke a confrontation with the FBI for political gain.

[John F. Carr]

This was the obvious explanation from the beginning. It's not a counterespionage case, it's an information security case.

[not guilty]

The refusal to comply with the grand jury subpoena, exacerbated by the fraudulent representation that all responsive documents were in fact being provided, brings this "information security" brouhaha well within the ambit of obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1519.

The Trump cult (un)scrupulously avoids discussing the fraudulent certification of June 3, 2022.

[John F. Carr]

Obstruction of justice is fallout from the investigation, not what the government was originally after.

Interesting note I found in the sentencing guidelines about offenses related to classified information. "The court may depart from the guidelines upon representation by the President or his duly authorized designee that the imposition of a sanction other than authorized by the guideline is necessary to protect national security or further the objectives of the nation's foreign policy." So Biden or DeSantis or whoever has some influence on sentencing, which is not the usual situation in criminal law. Whoever is president could say "nuclear secrets deserve the statutory maximum" or "no harm, no foul."

I was looking for the sentencing guideline for illegal retention of classified information. I don't see one. Losing top secret documents is a level 18 offense. Keeping them without intent to disclose should be a lower level. For comparison, obstruction of justice is level 14.

[Moderation4ever]

I am not as concerned about his taking documents as his refusal to return them. For whatever reason he took them had he returned them when asked by the NARA I would have said things are square. But by forcing NARA to go to DOJ he moved a step further and is deserving of some sanctions.

[John F. Carr]

I agree with this. When he took the documents home he was allowed to have them. He was entitled to a polite request to return them before the FBI got involved. Which he got. But Mr. Ego couldn't show weakness by doing as asked.

As for the sanctions, I need to know who said what to whom. The Department of Justice might know. They had an informant and I imagine Christina Bobb is spilling her guts to save herself.

[Ben_]

The walls are closing in!

[Josh R]

I'm shocked, shocked to find that this hullabaloo is caused by Trump's narcissism.

[not guilty]

I remain unclear (and puzzled) as to what motivated Trump to remove and conceal documents which he was not entitled to retain. Of course, motive is not an element of any of the offenses that are likely to be charged.

[DaveM]

Dear President-Elect DeSantis,

The federal government is not a healthy organization. Its goals are diffuse, its priorities are overlapping and contradictory, and its efforts are scattershot. It spends enormous amounts of money, but fails to deliver on its promises, time and time again.

The best legacy you could leave for the country is to right-size and re-focus the federal bureaucracy. Make the government competent again, and you will help everyone for generations to come, regardless of our politics.

A well-run, high-functioning administration should be your core mission, not politics. Yours is not a policy-setting office, it is tactical and logistical. Make it so the government can execute any mission given to it by the legislature with excellence and you will enjoy an extremely broad level of support.

[Nige]

First thing he'd do is a national abortion ban, remove all books about black history and that mention anything lgtbq-related from all schools and libraries, make being 'woke' a federal crime, and relax building standards everywhere so more shoddily-built houses will fall down and have to be shoddily rebuilt by an ever-grateful construction industry, with the help of ever-worsening climate change, which he will deny is real.

[defaultdotxbe]

The sad thing is people actually believe this.

[Nige]

Only if you go by his record.

[defaultdotxbe]

His record where he's done none of those things?

Again, sad that you believe this.

[Nige]

Of course he hasn't done them yet, he's not president.

[John F. Carr]

I think you're onto something. He issues a thousand executive orders. No federal funds to anybody who says "gay". Federal contractors may not let their employees have abortions. And so on. And while the courts are buried in lawsuits over those, he quietly launches his real agenda.

Trump had some success distracting public attention from his real policies by offending them with his language.

[Sarcastr0]

Keeping it so broad it doesn't really say anything.

[EscherEnigma]

The entire reason DeSantis has become a household name outside of Florida is because of his gleeful adoption of a culture war persona.

Even if you think that's a sham and he doesn't actually care about the culture issues he claims to care about†, why would he --having ascended to the highest office in America-- abandon the persona that got him there? That's a second-term move, if anything.

And that's if you think his culture-war persona is a façade and insincere.

[ragebot]

One more time since none of the conspirators seem knowledgeable enough to answer the question I asked last Thrusday.

Which of the worlds democracies allow mail in ballots?

[David Nieporent]

The UK and Germany, to pick two obscure countries.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

UK and Germany have universal mail-in ballots? I don't think so.

[David Nieporent]

The UK and Germany allow mail in ballots, which is what the question was.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Most countries have some form of mail-in ballots. Absentee and other mail-in exceptions was clearly not what he was referring to.

[David Nieporent]

Nor was it what I was referring to, either. The UK and Germany have no excuse mail-in voting.

[SRG]

You must be new to the interwebz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absentee_ballot

[ragebot]

Interesting to read the restrictions other countries place on using mail in ballots. The most liberal countries seem to require you are not able to vote in person because you live outside the country or have some infirmity that prevents you from voting in person. In all cases I saw there also seems to be no other country in the world that mails out mail in ballots without some request by the person voting. Seems the biggest sector of those qualifying for mail in ballots in other countries are active military folks.

Bottom line is that US is unique in allowing states/counties to willy nilly sent out mail in ballots unrequested and without strict requirements of ID provided by the voters. Not to mention how long it takes the US to count the votes compared to all other countries.

[Brett Bellmore]

The US government has been up and running too long without a reboot, essentially. The political class have found lots of exploits, created work-arounds to defeat procedural safeguards, what were once set in stone rules have been ignored for so long you get treated like a lunatic if you complain. Old norms that were necessary for the system to function have fallen. For instance, Pelosi deciding that the Republicans wouldn't get to name their own members to the January 6th committee. Make any excuse you want for that, that was a norm that hadn't been violated in something like 230 years, and she blew it away for momentary advantage.

All things rot if not maintained with hard and intelligent work, and in the US the hard work has been devoted to accelerating the rot, instead.

[Nige]

'Make any excuse you want'

'*Please* don't examine the actual reason.'

[ragebot]

On the upside the pubs can tell the dems to go bite a big red donkey dick when they want to name their members who will be investigating Hunter Biden.

[Nige]

And that's the Republican plan for fixing inflation.

[Brett Bellmore]

More likely to do it in a committee that really matters, like Finance. Everybody knows the Hunter Biden investigation means nothing so long as his dad controls the DOJ. Just a string of people laughing at their subpoenas, and the DOJ laughing at the contempt of Congress referrals.

[Nige]

These are Republican hearings. Hunter Biden is the new Benghazi. They're not trying to FIND anything.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Everybody knows the Hunter Biden investigation means nothing….”

Let’s finish that statement! The choices are :

1. Because there’s nothing to find except a sordid little man who lived off his daddy’s name - as witnessed by the big Nothing of the laptop scandalette, or the ludicrous Shokin meme.

2. Because the GOP will go so overboard trying to entertain their base they’ll have people feeling sorry for the little creep.

3. Because there will always be ten stories of Trumpish money-grubbing sleaze for every one they can scrap up on little Hunter.

(Answer : All of the Above)

[not guilty]

Hunter Biden is still being investigated by a Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney in Delaware, whom President Biden left in office -- no doubt because of that ongoing investigation. Hunter appears to be a self-serving scoundrel. Let the chips fall where they may.

[bernard11]

Pelosi deciding that the Republicans wouldn’t get to name their own members to the January 6th committee. Make any excuse you want for that, that was a norm that hadn’t been violated in something like 230 years, and she blew it away for momentary advantage.

Oh stop with this BS, Brett. As has been repeated endlessly, the Republicans threw away the chance to have a bipartisan investigation into Jan. 6.

And when they named members of the House committee they named people who would subvert it. Pelosi had every right to refuse to hire arsonists to work as firefighters.

[Brett Bellmore]

Their "chance to have a bipartisan investigation" was agreeing to only pick Republicans Pelosi approved of. Screw that, the previous norm, for over two centuries, was that the minority got the people THEY picked.

I don't care what your excuses are for asserting that she was entitled to do this. They're literally irrelevant. The minority members aren't there to be who the majority wants. They're there to be who the minority wants. Period. End of story.

So who the majority wants is utterly irrelevant. Utterly and completely.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Wrong.

When the minority party is interested only in lies and sabotage, what they want and whom they attempt to appoint does not matter.

[David Nieporent]

I think the previous norm, for over two centuries, was that the minority party didn't recommend people whose agendas were antithetical to the purpose of the committee.

So who the majority wants is utterly irrelevant. Utterly and completely.

No. Who the majority wants is inherently relevant, since the majority picks all members of the committee by the very structure of the resolution that set up the committee. The minority only gets to make suggestions.

[jb]

As far as I can tell, most local elections in New Zealand happen entirely by mail. Switzerland sends everyone a ballot and something like 90% of votes are cast by mail.

So no, the US is not unique although it does seem that it is at least unusual to proactively send out ballots to everyone. Neither New Zealand nor Switzerland are places where fraudulent elections is a significant problem, though, whereas many countries that require in-person voting have chronic problems running fair elections. So it certainly doesn't seem like there's any real association between mail-in voting and fraud regardless of whether we look in the US or other countries.

[Sarcastr0]

Bottom line is you moved the goalposts. As everyone here knew you would.

Because you start from the premise that the US system is bad and work to prove that.

Why, I leave as an exercise to the reader.

[Reallynotbob]

With school shootings back in the news, I have a question for the 2A advocates:

What should states' policy be to reduce school shootings and other mass shootings?

[SRG]

More thoughts and prayers, of course.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No, we should shit all over an enumerated civil right for millions of law abiding citizens in response to the actions of a microscopic number of people.

We should also take away drivers licenses and confiscate everyone’s cars because there’s no other way to stop drunk driving.

[Nige]

Such a pity not getting mown down in a schoolroom isn't an enumerated right. Oh well!

[bevis the lumberjack]

That’s a completely stupid answer that isn’t going to solve anything. Just emotionalism. Are you that emotional about the everyday victims of murder, who vastly outnumber the victims of school shootings? How about those folks who got run over at the Christmas parade in Wisconsin? Are you really emotional about them?

You’re like the conservatives yesterday who were upset about gay marriage. All of you political crazies think rights should only accrue to people that you like and activities that you approve of. Y’all are all closet totalitarians who only come out on occasion, but in your soul you want the people you don’t like oppressed. Hard.

[Nige]

Oh, I’m sorry, getting supposedly emotional about children getting mown down is just like getting mad about gay marriage, is it? Your metrics are profoundly broken. You don’t want some sort of gun control that might prevent it? Then you’re okay with kids getting mown down and schools being patrolled by armed police – who arrest and detain students, not shooters – and active shooter drills and bulletproof backpacks – grim, dystopian things you support being done to kids in the name of not oppressing someone-or-other, while at the same time stripping their libraries of bad, evil books Christian nationalists disapprove of.

Have you seen the right-wing solutions presented here? Locking up people with mental illness and executing people… and that’s it. Oh, no, wait, something about black people. It's incoherent, but he clearly thinks black people do all the school shootings. They're a joke.

[bevis the lumberjack]

There is no solution that will end all crime, dipshit. And you can’t comprehend simple logic. I wasn’t even comparing mass shootings to gay marriage. I was comparing your hostility to rights for people you don’t like to their hostility to rights for people they don’t like.

You have the same attitude as the people you hate.

[Nige]

'There is no solution that will end all crime, dipshit.'

Do fuckin' tell, genius.

'I wasn’t even comparing mass shootings to gay marriage.'

That is literally what you did.

'I was comparing your hostility to rights for people you don’t like to their hostility to rights for people they don’t like.'

Yes, you were comparing my reaction to children being murdered to their reactions to people getting married. You may think the reactions are the same; if so, I would suggest that one is appropriate, and one fucking isn't.

[Don Nico]

Bevis,
The boy gets angry when you call his bluff.

[Ben_]

“You have the same attitude as the people you hate.”

Exactly. Every law abiding gun owner under Democrat gun control is in the same position as a law abiding black guy in the worst of the old Jim Crow south. And mostly for the same reason: bigotry.

[Nige]

This, but sarcastically.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Make more "gun free" zones. That's empirically been shown to work!
I mean just think about the power those little signs have.

[defaultdotxbe]

I think the solution is going to have to be a cultural one, rather than a policy one. We make celebrities out of these shooters, even if we don't mention them by name we talk about their crimes for years, bringing them up again each time there is a new shooting.

Unfortunately I don't think that will even stop, so neither will the crimes of notoriety.

[ragebot]

In many school shootings the perp clearly violated existing policies/laws in obtaining the weapons used in the shootings so it is not obvious that more policies/laws would be obeyed giving the existing ones are not obeyed.

[Noorondoor]

Lock up our mentally ill like we used to, and stop tolerating black criminality.

Those two would eliminate 99% of school shootings.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If I was doing a profile of a mass shooter to preemptively lock up you would probably top the list. So not sure you want to advocate for that, buddy. I mean I don’t see how anything you post is different than Dylan Roof.

[Noorondoor]

You're an idiot. I'm not talking about the Dylan Roofs or Robert Bowers of the world, who are pretty rare.

I'm talking about the Anthony Lanzas, the Nikolas Cruzes, the Salvador Ramoses, the Seung-Hui Chos, and so on, who are your garden variety mentally ill or schizophrenics.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lol that's not a denial that you're like Dylan Roof.

[Noorondoor]

I think ideologically he was largely right, but random individual violence against individual innocents is not the way, ever.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do people know you sympathize with a mass murderer or do you hide that aspect of your personality?

[Noorondoor]

I didn't say I sympathize with him. I said that he's largely right about the black population.

[Nige]

You'd lock up people who have done nothing wrong just to avoid any sort of gun control? Wait, of course you would.

[Noorondoor]

So your solution is to wait until nutcases have acted on it to do something? Moron.

[Nige]

The solution to mental health problems is mental health care. The solution to gun violence is some sort of gun control.

[Noorondoor]

What form of gun control other than a full ban? Mental health care doesn't work, because schizophrenics can't be cured.

[Nige]

Schizophrenics don't need a cure, they need treatment.

Sure start with a full ban, bargain down from there.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hope you start your treatment soon.

[Nige]

I hope everyone gets the treatment they need.

[jb]

Why not just comparable regimes to places like Switzerland or Norway that also have high levels of gun ownership but without all the gun violence?

[Don Nico]

"The solution to mental health problems is mental health care. "
Look around you and tell us how well that is working in progressive urban centers. For starters, tell us about SanFrancisco.

[Nige]

Not sure what you're trying to say, public mental health care is shit everywhere. Are you telling me that you think that the solution to mental health problems isn't mental health care? You're supporting the racist shitbags solution to just lock them up?

[Noorondoor]

I think the solution to people like you is to do chemical sterilization like was done to Turing.

[Nige]

I think the solution to people like you is hugs, like was done with the Care Bears.

[Don Nico]

Great sidestep. Mental health care is worse in SF than in many cities. And worse in cities than in rural communities. As for implying that the criticism is racist, you are just a scumbag. But that kind of shit comment is just what has become one of your tradedmarks. You never answer or respond in good faith; you just lob partisan shit and lies.

[Bob from Ohio]

"states’ policy be"

Execute murderers promptly, not after 15-20 years.

Enforce existing laws:

"But Jones tried to buy a handgun in 2018 before he turned 21 and was denied, Dance said. In 2021, he tried to buy a Smith & Wesson semiautomatic rifle but failed a background check, according to Dance.

“Jones DID NOT receive either of the firearms he attempted to purchase, and both attempted purchases were forwarded to the Virginia State Police for further action,” Dance wrote. " [What we know about the suspect in the University of Virginia shooting rampage that left 3 football players dead, CNN]

[Noorondoor]

He failed NICS because he had a pending felony conviction, which was later dropped and pleaded down to a misdemeanor.

[Nige]

More better faster killing!

[Noorondoor]

Repeal the 14th Amendment and make clear that black males ages 18-40 don’t get any gun rights at all.

[M L]

"What should states’ policy be to reduce school shootings and other mass shootings?"

Take away the guns from law-abiding citizens while guns remain as widespread among criminals as illegal drugs, of course.

[ragebot]

To answer your question:

"What should states’ policy be to reduce school shootings and other mass shootings?"

First thing to do is recognize school shootings are very different than mass shootings.

School shootings are very rare and usually the result of the shooter's mental problems. Often times the shooter is a student with previously recognized mental issues but school privacy laws and school policy often prevent anything can be done to resolve the student's mental issues. The Parkland shooter was obviously known to the school for behavioral issues but nothing was really done about it. Not to mention often times the shooter was not legally allowed to have a weapon so additional rules/laws would not always prevent the shooting.

The most accepted definition of mass shootings includes a huge number of things like drug turf wars or simply gang wars over lots of gang issues. While some high profile mass shootings get all the headlines the weekly toll in big dem run cities for what is basically gang violence dwarfs what most of us consider a real mass shooting (things like Las Vegas or Orlando). Maybe changing policy on the 'war on drugs' could decrease some mass shootings at the margin but the real problem is gangs gonna be gangs.

[not guilty]

The firearms fetishists don't give a rip about dead schoolchildren or other shooting victims, so long as they can keep their deadly play pretties.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If Democrat election officials send out excess mail-in ballots (200,000) where Democrats prefer to vote mail-in and the same officials accidentally have a significant minority (30%+) of the election day machines malfunction on Election Day when most Republicans prefer to vote, are they engaging in voter suppression and disenfranchisement?

If these same Democrat election officials also happen to have previously created a “Stop MAGA” PAC? Does that fact contribute to the analysis?

[Moderation4ever]

Do you have a citation for the 200,000 extra ballots? Did not see it in a quick goggle search.

As for the election machines not working. Ballots are still collected and read when the machine are again working so not really suppression. It is helpful to think of the tabulators like the office Xerox machine. They do jam and have to be cleared. After you clear the jam, you restart the counting process. The ballots are counted before submission and after tabulation and that number must match.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

As for the election machines not working. Ballots are still collected and read when the machine are again working so not really suppression.

Not true. There are countless reports of people being turned away, or leaving after waiting forever.

[Michael P]

In-person voters were also told to try another polling place, but when they did, they were turned away because they had already gotten a ballot that the first polling place spoiled.

[ragebot]

A big issue is big a variation exists among the many voting places along with how voters arrive at voting locations. While I live close to two major universities and a large community college I vote at a church close to campus. I have never had to wait in line for any election and never seen a machine malfunction. On the other hand the universities and community college have polling stations on campus and it is common to have what I will call get out the vote events at a specific time where a large number of students meet and walk to the polling station to vote creating a large line. In other parts of the city churches will have a similar get out the vote event and buss those attending to a polling place again creating a line to vote.

As I have previously posted the last several elections I was mailed a mail in ballot even though I never requested one and when voting was questioned about why I did not use the mail in ballot. I live in a condo that is turning into a kiddie condo with lots of students renting and my next door neighbor got five mail in ballots for the previous renters along with his mail in ballot. I do know the supervisor of elections had a news article where a pix showed the 60,000 mail in ballots they mailed out but with no indication how many were requested and how many were blindly mailed out.

As I posted earlier there is a huge difference between how other nations deal with mail in ballots (allowed for military and infirmed only by request and requiring solid ID) and how the US seems to view mail in ballots as junk mail.

[bernard11]

there is a huge difference between how other nations deal with mail in ballots (allowed for military and infirmed only by request and requiring solid ID) and how the US seems to view mail in ballots as junk mail.

This nonsense has been refuted elsewhere in this very thread.

[ragebot]

I almost hate to do it but cite please.

[Nige]

'are they engaging in voter suppression and disenfranchisement?'

Why, is that how Republicans do it?

[Noorondoor]

In liberal la la land, a patriot like this man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_H._Jacobs

is only entitled to the same vote as the single "mother" who birthed this savage.

https://www.nj.com/cumberland/2022/11/young-nj-shooting-victim-released-from-hospital-teen-suspect-detained-on-gun-charges.html

[Nige]

That's democracy.

[Noorondoor]

Which is why the founders didn't believe in democracy.

[Nige]

They also didn't believe an elephant could fly.

[Mr. Bumble]

Obviously they weren't aware of Dumbo.

[Nige]

And that was only one of their shortcomings.

[Don Nico]

Nige,
Just where are the cases of voter suppression proven in Federal Court. Be specific, who and how many were actively prevented in a way that could be proven in court.
Your whine is a credible as the Trumpoids cries of voter fraud.

[Nige]

I would have thought closing down voting centres in particular areas leading to massive hours-long waits, which happened in 2020 would be one example, but maybe that doesn't count because it's just a thing that happened. But sure, whatever makes you feel above it all.

[ragebot]

Problem with the long lines at polls crap is it always seems to happen in shit eating dem cities and never in places where the pubs vote. Can you explain that.

[Nige]

Pubs don't vote, they're drinking establishments.

[EscherEnigma]

An important distinction between allegations of voter fraud and voter suppression, is that the first is always a crime, and the later is seldom one.

Or to put it another way... it is absolutely a crime for me to vote twice, or to fill out someone else's ballot.

But kicking people off voter rolls because I'm using an out-dated list, cutting voting hours and locations specifically in locations favorable to my political opponents, and devising a system to restore felon voting rights that lies to felons about getting their rights restored? Not a crime. Also voter suppression.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A recent poll showed that 57% of the people believe election fraud effected the outcome.

In other news the 43% of Americans who identify as Democrats are morons.

[John F. Carr]

A family member's neighbor decided he didn't need to call to have utilities marked before digging. The flags were still there from when he called last winter. He chose... poorly. The flag for the gas line had gone missing. He's getting a fine for the violation, a bill from the gas company to replace the line, and a bill for repaving where the gas company had to dig.

I want to say "he works in construction, he should know better." Then I think, "this may be business as usual." Some safety practices are followed religiously. Others are not. A builder told me he always carefully secured the equipment on his trailer for even the shortest, simplest off-road move because he had seen what happens if you don't. He also watched workers "riding the load" being lifted onto a truck and mentioned it was a big OSHA no-no without telling them to stop. OSHA rules aren't safety rules, they are government nagging.

What we call "DIG-SAFE" here, "U-DIG" in New York, and so on is a good government mandated program. It also makes liability clear. Gas line guy is unambiguously at fault for not calling the week before digging. The guy who hit a water line down the street is not at fault because the water department didn't mark the water line.

[Moderation4ever]

I always call. I have lived in my house many years and know where the lines are located, and I still call. It a free service for the digger and it is CYA

Your family member is lucky. A couple of years ago workers hit a gas line and blew up a significant portion of Main Street in Sun Prairie, WI. One person died.

[John F. Carr]

Outside my house the lines are in a different place every time they are marked.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Urgently need Massachusetts lawyer to fight corrupt municipality which is trying to steal 90-year-old widow's house.

It's become a Kafkaesque charade -- e.g. the house should be condemned because the gas stove doesn't work, the reason the gas stove doesn't work is because the town Light & Gas company physically removed the gas pipe and then is telling her social worker that they didn't.

Town has stolen five figures worth of antiques out of the house, padlocked her out of the house, and then given her 30 days to repair a whole bunch of stuff in the house -- including stuff the town itself broke.

[Josh R]

After the votes are counted in California, Republicans are going to win the House popular vote by at least 3%-points. Yet, they barely won enough seats to gain the majority. From what I recall, in recent times Democrats have had to win the popular vote by a few points in order to gain control. But, this time around the reverse effect occurred. Why?

I thought some combination of gerrymandering and the concentration of Democratic voters in urban districts resulted in many wasted votes for Democrats. Did the most recent redistricting alter gerrymandering? Are Republicans now wasting large numbers of votes in rural districts. Are Republicans making headway with minorities in districts where they no longer get swamped resulting in fewer wasted Democratic votes? Or did Democrats just get lucky and happen to win a disproportionate share of the close races?

[Bored Lawyer]

"After the votes are counted in California, Republicans are going to win the House popular vote by at least 3%-points. Yet, they barely won enough seats to gain the majority. From what I recall, in recent times Democrats have had to win the popular vote by a few points in order to gain control. But, this time around the reverse effect occurred."

Do you have a source for this assertion?

[Josh R]

In 2020, Democrats won the popular vote by 3 points but barely won the House. In 2018, it was D+9 and a clear majority, 2016 R+1 and a large majority, 2014 R+6 and a large majority, 2012 D+1 with a clear R majority. That strikes me as a bias against Democrats in the translation from popular vote to seats.

I think California had a few districts that were 100% D because of the jungle primary. Not sure if this offsets the unopposed R districts.

[Don Nico]

The jungle primary is deliberately designed to disenfranchise republican voters.
In other news CA had both the R and D Senate candidate running in the same election for two distinct Senate seats. Hence, CA will get a Senator that no one voted for after a legally certified election. Talk about blatant anti-democratic election rules.

[Josh R]

They weren't two different seats. They were for the remaining time of Kamala's seat and the new 6-year term after that for the same seat. And, they were separate votes. What's the problem with that?

[Kazinski]

No, they came up with the jungle primary because a large cohort of independent voters want to vote in the primaries, and the Ninth circuit ruled that if there were separate GOP and Dem primaries then the parties had the right to exclude independents from voting in them.

Independents countered with initiatives implementing the jungle primary which basically excludes the parties from having a formal role in candidate selection.

That is how both Washington and California ended up with jungle primaries.

[Sarcastr0]

The jungle primary is deliberately designed to disenfranchise republican voters.

Utter nonsense.

Republicans are *never* going to win statewide in CA. A jungle primary means you don't have a single party primary determining these spots year after year.

It's full on disingenuous to claim this is some anti-Republican measure if you have any sense of CA politics at all.

[Aunt Teefah]

Looks like a combination of (1) lots of safe GOP seats being unopposed (so they get 100% of the votes, rather than 70-80%); (2) weak turnout in safe Dem areas like NY and CA; and (3) Dobbs supercharging the suburban electorate, allowing the Dems to win a bunch of close, contested races.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Because the system is rigged for the cheaters.

Whether it's outright fraud or rules that are designed to be abused, the system is definitely rigged.

When FL turned reliably red, the Democrats had to rig the system in other purple states to be reliably to offset the new power imbalance.

PA and MI will never see a Republican win in a Federal election again. Never. AZ and WI are on the precipice.

In AZ you had the bizarre behavior of after the election, the ballots being counted increased the Republican vote on nearly every state wide election, while the Federal elections saw losses.

How does that happen? I mean who votes Red for the State but Blue for the country? The Democrat ballot handlers and adjudicators, that's who.

[Aunt Teefah]

This guy's so deep in a bubble he can't even conceive of a voter splitting their ticket. By the way, it's worked in the other direction in different states. In Wisconsin, they elected the Dem governor by a solid margin, and the GOP senator won in a close race.

[apedad]

Massachusetts

40 of the last 60 years have had Republican governors.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In WI, Milwaukee County notoriously dumps hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots hours after the legal deadline.

[Nige]

When you're trying to infer the existence of voter fraud without the benefit of any actual evidence. It'd be funny, but DeSantisorTrump will be using this as a basis for running on making voting more difficult in 2024.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you not find it curious how all of our previously well-trusted election signals have gone completely out the window in the past two “fortified” elections?

[Nige]

Well, Republicans ARE working very hard to undermine faith in elections because they keep losing, so it's not so much curious as obvious and worrying.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The execution of our past two elections undermines faith in elections.

[Nige]

Losing elections undermined yur faith in elections.

[Don Nico]

Nige, you and your buddies do likewise with your whining about voter suppression before any ballots are counted.
It is just the pot calling the kettle black.

[Nige]

Spare me. What, exactly, is it that Republicans do when too many people vote and they lose? Suppress people’s votes. Trump and DeSantis are planning to run on voter suppression tickets.

[bernard11]

Don,

Voter suppression is real.

Smell the coffee.

[Sarcastr0]

Dems point at stuff when they say voter suppression.

Republicans lie when they say voter fraud.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you do point at stuff. It's just that it's virtually always stuff that isn't voter suppression.

[Nige]

Yeah it's just stuff that suppresses votes, not the same thing!

[Sarcastr0]

Except it definitionally is. Narrowing the window to vote suppresses the vote. ID requirements suppresses the vote. Narrowing previously open methods to vote suppresses the vote. Closing polling places in urban centers suppresses the vote.

And suppressing the vote demonstrably effects Dems more then Reps at the current moment. An effect that Republican voters and leaders are not really hiding that they condone.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Whether it’s outright fraud or rules that are designed to be abused, the system is definitely rigged.

[Nige]

And yet no proof.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I have no proof the rules are designed to be exploited?

Are you stupid? Go watch some videos of the ballot harvesters in CA.

[Nige]

You have no proof of fraud. 'Ballot harvesting' sounds bad, but it just means people voting.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, if it just meant people voting, you'd call it "voting".

It just means "breaking the chain of custody on a ballot".

[Nige]

I do call it voting. It's you guys that have been using the scary term for it.

[Noorondoor]

If anyone other than white Protestant male landowners are voting, that's a fraud.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lol you're such a dork.

[M L]

In general Democrats gerrymander as bad or worse than Republicans. So in California I assume that would mean gerrymandering helps Ds, not Rs.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's more than just gerrymandering though. It's things like ballot harvesting, chain of custody rules, adjudication processes and procedures, verification and validation requirements (or lack of requirements), drop boxes, universal mail-in ballots, etc.

[M L]

I agree, but was just responding to a particular point.

[Josh R]

There are states that have Democratic gerrymandering (e.g., Oregon and Maryland), but California has an independent commission that does a fair job. New York had a Democratic gerrymandered map thrown out by the state courts. That might have been the difference between a Republican and Democratic majority.

[Sarcastr0]

In general Democrats gerrymander as bad or worse than Republicans.

Any proof of that or just gonna say it?

[EscherEnigma]

Do you know where Representative McCarthy is from?

[Don Nico]

Yup, and that is why the "outrage over gerrymandering" is just so much partisan posing. Always was that way and always will be.

[Noorondoor]

Harvard and Yale announced they are not going to participate in U.S. News law school rankings anymore. My guess is that they want to be able to admit more semi-retarded affirmative action students with poor LSAT scores without it negatively affecting a ranking.

[grb]

A group of universities (including Harvard and Yale) also announced they wouldn’t participate in architecture school ranking anymore. I suspect this is a general policy and not tied to any single scholastic discipline. I noted my architectural school wasn’t among the group. They always do exceptionally well in the rankings for a non-big-name school, so I expect they didn’t see the announcement as in their best interest.

Harvard and Yale (with the other signees) are probably right about the system’s flaws, but they also have nothing to lose. They’re always going to be a prestigious choice regardless.

[Michael P]

Or your alma mater decided against jumping onto a bandwagon that says "all our programs want to be racist, not only our law schools".

[ragebot]

A little OT but I have had Amazon Prime since Hector was a pup and enjoyed the two day delivery. But recently that has morphed to three days and more recently up to a week for what I consider normal stuff bought under the Prime banner. Not sure what the deal is but even B&H Photo where I also shop seems to have bigger delays in shipping than I expect.

Anyone else notice this.

[M L]

More people buying more stuff online. Spikes like crazy around the holiday season.

Amazon seems hit and miss depending on whether they have the item in a nearby warehouse.

[Nige]

They were probably tripping over a heart attack victim at the warehouse or something.

[John F. Carr]

B&H started having delays in the early COVID era.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Even before that. They switched carriers, and all my deliveries immediately went from two-day to three-day. Still the best place I know of to buy anything they sell.

[ragebot]

Agree B&H has been my primary source of electronics for decades.

[John F. Carr]

That's a separate problem. A few years ago they switched from a service that delivered overnight reliably in the Boston suburbs to one that often took two days. B&H still put the goods on the truck promptly. Post-COVID, there were delays starting the shipping process.

[ragebot]

This will get out of hand. Even Biden has now admitted Ukraine screwed the pooch by firing a missel that wound up killing a couple of Poles in Poland, kinda like Alec Baldwin firing wild and killing a film maker. God knows I would have no idea how to aim an anti missel missel so I can't blame the clowns in Ukraine too much but why in God's name is the US/West poring advanced weapons into a country run by a comedian and letting them fire them when they lack skills to do so. Seems like the US troops that are in the Ukraine advising there are not up to the job. On the bright side no one seems to want to talk about it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-didn-t-take-us-phone-call-after-poland-missile-strike/ar-AA14bWW0?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b8d0777b8744447eb6a31aa6c26fac39

[Nige]

I mean, it's one friendly fire incident - that we know of - the US military is hardly a stranger to those.

[Don Nico]

Lame excuses, lame excuses.

[grb]

If that's an "excuse", much less a lame one, then what's your take? Because it was one friendly fire incident, just like Nige said. And they happen in every "special military operation" - including those of the U.S.

Just like Nige said. So what's your alternate spin? We all wanna hear it.

[ragebot]

Not really spin but early on the Ruskies were being blamed for launching a missel at Poland which as a member of NATO created calls for NATO to retaliate since Russia had attacked a NATO member.

Like I posted I could not launch a missel if my life depended on it, less yet have any idea where the missel would hit. So giving advanced weapons to a shit eating country like the Ukraine seems as stupid as giving VP Cheney a shotgun.

[grb]

Shit-eating country, eh? Why do I suspect you melt with amourish trembling when you gaze into Vladie's deep blue eyes? Different strokes for different folks, I guess. For the record, that shit-eating country has out-fought, out maneuvered, and out-thought its larger mercenary neighbor. And so many people were convinced Putin was some kind of genius, too! Not the bungling thug he clearly is.

Also : The Russian were blamed for - what - about twelve hours? Even in that short timespan, they weren't officially blamed by anyone. And I heard no one important demand retaliation in all those "created calls". So what's your point? I would have thought you'd be happy. Your government didn't overreact. It quickly checked the evidence. It put out its findings with blazing speed.

Isn't that worth a round of applause?

[Nige]

They've been doing pretty well with those systems so far. Remember those suppressed videos of US helicopters blowing up US troops? Is the US a shit-eating country that can't be trusted with advanced weaponry?

[Nige]

Where did I make an excuse for anything? Ukraine should come clean, apologise and provide compensation.

[Gasman]

As a separate friendly fire incident, the media frenzy and initial blaming of Russia over this gives the Russians better street cred to in the future claim that the next errant missile is a Western hoax.

[Nige]

The Russians do not have any cred. This was a wrong story that got corrected. They put out fake stories and never correct them.

[M L]

Uniparty:

Chuck Schumer: Mitch McConnell and I Have ‘Remarkably Similar’ Vision for Future of Republican Party

LOL!!!

[M L]

Get ready. When the parties and their mutual donors get on the same page about something, that's when you know the people are about to get screwed even harder than normal.

[Aunt Teefah]

Agreed. And the only way for either party to regain popular legitimacy is to disempower the donors and empower the regular voters. But the current Supreme Court will not allow that to happen.

[M L]

Agreed. But probably differ on details. Only way to disempower donors and empower the people, is to disempower the federal government and devolve to state and local.

[Nige]

Then the money will flow to state and local, who are probably even cheaper. Not really a solution.

[M L]

It actually is a solution. With state and local governments, people actually know their representatives and actually have a voice. Corrupt buying of political power is much less effective under these circumstances. With massive imperialist government over vast regions, there is no real self-government, period. And buying political power can only go so far as the instrumentality of political power goes, so bigger government means more of it.

[Aunt Teefah]

That's certainly what the donors would like to see. State and local politicians are even easier to buy off and push around than federal ones.

[M L]

This is the opposite of the truth. Centralized governments like empires of old, are good for corrupt profiteers, and have no accountability to the people. In fact there is such vested interest, that any efforts at political separation or decentralization of power would be met with maximum opposition even including massive bloodshed.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sure they do, and that's exactly why Republican voters would really like to be rid of McConnell.

[M L]

Iran's Parliament overwhelmingly calls for "harsh punishment" of detained protesters numbering some 15,800 people.

Reportedly 344 protesters have been killed so far, and Iran recenty began issuing formal death sentences to detainees.

In 1988 Iran executed thousands of political prisoners in the span of a few months.

[Ed Grinberg]

Expect major anti-Iran demonstrations on U.S. college campuses any day now...

[Ben_]

Remember how friendly the Obama Administration was with these guys?

[Sarcastr0]

You are either lying or don't understand how dipolomacy works.

Idiots like you only help Iran go nuclear.

[Ben_]

Send them some more pallets of cash to pay their executioners. That’s what makes you The Good Guys.

[Sarcastr0]

You continue to be a tool who is willing to believe whatever and ignore whatever else if it keeps your burning partisan hate alive.

You really do seem miserable as hell.

[Ben_]

Do you ever get tired of making life worse for Americans?

[Ed Grinberg]

Iranians too!

[M L]

NYT:

F.B.I. Had Informants in Proud Boys, Court Papers Suggest

In filings in the seditious conspiracy case against members of the far-right group, defense lawyers claimed that information favorable to their clients was improperly withheld by the government until recently.

"Last week, lawyers for Mr. Rhodes and four other Oath Keepers who are being tried on sedition charges planned to call the informant — Greg McWhirter, the group’s former vice president — as a defense witness, believing that his testimony would bolster their case. But on the eve of his planned appearance, Mr. McWhirter suffered a heart attack and the defense put other witnesses in his place."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/us/politics/fbi-informants-proud-boys-jan-6.html

Unrelated article:

https://www.military.com/video/guns/pistols/cias-secret-heart-attack-gun/2555371072001

[M L]

Biggest domestic news of the decade:

NY Fed launches 12-week CBDC pilot program with major banks

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ny-fed-launches-12-week-cbdc-pilot-program-with-major-banks

Good primer on CBDC:

https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/cbdcs

[M L]

Justin Amash:

A digital U.S. currency would be one of the most dangerous developments in history. When government can simply flip a switch to block all your transactions, it controls your entire life. We need a wall of separation between money and state.

[Bored Lawyer]

Much of the economy already runs on "digital currency," aka debit cards and credit cards.

[John F. Carr]

We have the option of using cash. In Israel it is illegal to use cash for a transaction over $2,000 (approximately).

[M L]

CBDC is nothing like we have now.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously. Who are they going to put in charge of it? Saule Omarova? Seems right up her alley.

[Sarcastr0]

This is tin-foil hat nonsense.

It's not going to let the government to turn off your credit card any more than it does so nowadays.

[Mr. Bumble]

Tell the Canadian truckers.

[Sarcastr0]

What did digital currency have to do with whatever happened there?

[M L]

"Rather, I will tell you what a CBDC is NOT—it is NOT, as Wikipedia might tell you, a digital dollar. After all, most dollars are already digital, existing not as something folded in your wallet, but as an entry in a bank’s database, faithfully requested and rendered beneath the glass of your phone...

Instead, a CBDC is something closer to being a perversion of cryptocurrency, or at least of the founding principles and protocols of cryptocurrency—a cryptofascist currency, an evil twin entered into the ledgers on Opposite Day, expressly designed to deny its users the basic ownership of their money and to install the State at the mediating center of every transaction."

[Brett Bellmore]

I have never, NEVER, understood this absolute conviction the left has that telling their opponents they should trust them should work.

You people can pivot from "We'd never do that!" to "And you deserve every bit of it!" in a heartbeat. And we only get to be wrong about it once.

[Mr. Bumble]

Awaiting reply from Nige.

[Sarcastr0]

You can't tell the difference between skepticism and writing full-on fan fiction and convincing yourself it's about to happen.

That's your problem, not mine.

[grb]

Brett should get with Nostradamus Ed. He's top-notch at regular apocalyptic predictions based on ideological themes. Together the two of them can churn-out doomsdays by the dozen.

[M L]

Are you that much of a statist Sarcastro, that you favor CBDC? Do you even remotely understand it?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The guy who called for the lamppost hanging of judges probably shouldn't complain about the alleged lack of impulse control of others.

[Noorondoor]

Like for example "We're never going to tell you you have to make a cake for us, we only want to be left alone."

When confronted with this, they just smirk.

[Nige]

You're mistaking people who point out the towering paranoia of your conspiracy theories with genuine concerns about various trends and tendencies. I hate Facebook but I'm going to disagree with you severely if you tell me Facebook has a left-wing bias when it promotes Ben Shapiro all the time. That sort of thing.

[ragebot]

You mean like not using a CC for 2A rights

https://financejar.com/credit-cards/can-you-buy-a-gun-with-a-credit-card/

[Absaroka]

"A digital U.S. currency would be one of the most dangerous developments in history. When government can simply flip a switch to block all your transactions, it controls your entire life. We need a wall of separation between money and state."

There is a lot of truth there, although the danger is less that a digital currency exists than that cash becomes rare or banned.

There is a blogger who coined the phrase 'the Jews in the attic test' that applies. The gist of it is, how would X impact your ability to hide Anne Frank's family in your attic.

Let's suppose you and your wife decide to hide the Frank family. Instead of buying groceries for two, you now have to buy groceries for six. With cash, it's a minor problem - just make some extra trips to different supermarkets and it's unlikely anyone will notice you are now buying 4 times as many groceries.

That all changes without cash. If I'm a Gestapo analyst, I just look for families whose grocery shopping has gone way up. They are obviously up to something - harboring Jews, feeding the resistance, or something. With the right interrogation, they will tell me which it is.

Now, some people will be saying 'buuuut .... that's the Gestapo. We will never have an evil government in the U.S.'. But I think that designing society without making provisions for evil people being in power is like designing a bridge without making provisions for high winds - sooner or later that will prove to be a grave mistake.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Weird how the FBI's raid on Mar-a-Lago falls apart right after the election. It's almost as if the Democrats at the FBI were interfering in our elections AGAIN.

[Sarcastr0]

Talked about above.
Bottom line, You are wrong again.

[jb]

"Falls apart". I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. The fact that Trump isn't a spy doesn't mean that he didn't break the law and put national security at risk.

Also, I'd bet that close to zero voters made their decision about who to vote for for the House, Senate, Governor, state legislature, Secretary of State or any of the offices actually up for vote this month based on whether or not Trump mishandled classified documents, so it's pretty ridiculous to think that the timing of the announcement had any effect on the election.

[Ben_]

The walls are closing in though.

[Nige]

Perhaps Trump thinks so, announcing his candidacy two years out after a poor showing at the mid-terms with the prospect of running against a candidate he already lost to once, relying on the same stale messaging from 2016 with an added smattering of election denial.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think he announced 2 years out because he actually wants the nomination for 2024, and thinks that by announcing this far in advance he can scare off the competition and have it without much work. Nothing more than that.

I don't believe it's going to work.

What I find interesting are the Democratic proposals to try to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 based on Section 3 of the 14th amendment. And to refuse to seat some of the incoming Republican freshmen on that basis, too.

Politically, that's playing with white Phosphorous while standing in a pool of gasoline. I do hope the Democratic leadership have enough sense to refrain.

[David Nieporent]

I think everyone except Brett understands that Trump is trying to make it politically more difficult to prosecute him by making this announcement.

[John F. Carr]

The Justice Department is expected to announce a special counsel to finish the Mar-a-Lago investigation. It is unclear whether this is to distance the administration from a decision to prosecute or from a decision not to prosecute. It is even possible the decision has not been made.

Ken Starr is no longer available; he would have been a fun choice.

[John F. Carr]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel-0

The special counsel is Jack Smith, who certainly has the credentials for the job.

In much more interesting news, he is taking over the investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Crimes committed at the Capitol on January 6 will continue to be prosecuted by the U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. The people who submitted false electoral votes, or conspired in advance, they get the special counsel.

The Mar-a-Lago stuff really isn't that big in the grand scheme of things. Just some ordinary felonies that were committed by or for the benefit of a former president. The election conspiracy, that's once-in-a-lifetime. We hope.

[not guilty]

Appointment of a Special Counsel was an unneeded move, which will result in unjustified delay in bringing Donald Trump to justice.

[David Nieporent]

No, it was a needed move. You can't have a direct political appointee like the AG, answerable directly to the president, prosecuting the person who is running against the president. The optics are insane.

[David Nieporent]

It is unclear whether this is to distance the administration from a decision to prosecute or from a decision not to prosecute.

No, it's clear. It's possible that they intend to prosecute. It's possible that they haven't decided yet. It's not remotely plausible that they have decided not to, but are appointing a special counsel anyway.

(If for no other reason than that they wouldn't be able to find someone willing to take the job if they had already decided not to!)

[John F. Carr]

On further consideration I agree with the last parenthetical. While Biden might like some political cover, the special prosecutor gave up an important job to take this one and would not likely have done so if he had nothing to do. There is a chance that Trump will escape unindicted, but something meaningful will come of this.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Fun game to play with the Thursday Open Thread. Try to figure out exactly what a muted commenter said from the unmuted responses.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's silly lawsuit in Florida against New York Attorney General Letitia James has been assigned to Judge Donald Middlebrooks, who recently ordered Rule 11 sanctions against Trump's attorneys in his frivolous suit against Hillary Clinton and scads of other defendants. I wonder if Trump will finally heed Sir John Falstaff's admonition that the better part of valor is discretion and withdraw the James lawsuit.

[Noorondoor]

James is a despicable piece of crap with a stupid ghetto name.

[John F. Carr]

To follow along at home, the docket is at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65760148/trump-v-james/

The case was removed by James from state court. Trump's lawyer will not be liable for annoying a federal judge until he makes an argument or files a paper in federal court.

[not guilty]

Team Trump seems determined to disregard Molly Ivins's First Rule of Holes: stop digging!

[Noorondoor]

So the corrupt Second Circuit yet again stayed Suddaby's preliminary injunction, and not for any reason.

Why is it that the courts feel the need to defer to state's laws, no matter how stupid or patently unconstitutional?

[apedad]

You could read the Second Circuit's actual notice to see their reason and that they are NOT deferring to a state law.

https://thereload.com/second-circuit-stays-new-york-gun-carry-case-allows-law-to-remain-in-effect/

Or you could be a whiny bitch.

[Noorondoor]

Uhh, they are. They didn't state a reason at all. They just said granted the motion to stay the injunction. That is inappropriate unless they believe the district court judge's ruling to be erroneous.

[David Nieporent]

No; read more better. They did not grant the motion to stay the injunction. They granted an interim stay while they're considering the motion to stay the injunction.

[Noorondoor]

Right, but what's to stop them from just not deciding on the motion for months?

Why shouldn't the balance of equities been in keeping the injunction in place while they considered? Why should the state get automatic deference in the meantime?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

48% of Maricopa County locations "forgot" to put ink in their printers on Election Day.

Oopsie! I guess in order to save our Sacred Democracy you gotta disenfranchise certain wrong voters!

[Life of Brian]

As I mentioned last week, this didn't have the signature of a low toner problem at all. It looked like the toner wasn't properly adhering to the page, as though the fuser was past its useful lifecycle.

Since then, a local reporter has committed a significant act of journalism and laid out what happened in pretty decent detail.

TL;DR: (a) Maricopa polling places use two brands of laser printers, Oki and Lexmark; (b) for reasons unstated, the printers use custom firmware from Maricopa's election vendor Runbeck Services; (c) the printers are used to print ballots, ballot receipts, and envelopes; (d) the Lexmark printers apparently did fine; (e) the Oki printers somehow thought they were printing the ballots to lighter weight paper than the ballot stock actually was, so the fuser didn't heat up enough to fully adhere the toner; (f) the actual "media weight" parameter for the ballots was set correctly in the printers; (g) bumping up the "media weight" parameter for the envelopes and receipts somehow improved toner adhesion for the ballots

That at least matches the apparent failure mode. But it also just raises a host of new questions, e.g.:
- Why the need for custom firmware in the first place?
- Why did Runbeck not catch that their custom firmware wasn't applying the correct media weight settings to the three different kinds of print jobs?
- Why was a significant layer of idiot-proofing removed by making election officials/techs set media weights manually on the printers rather than sending them from the computer with each print job (as is the default behavior per the Oki manual -- at least in the stock firmware)?
- Why, if everything in the system was tested together prior to Election day (as Maricopa bigwigs swear up and down), did something this basic not come to light beforehand, EVEN IF Runbeck was simply incompetent and didn't test it themselves before shipping?
- How many other election system vendors are there that have somehow managed to figure out how to deploy ballot printing systems that... I dunno, manage to reliably print ballots?
- How much money has Maricopa paid Runbeck in exchange for this (at best) Keystone-Cops-grade debacle?

[Sarcastr0]

There's always questions when you're on the outside looking in.

Turning those into something untoward going on...well, that's shades of the Internet gumshoes going after Obama's birth certificate.

[Life of Brian]

There’s always questions when you’re on the outside looking in.

I'd say particularly so, since the insiders on all levels are generally much more interested in finger pointing, circling the wagons, and patting themselves on the back for whatever half-assed bandaid solution they managed to implement to partially stop the bleeding, than they are in stepping back and asking WTAF?

Turning those into something untoward going on

Dude. They took a plug-and-play system and deliberately made it less so, then gave it over to a group of decidedly non-technical operators who wouldn't (and clearly didn't) have a clue what to do if something went wrong with their kludged manual setup, and then, in a situation where the equipment needed to have 100% uptime for precisely one day on the calendar, nobody bothered testing it before go time. That's not "untoward" -- that's scorched-earth, imbecilic incompetence that would and should weed out idiots like this in any area whatsoever other than government and its contractors.

Outrageous and highly selective normalization is your thing. I get that. But there are plenty of other situations in the world where the results matter a lot and there are no do-overs, and the players there take it seriously because we actually hold them accountable when things do go wrong. These bozos just mailed it in, and we quite rightly should do something other than just grumble about it for a few weeks and then sign another contract for next cycle after they express their immense remorse and write some sort of vacuous Continuous Improvement Plan.

[Drbusybody]

Perhaps you've heard about the case of Nicholas J. Gutierrez, who on Wednesday ran down 25 sheriff cadets outside Whittier, California, while driving the wrong way in an SUV. The sheriff has intimated that it might be intentional and Gutierrez could be charged with attempted murder, among other felonies.

Interestingly, this incident happened the same day as the sentencing for Darrell Brooks, who committed the Christmas parade massacre in Waukesha, Wisconsin last year.

Thursday evening, Gutierrez was released from jail on a technicality; in California, someone can't be held in jail without being charged with a crime, and police have not yet presented the case to prosecutors.

Should the lawyers for Gutierrez tell him about the option of fleeing? 25 counts of attempted murder could add up to a long time in prison with consecutive sentences. Why doesn't the dude go back to his home country? Should the lawyers at least mention that option? He has a free pass from jail right now. Charges could be laid at any moment. This is his window. Legal ethics say lawyers should not advocate that a suspect flee, but is there anything wrong with this being merely mentioned?

[John F. Carr]

As of this week Massachusetts judge Shelley Joseph is no longer suspended. Joseph had helped a man escape ICE agents in 2019. Trump's US Attorney filed obstruction of justice charges. Biden's US Attorney dropped charges. Obstruction of justice is not wrong when it is done to counter Donald Trump. Based on the "extremism in the defense of whatever" precedent, Gutierrez' lawyer should go ahead and tell him to flee the country.

Does he even have a lawyer? If he's not charged he doesn't have the right to a public defender.

[David Nieporent]

Thursday evening, Gutierrez was released from jail on a technicality; in California, someone can’t be held in jail without being charged with a crime,

Wow. What a technicality. As opposed to Texas, where people can be executed without even committing a crime, I guess.

[David Nieporent]

Even though the race is so close — roughly 500 votes — that it's going to a mandatory recount, Lauren Boebert's opponent has conceded. Apparently,

1) Democrats forgot how to steal elections;
2) Democrats didn't get the memo that the proper approach to losing — no matter how badly one lost or how close it is — is to scream fraud.
3) Democrats didn't get the memo that if subsequent ballot counting causes the lead to change after election day, that this is ironclad proof of fraud.