Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Let the fun begin!

[Brett Bellmore]

We're going to see how secure Twitter's backups of internal communications really are. Normally private sector companies are obsessive about data retention, but Baker comes from a government environment, where data retention has been replaced by evidence destruction.

Did he have long enough to compromise the backups, or do the emails he 'curated' away still exist in accessible form? I expect we'll find out in the next few days.

[Illocust]

He only got to curate the first data dump, so later ones shouldn't be effected. Kind of funny watching on Twitter people trying to claim its no big deal that he got to choose what did and didn't get released.

[DaveM]

IRS regulations are to retain email for 7 years. As a (previously) publicly-held corporation, I would imagine there are backups of the backups by now. The chances that a staff attorney could tell the IT staff to go back through these and remove selected ones seems very remote to me.

True, the federal government's oversight of records is very different, in many cases even more strict than the private sector. But the IT infrastructure of federal agencies is a crap shoot. For example, who can forget those 7 (!) different Obama-era hard drives involved in the IRS's effort to suppress pro-life charities all were somehow damaged beyond reading? The reason that "worked" from an information suppression perspective is because the IRS was using local MS Office email file archives. Twitter will be using the cloud.

[Illocust]

See, this is something that congress should make a law about. Mandate that usg records need to be backed up to two offsite locations on a weekly basis. Take out the creaky infrastructure excuse by managing they update it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then you have a security breach from one of the off-site servers.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can generally avoid that by not having your DB management done remotely by techs living in China...

[Reallynotbob]

It's that simple! /s

[Brett Bellmore]

Based on government experience, that's 90% of it.

[Absaroka]

"The chances that a staff attorney could tell the IT staff to go back through these and remove selected ones seems very remote to me."

As one of the people who used to do backups, that's my take. A conspiracy to wash backups would have to involve too many people; at a minimum one of them would decide to get their 5 minutes of fame by talking.

[Kazinski]

I'd share your skepticism if it were financial shenanigans.

But Twitter seems to have been a huge Woke Brigade. Now hopefully enough of the Woke Brigade has also exited to assuage those concerns.

And as a former programmer I can tell you accessing and restoring off site backups can be a pretty arduous process. It can take a week or more, even when your tech staff is at 100%.

[Brett Bellmore]

"IRS regulations are to retain email for 7 years."

Ahem,

IRS “Midnight Unit” Destroyed Backup Tapes With Lois Lerner Emails

In fact, as it became evident that the targeting scandal would inevitably become public, the IRS ended their contract with a top notch data backup firm, and implemented an internal system with strict schedules for destroying backups. The Lerner emails went "poof" because they followed policy instead of respecting a data preservation order.

And that's not even talking about all the hard drives that ended up beaten with hammers, the phones that erased by repeatedly entering the wrong password...

More recently, CNBC ran an interesting story, "Tax professionals ‘horrified’ by IRS decision to destroy data on 30 million filers"

So, you were saying?

[Brett Bellmore]

But I think I was talking abut Baker, who came to Twitter after being fired from the FBI for promoting the Steele dossier even AFTER they knew it was a load of crap. So, the FBI?

Yeah, actually they’re pretty systematic in their destruction, not retention, of records. People have been complaining about it for decades. The ad hoc destruction of things like incriminating phones, or wiping Clinton’s laptop knowing Congress might want a look at it, aside, under their formal policies they destroy most records pretty quickly.

It hasn’t gotten better since this: The Department of Forgetting

[Sarcastr0]

He. Didn’t. Promote. The. Steele. Dossier. He didn’t do anything untoward at twitter either.

NARA is trying to hide things from the public, and you provide no evidenced it is other than it does not retain all records ever.

You’re just deep into some narrative you find extremely compelling and ignoring all need for evidence and clearly just Googling and finding random stories that kinda-sorta fit and twisting them. Over and over.

People in this thread, not just me, are telling you this isn't how it works. You're ignoring them.

It’s like seeing someone go into QAnon in real time.

[David Nieporent]

Baker wasn't fired from the FBI. Not for promoting the Steele dossier or any other reason. He wasn't fired.

[not guilty]

Do you mean that Brett has got his facts wrong? Who would have predicted that?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Technically Baker wasn't fired.

Instead, when Wray took over, Baker was "reassigned to other, unnamed duties" in December. He was then placed under criminal investigation. He then resigned in May.

So, like the NYC teacher placed in a rubber room because he decided to sexually abuse his students, Baker was placed on "unnamed duties" while the investigation was proceeding. Then he resigned before the official firing could be made.

Seems that was a bit of a trend at the FBI. Employees resigning just before disciplinary action.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3677484-665-fbi-employees-left-agency-after-misconduct-investigations-whistleblower-disclosure/#:~:text=665%20FBI%20employees%20left%20agency%20after%20misconduct%20investigations%3A%20whistleblower%20disclosure,-by%20Zach%20Schonfeld&text=Sen.,avoid%20receiving%20final%20disciplinary%20letters.

[Gandydancer]

We saw all over the FBI conspiracy to get Trump that the agency or office in charge of auditing FBI behavior — I’m having brain lock and forgetting what it’s called (U.S. Comptroller General?) — had no leverage to get answers from anyone who’d left the payroll.

We’re in agreement that Sarcastr0 and Nieporent are lying again, right? Let's call a spade a spade.

[Gandydancer]

...ah, it was an "Inspector General" who kept saying that in his reports. I don't recall which one.

[David Nieporent]

had no leverage to get answers from anyone who’d left the payroll.

No, but John Durham did. And what did he find? Nothing. So little that he felt the need to prosecute a couple of really flimsy cases just so people would stop saying, "Wait, what the hell have you been doing for years?"

[defaultdotxbe]

That the IRS applies different rules to itself than it applies to everyone else is not a shocking revelation.

[Mr. Bumble]

That would go for government agencies at all levels.

[OtisAH]

The IRS follows the same federal document retention regulations all federal agencies follow. They don’t have their own rules. They keep records as they’re required by law.

[Gandydancer]

In your world government employees do what the regs say they ought to do.

Is the color of the sky there blue?

In that alternate universe did Clinton not run a private server or at least not assign to unvetted "lawyer" cronies the task of deciding what classified and other material to print and turn over or destroy?

[OtisAH]

You’re a useless moron.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know what the specifics are on the IRS story you linked, but I do know a biased source when I see one.

As to the CNBC clickbait you pointed out, you once again didn't bother to see what any other sources say, and didn't bother to connect it to your current conspiracy theory!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Every source that publishes a story contrary to your doctrine is a biased site. Keeps you from having to address substance.

Meanwhile the sites on your team are openly and proudly biased and you’ve got no problem with them.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read the CNBC story? I did, since I was looking for other points of view on the IRS story.

The IRS destroyed data for an estimated 30 million filers in March 2021, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
The decision, prompted by a backlog of paper filings, has sparked anger in the tax community.

"Missing information returns can cause a “mismatch” at the IRS, delaying refunds because the agency can’t verify details on a taxpayer’s returns..."

1) it's not relevant to his thesis. But by god he'll make it fit! 2) it has no evidence of anything untoward, just a prioritization decision based on lack of resources. There is no requirement being broken, and nothing being covered up.

[Gandydancer]

So you say. But storage is cheap. This "prioritization" excuse is too well-worn and shabby to make the default to be believing it if there are alternatives. See, e.g., not prosecuting wetbacks.

[Sarcastr0]

storage is cheap

This is wrong.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and why is it wrong? What is your expertise on the subject?

[Sarcastr0]

Because it's a line item in my agency's budget, which means it ain't peanuts.

Not going to doxx myself, but check out NARA's budget:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/foia-audit/foia/2022-03-11/us-national-archives-nara-budget-30-year-flatline

The National Declassification Center was established during the Obama administration to streamline the declassification process and improve the release of historically valuable permanent records. It is responsible for processing tens of millions of pages, many requiring declassification processing and/or review annually, and developing processes to review more than *198,000 cubic feet* of classified paper records

Not cheap.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, that's the usual failure to comprehend scale, like thinking the US has a long border with Mexico, when it's actually a fraction of an inch per citizen.

NARA deals with a cubic inch of documents per American. It's terrifying! Not.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you're being irresponsible with taxpayer money.

It's not the efficiency, it's the absolute outlay that's what matters here.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bevis — Folks with standards for what constitutes, "substance," do not encounter the same problems with prejudice as folks who are out looking for specific content, first and foremost. The latter are particularly likely to be tripped up by algorithms programmed to figure out what they want, and give them plenty of it.

[DaveM]

Actually that was precisely the point I was attempting to make: the federal government may have strict retention policies, but their IT infrastructure is such a mixed bag that their ability to actually execute on those policies is often questionable.

The destruction of the Lerner tapes and the 7 hard drives was either completely legit or an accident, I'm sure. :raised_eyebrows:

[John F. Carr]

When I worked for a large public corporation our policy was to delete email from company servers after a very short period, like 30 or 90 days. As a target for lawsuits we did not want incriminating information to hang around. Keeping highly replicated full backups for years and years would defeat the purpose of the policy. Source code and product design documents were separate and I never learned the backup policy for those.

Thirty years ago backups were offline magnetic tapes holding the entire contents of a server. Now backups are bookkeeping entries on replicated volumes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Strange. None of the companies I've worked at have been doing that. Maybe I just don't work for people who would be producing incriminating information in the first place? So they don't have to worry about it?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, you are completely out to lunch on private company data retention. For at least 40 years that I know of, private records management has been an alternative (and typically better paying) career path for professionally trained archivists. It is their job to be sure that if the law requires a document be there, it is, along with the critical trade secrets. Everything else is gone, thrown out on a rigid schedule to make sure no can say there was purposeful destruction of specific data.

[Absaroka]

Well, I worked for the gov, and we went to a lot of trouble to only retain email for 2 weeks (vs everything else that we kept for years). It wasn't because we were trying to hide anything, it was because the number of FOIA requests was increasing exponentially, as in over just a couple of years we went from the sysadmins just handle the occasional request to having multiple full time staff doing nothing but FOIA. You may think paying for a sizable department dedicated to FOIA is a wise expenditure of tax money, but I don't.

(to answer the question of what caused the increase, I dunno. I say them in the onesy-twosey days, usually from newspapers. When the number blew up, other people started doing them, so I dunno what a typical request would be. At least in the onesy days, we didn't charge for them - dunno if the statue allows for recovering costs)

[Sarcastr0]

My agency does nothing like that with it’s e-mails. At least not at my lower level office

[John F. Carr]

When I worked for a large company that had been sued, we had strict rules. At small companies we used Google and we could keep or delete anything.

Slack's premium service has a setting to ensure record retention compliance in highly regulated industries. Ordinary users can not delete anything beyond the ability of company lawyers to recover.

[Gandydancer]

When I worked for UPS they had exactly such an anti-retention policy. Whatever the provenance of this "7 years" number, it obviously doesn't generally apply to mere emails.

[Gandydancer]

From DaveM's link: "...around ten years ago, data retention laws in the United States were updated to include ‘electronic’ communications such as email messages and email attachments." So my experience may not reflect current law.

[Bob from Ohio]

"IRS regulations are to retain email for 7 years."

No such regulation.

[DaveM]

I found this site to be a nice overview of the regulations regarding email retention: https://www.hipaajournal.com/email-retention-requirements/

[David Bremer]

Sorry, you're going to need to provide an actual citation to the regulation, not some random website that asserts it without any citation for support.

Frankly, the site doesn't even make sense. It says IRS regulations require 7 years, but all sorts of other agencies require less than that. But those regulations would be meaningless if the IRS already requires seven years.

If you think there's an actual regulation on this, cite it.

[OtisAH]

The article refers solely to email retention requirements.

As for statutes, the fourth paragraph in the article will get you started.

“For years, U.S groups have already been obligated to store documents. Document retention laws are incorporated in several legislative acts such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Executive Order 11246 of 1965, the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and the Reform and Control Act of 1986; however, around ten years ago, data retention laws in the United States were updated to include ‘electronic’ communications such as email messages and email attachments.”

[David Bremer]

But that doesn't tell us anything. It could just say that companies must retain data under certain circumstances. It doesn't say anything about minimum requirements, whether it applies to all data, or anything else. That blog isn't much better than a Reddit post by someone who has a passing knowledge of some parts of the law.

By comparison, there specific SEC regulations that address document retention policies: 17 C.F.R. § 240.17a-4 .

[OtisAH]

It tells you everything. You just can’t be arsed to follow that information to the answers you want. Much easier to just keep “asking questions” and asking others to provide the answers for you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm wondering how many archival thumbdrives were downloaded by subversive conservatives. Or what the 14 "whistleblowing" FBI agents have to say.

It should be an interesting January.

[OtisAH]

Fetch is not happening, Brett.

[Nige]

Amazing how you’re suddenly willing to join in accusing this guy, out of nowhere, of underhanded behaviour purely because Musk and Taibbi decided to make him the main character on twitter to feed all the happy conspiracy heads who convinced themselves the twitter files were full of things that just weren’t there.

[Brett Bellmore]

Largely because he ended up at Twitter because of being fired for underhanded behavior at the FBI.

[Nige]

So the FBI behaves underhandedly AND fires people for doing the underhanded stuff pick a story and stick with it Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

That the FBI behaves underhandedly is pretty much the conclusion of every warm body that has glanced in their direction since the days of Hoover, Nige. Being caught behaving underhandedly towards the President does tend to get you fired anyway.

[Nige]

Certainly defenders of the president will say literally anything about you if you come in any way near the orbit of their mythology.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wait, are you actually going to claim that the FBI behaving unethically is some kind of "mythology"? Hoover literally kept blackmail files on politicians in his office! I assure you they weren't all Republican politicians, either.

[Nige]

No, the 'behaving underhandedly towards the President' mythology.

[Gandydancer]

That your determined ignorance (about, e.g., the Russia Russia Russia Hoax) is invincible is no reason for anyone else's to be, you laughable clown..

[Nige]

Brett keeps saying stuff about this guy that turn out to be lies, you're applauding them like a seal at a sushi restaurant after they've been shown to be lies, laughable is right.

[Sarcastr0]

he ended up at Twitter because of being fired for underhanded behavior at the FBI.

Maybe go into a bit more detail on this story, Brett? You seem to be basing a great deal on it, maybe you should examine it.

[Gandydancer]

See Armchair Lawyer's post upthread for another recitation of the facts about Baker.

YOUR determined ignorance is no reason for anyone ELSE to review their recollection of events.

[Sarcastr0]

You mean the post that links to a Hill post that doesn't mention Baker? I did see it.

I'm not sure you did!

[David Nieporent]

He. Wasn't. Fired. From. The. FBI.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And Nixon wasn't convicted of impeachment either.

Timing is everything. "You can't fire me! I quit first!"

[Kazinski]

No he wasn't fired. He resigned from the FBI after he was investigated for leaking classified information to reporters, and losing his gig as General Counsel and being reassigned.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/politics/fbi-officials-lisa-page-james-baker-resign/index.html

[Gandydancer]

Do you think Nieporent didn't know that perfectly well before lying about it?

[Sarcastr0]

James A. Baker, the former general counsel for the FBI and one of former FBI Director James Comey’s closest advisers, also resigned Friday, according to a source familiar with Baker’s departure. A second source familiar with Baker’s thinking said his departure was unrelated to Page’s resignation and that hers came as a surprise to him. He left the FBI voluntarily, according to a person familiar with his departure.

Read the links, Gandy. Before you call someone a liar. Makes you look like less of a dumbass.

[Kazinski]

Was he “reassigned” out of his General Counsel position before he ‘voluntarily’ resigned? Clearly he had recently been demoted.

I cited a CNN article that said he was. That was a link.

Lisa Page voluntarily resigned too, but it doesn’t mean there wasn’t a hammer falling.

[Sarcastr0]

Clearly, you need a better link if you're going to try and back up your statement: "He resigned from the FBI after he was investigated for leaking classified information to reporters, and losing his gig as General Counsel and being reassigned."

The only mention of him in your link is what I quoted. Which falls way short of what you claim. In fact, it says Lisa Page's resignation was not related.

[Kazinski]

“Baker will be going to Lawfare, a national security blog affiliated with the Brookings Institution. He was tapped as the FBI’s top lawyer in January 2014, but was reassigned from his post as general counsel elsewhere in the agency last year.“

[Brett Bellmore]

There are a short list of crimes that will cancel the vesting of your federal pension if you're convicted. One of them is leaking classified information, which is what Baker was under criminal investigation for doing when he 'voluntarily' resigned.

The resignation resulted in the criminal investigation being dropped, saving his pension.

[Nige]

What criminal investigation? How can resigning cause a criminal investigation to be dropped?

[Sarcastr0]

What Nige said. You point to a reg about federal pensions. I think that's the only new fact you had, so you bridged the gap with some unsourced ipse dixit.

[Sarcastr0]

Baker comes from a government environment, where data retention has been replaced by evidence destruction.

Did he have long enough to compromise the backups, or do the emails he ‘curated’ away still exist in accessible form? I expect we’ll find out in the next few days.

You're fucking nuts. The government doesn't work like that. There is no evidence Baker did anything like that, at twitter or the FBI, and you're just writing a novel.

People I know do records retention for the government. They take their jobs seriously. You can fuck yourself with your nonsense fantasies about what the government keeping stuff from the public.

[Nige]

It's astonishing that Taibbi and Musk just threw him out as red meat to the right and they're gobbling it right up. They did the same thing by including third party e-mails, e-mail adresses, the names of low-level irrelevant employees, just, fuck 'em, let the right-wing mob who believe the most bizarre shit at 'em, they'll love Musk for it.

[David Nieporent]

It’s astonishing that Taibbi and Musk just threw him out as red meat to the right and they’re gobbling it right up.

Josh Marshall described it as the "Trump/RussiaRussia/Greenwald/EliLake cinematic universe."

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1600289903094292481?s=46&t=UDfKhpcc805HtkB2l35Hpg

[Gandydancer]

Your little mutual masturbation society isn't even amusing.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you ever have anything to post but insults and nasty cheerleading?

[not guilty]

Gandydancer can't help it. The Dunning-Kruger effect can be a bitch.

[David Nieporent]

but Baker comes from a government environment, where data retention has been replaced by evidence destruction.

You are utterly delusional.

[Frank Drackman]

So who's the Lesbian to be named later in the big US/Russia Trade??
You know Senescent J wishes they would have taken Common-Law Harris.

Frank

[MoreCurious]

You're a pig, Drackman. I know the common advice is to ignore uneducated, inarticulate bigots like you, but sometimes silence can be misinterpreted as agreement. It's a mystery why the administrators of this site fail to ban you.

[Ed Grinberg]

If Prof. Volokh were to take a poll, I'd vote to ban anyone who, like yourself, has called for another commenter to be banned.

[Mr. Bumble]

Control freaks gotta control.

[Ed Grinberg]

compare:
https://www.revolver.news/2022/12/a-grinch-is-trying-to-steal-revolver-news/
same idea: It isn't enough for her to "mute" them (i.e., not go to their website, unsubscribe from their emails, etc.); she wants to prevent others from hearing / reading them.

[Reallynotbob]

No, no, no, your position is that everyone has to tolerate the intolerant. Keep it straight.

[shawn_dude]

Reason is a rage farm. He's here to ensure the clicks continue.

[Kazinski]

Rage farm?

Its and Volokh especially is known as one of the most civil places on the internet, at least where there is an idealogical mix.

Its a lot easier to be civil when there is no diversity of opinion.

[santamonica811]

MC,
Just mute him, as I did (he's one of only 3 where I've done this). Life is too short to deal with the annoyance of another Russian bot. It's made my VC reading 11.3% more enjoyable. 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

A Mystery, Inside an enigma, wrapped by a riddle, like a Chink.
And before you erase me like Trotsky, that's from the very articulate, ed-jew-ma-cated Author Pat Controy's novel, "The Great Santini". Where I come from you're not considered literate if you don't reference it daily.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

By raising the price (and hence availability) of legal representation beyond the ability of the middle class to pay, the legal profession is slowly making itself irrelevant to the larger society that it purports to serve.

There will be a tipping point -- I am of the opinion sooner than later -- because those who don't benefit from the "rule of law" aren't going to support the "rule of law" in general.

[Illocust]

We have an over abundance of lawyers at the moment, so I don't think this will be an issue any time soon. Middle class can't afford the big law firms, but there are plenty of intentionally cheap ones out there now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No there aren't -- most either aren't practicing or do what I call "boilerplate" law -- OUI defense, Slip & Fall, Discrimination, etc.

It has become very expensive for a young lawyer to hang out a shingle -- there is malpractice insurance, LEXIS access and a variety of other expenses. (The days of reading the law books in the county law library are long gone.)

You have got to have $50,000-$100,000 in cash for a retainer, and very few people have that.

[Illocust]

Hmmmm, I don't know enough about the subject to see if the overabundance of personal injury lawyers has had a depressive effect on the costs of other types of lawyers, so I will bow out.

[CFred]

We have several smallish legal firms in my area. They all advertise themselves to be DWI, MVA, personal injury, etc specialists. Not a single one sells itself on the general, every day legal services most people need (will, deeds, starting LLC, zoning, etc).

[jb]

This is a weird comment thread. Has anyone here actually tried to hire a lawyer for a relatively straightforward commercial or personal legal matter? It's not hard, and retainers are more like single digit thousands of dollars.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've gotta break it to you: Single digit thousands of dollars for straightforward transactions, like the uncontested divorce that financially ruined me back in the late 90's, (My ex only hurt me financially, it was my own attorney who put the real hurt on me.) is insane. It's the sort of prices they can only maintain by having established artificial scarcity and a monopoly.

[jb]

Sure, thousands of dollars is a lot. But it's not like there was ever an era in which lawyers got paid like McDonald's employees, and I'm not even sure (in that I have seen no evidence one way or the other) that legal rates are rising faster than the rate of inflation.

My overall point, though, was that Dr. Ed 2's story is a fantasy. Lawyers are not hard to find and they do not require six digit retainers as a general rule.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"in that I have seen no evidence one way or the other"

Only because you haven't looked.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/Legal-services/price-inflation#:~:text=Prices%20for%20Legal%20Services%2C%201986,rate%20of%203.91%25%20per%20year.

[David Nieporent]

Single digit thousands of dollars for straightforward transactions ... is insane.

The expensive machine in the factory stops working, and nobody can get it started. So they call in a repairman. He walks over and examines it for a few minutes, pulls out a hammer, and whacks it. It starts back up again. The factory owner is effusively grateful, until the repairman hands him a bill for $25,050. Then he's outraged. "What? $25,050 for hitting it with a hammer?" The repairman responds, "No, $50 for hitting it with a hammer. $25,000 for knowing where to hit it."

There are two people for whom it looks "straightforward," Brett: the expert, and the person who doesn't know anything. Which were you in the transaction?

[Mr. Bumble]

That's why the HVAC repairman cost you $350. Next time fix it yourself.

[David Nieporent]

My time is more valuable. Comparative advantage.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You got ripped off, if it was really $350 for just one hour.

https://www.angi.com/articles/how-much-hvac-repair-cost.htm

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So they call in a repairman. He walks over and examines it for a few minutes, pulls out a hammer, and whacks it. It starts back up again. The factory owner is effusively grateful, until the repairman hands him a bill for $25,050. Then he’s outraged. “What? $25,050 for hitting it with a hammer?” The repairman responds, “No, $50 for hitting it with a hammer. $25,000 for knowing where to hit it.”"

This parable would be much less effective if the repairman whacked the machine and it didn't start, and the repairman still handed the factory owner the large bill. That seems to be the situation Brett is describing.

[ducksalad]

To be fair, I think the real issue is the abundance of paperwork and process required. I'd certainly charge even more for an equal number of pages of engineering drawings, and some of those are "boilerplate" just like they are for the lawyer.

Now of course you could respond that the gobsmacking paperwork requirements are also created by lawyers, perhaps even motivated in part by a desire to collectively enrich the profession. But that's a separate issue.

[Gandydancer]

“…the gobsmacking paperwork requirements are also created BY LAWYERS, perhaps even motivated in part by a desire to collectively enrich the profession. But that’s a separate issue.”

Doesn’t sound like a “separate issue” to me.

Review: “By raising the price (and hence availability) of legal representation beyond the ability of the middle class to pay, THE LEGAL PROFESSION is slowly making itself irrelevant to the larger society that it purports to serve.”

What were you imagining "the issue" was?

[John F. Carr]

Twenty years ago I advanced a thousand dollars for a threatening letter with more to come if litigation followed.

Some companies offer legal aid programs for employees where routine matters like wills are free or cheap. They can help the whole family. If your employer doesn't have one marry somebody whose employer does.

[Gandydancer]

When I was in a union my mother died intestate and my union’s legal insurance plan was supposed to cover most of the cost of the the lawyer for that. Then he decided, when a court date had been assigned, that I should pay the much higher legal fee in CA law (a percentage of the estate, iirc) despite our contract to the contrary. The union successfully reined him in, but my conviction that lawyers were crooks was pretty firmly established by then.

[Michael D]

I have to agree

[Absaroka]

"Has anyone here actually tried to hire a lawyer for a relatively straightforward commercial or personal legal matter?"

We've been lucky enough to only hire lawyers for wills and real estate stuff. The wills, for example, weren't just boilerplate 'leave it all to the kids', because we don't have kids. My sense was that the actual $$/hour were about what local plumbers charge. Maybe they were double that, it's hard to say. We also sat down for a couple of hours with an elder care attorney for one of those 'let's see if we should hire you' discussions, and got a clear enough explanation that we decided we had no need to hire them. That was free.

My heart really goes out to people who are unlucky enough to need $X00,000 in legal representation. I'm kind of surprised there isn't legit insurance for that, like dental insurance. But I haven't found that run of the mill legal stuff is any less affordable than mechanics, plumbers, or electricians.

[bernard11]

I’m kind of surprised there isn’t legit insurance for that

You'd have massive problems with both moral hazard and adverse selection.

Litigious type? Buy insurance. Suspect you're going to get sued? Buy insurance.

[santamonica811]

I used to date a German citizen. There was legal insurance, and one could buy a policy at a few different levels. (This was 15+ years ago, and I think higher premiums meant coverage for more types of cases. This person was also a lawyer, but there wasn't a question about whether or not to buy the insurance...it's just what people did.)

I always thought that it was a product that should be here in America. I'm obviously not the first person to think of this. So, the fact that it doesn't exist (the coverage was quite different from the various forms of liability insurance we have here in the States, which often do cover defense legal costs for covered cases, of course) tells me that there is some market reason why it's not practical. Maybe because, in the vast majority of cases here, it's not "loser pays"? Maybe because potential damages are so much higher here?? Not sure.

[Reallynotbob]

I think (but do not know) that it's the "American rule" against fee shifting. If the loser likely pays, then insurance companies or other litigants have some alignment in resolving the case accurately or cheaply. In our system, the presence of a pot of insurance money but no fee shifting incentivizes strike suits.

So my guess is that in Germany the insurer can underwrite against the overall stability of the tort environment together with the specifics of the insured. In the US the insurer has to underwrite against the potential volume of strike suits with no meaningful opportunity for recovery, and that's more costly.

Anyone know the actual answer?

[Dr. Ed 2]

American law requires that all law firms be owned by lawyers -- and insurance is a product offered by companies run by actuaries. And I believe accounting firms are required to be run by CPAs.

It is my understanding that this prohibits such an insurance arrangement here -- I may be wrong though.

[David Nieporent]

I may be wrong though.

Oh, that's overdetermined.

[bernard11]

There is no reason that would prohibit such insurance. Those companies all have various types of insurance.

[bernard11]

I would be curious as to what the coverage actually was, and how it differed from things like auto liability insurance here. Also, what the German legal environment is like.

I'd be very surprised if asymmetric information problems were not a big reason we don't have this. Very large tort awards are another issue that might it hard to price such policies.

[Reallynotbob]

But there is. D&O insurance usually covers business owners separately from the entity's liability. For professionals there are malpractice lines. Business lines of insurance usually have duty to defend provisions that allow the insurer to pay for the defense and hire the attorney for the defendant business.

Fraud allegations usually aren't covered, but the duty to defend often kicks in up to the point fraud is actually adjudicated. If the business really gets hammered, it can usually go to Chapter 7 or 11 and leave the human being owners unscathed. (The owners end up getting whacked by the bank that just got stuck with $X of discharged debt, and decide to enforce the owners' personal guaranties.)

On the plaintiff side, $100,000 in fees is no man's land. It implies a case not big enough to justify contingency, but it's way too big for most people to fund hourly. Reforms could help with this (fee shifting provisions; enhanced deceptive trade practices rights; more private rights of action for regulatory breaches; etc) but that's the last thing the pro-business lobbies want so they make sure to pop some poison pill provisions in any effort that gets legs.

TL;dr it's not the lawyers who won't take those cases. It's structural obstacles in the law that effectively exclude "mere" six-figure business chicanery from being economic for small players to prosecute.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"duty to defend provisions that allow the insurer to pay for the defense and hire the attorney for the defendant"

I believe that auto insurance is the same way for personal injury liability.

But the important point is the "...hire the attorney for the defendant." which is a LOT more expensive than having the attorney on staff.

[Gandydancer]

Not sure what "legit" is supposed to mean. See immediately above for my experience with the lawyer that legal insurance got me. (The monthly deduction was cheap, and in the end proved cost-effective, but I don't think I was necessarily typical in my ability to resist exploitation.)

[Jmaie]

I needed power of attorney to handle my brother's affairs, tried an on-line referral service and the quote was $3,500. A friend has a guy, said he could do it for $500. Then I did a little research and found out I could print out a form and hire a mobile notary. Cost was $55.

I shudder at the thought of finding an attorney to handle something actually complicated...

[YepThatGuy]

While I don't disagree with your basic premise (attorneys are expensive), I have far more clients whose advance payments are <$10k than ones who have paid a $50k+ retainer or advance. We have a number of big business clients and our rates certainly aren't cheap, but for the majority of the work a small business (even a sole proprietorship) would need, we are absolutely affordable.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you think <10K is chump change for most people?

[jb]

It's almost as if people are responding to a specific nonsense claim made by Dr. Ed 2 and not arguing that attorneys are cheap.

[YepThatGuy]

I now understand where the frequent attacks on your reading comprehension skills come from.

[Frank Drackman]

Sadly, with Senescent J's inflation, it will be soon. With the decline of cash, he'll be spared the embarrassment of peoples pushing shopping carts filled with worthless dollars.

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed pretends to be employed in some capacity — likely maintenance — at a university, and acts as if this gives him the ability to speak authoritatively about higher education. He does not claim to be a lawyer, but still acts as if he can speak authoritatively about the legal industry.

I would love to collect $100,000 for retainers. But if I did that, I would collect $0 for retainers, because clients can't afford that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe you're a crappy lawyer beside being a pompous twit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“Dr. Ed pretends to be employed in some capacity — likely maintenance — at a university…”

Exactly what is dishonorable about maintenance? Electricity is nice to have, as is steam (used for *both* heat & air conditioning), as is drinking water, and it’s always great fun when a river of raw sewerage is running across the lawn (and into basements) because of a clogged or collapsed line. Yes, I’ve worked with all four (and more) at various universiti while earning for my various degrees — and your issue IS???

You remind me of the administrator I had to remind that a steam pipe is upwards of 600 degrees, at least 300 degrees, and that water boils at only 212 degrees — and that pipes that hot have to cool down before guys can work on them. And hence it WOULD take a couple of hours to swap out one valve, which itself *would* only take a few minutes...

I will ignore the rest of your ad hominum but exactly what is wrong with working maintenance?

[David Nieporent]

Nothing is wrong with working maintenance. It just doesn't mesh with claims of expertise in how academic institutions work.

[Gandydancer]

You obviously missed the "while earning for my various degrees" bit, which implies considerable experience with some aspects of "how academic institutions work". Do you have any particular examples of his alleged errors in understanding "how academic institutions work" or is suppositive ad hom all you've got?

[John F. Carr]

What is wrong?

"A high maintenance woman don't want no maintenance man." – Toby Keith

[Reallynotbob]

I'll represent you, Ed. Our retainers are way less. Of course, you also have to have a good claim so I can offer you contingency or a hybrid deal.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you are in Massachusetts, please send contact info to Prof. Voloch.

[Ben_]

Small businesses can either take the chance of losing a lot of money by not hiring an attorney, or hire an attorney and be absolutely certain to lose at least a moderate amount of money.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lack of a loser pays systems makes it certain you will always be out of pocket.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't know how valid they are, but starting in the late '80s, one has been able to buy "boilerplate" legal forms for most of the routine legal matters that small business encounters.

[Moderation4ever]

I would think a big part of the problem is the price of law school. Lawyers has so much invested in their education they need to get a return on their investment. I am also surprised by the number of people with law degrees I see in other professions. This tells me that being a lawyer is not as good a job as a person might think.

[bernard11]

That's a good example of the sunk cost fallacy, ISTM.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not really. In this case, the entire cost has been paid. They aren't paying "more" to keep going (which is the sunk cost fallacy)

Rather they are charging higher rates because of their previous costs.

[bernard11]

It is a fallacy regardless.

Setting your price based on your investment is a mistake.

That you paid $250K on your legal education rather than $100K shouldn't influence your rates, unless you think the school you went to makes your services more attractive to customers.

They should be set based on market conditions, with the intent of maximizing cash flow, though I imagine many lawyers operate in a fairly competitive market, so tend to be price takers.

[David Nieporent]

Setting your price based on your investment is a mistake.

That you paid $250K on your legal education rather than $100K shouldn’t influence your rates, unless you think the school you went to makes your services more attractive to customers.

That's not quite right. It influences — at least if you borrowed money to pay for said education — whether you can practice law at all. If the going market price for your services is too low to allow you to service your loans, you can't stay in business at all.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That’s not quite right. It influences — at least if you borrowed money to pay for said education — whether you can practice law at all. If the going market price for your services is too low to allow you to service your loans, you can’t stay in business at all."

Sunk cost fallacy. Your ability to service your student loans shouldn't affect your ability to stay in business.

bernard11 is correct, you set your price to maximize your profit, regardless of costs.

Investment costs indirectly affect price, in that they constrain supply.

[bernard11]

My point is that you can charge a certain rate and no more, no matter what you paid. It's basically market-driven. No one is going to pay you a premium because you spent $250K rather than $100K.

If you can't charge enough to repay your loans you made a bad investment, but so did the lawyer who paid cash, because he's not getting a sensible return either, even if he an afford to practice.

Of course this looks at the financial picture only. If it is important to you, for other reasons, to practice law then you are correct.

[David Nieporent]

Sunk cost fallacy. Your ability to service your student loans shouldn’t affect your ability to stay in business.

Um, what? If you can't make enough to service your loans, you will, to use a technical term, starve to death. The alternative is to find a new line of work that pays more.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Market prices are based partially upon investment costs, in any given industry. Let's use a different example.

Imagine a toll bridge, with limited capacity (limited number of people/day). The bridge operator takes out a loan to build the bridge. The costs the bridge operator charges must at least cover the cost of the loan (investment costs) and the cost of operating and maintaining the bridge (labor costs) in order to stay in business. Failure to do so leads to collapse of the bridge company.

Let's extend this. Given enough business/traffic, multiple companies can build multiple bridges. They all must also be able to cover the cost of both operating/maintaining the bridge and the loan payments (investment) on the bridge, by charging high enough rates.

[bernard11]

Market prices are based partially upon investment costs, in any given industry.

You have causation backwards. Investment decisions are driven by (expected) market prices.

In your example, the cost of building the bridge has nothing to do with the willingness of drivers to use it (except to the extent that they believe the bridge is sound). But your decision to build it - and your investors'/lenders' willingness to finance it - depend on how much drivers will pay.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Prices, in any industry, depend on supply and demand.

Investment costs affect supply. In fairness to your point, they don't affect demand. But they do affect supply, which affects prices.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"This tells me that being a lawyer is not as good a job as a person might think."

I gave Jonah Goldberg a ride to the airport one morning after he had spoken at UMass -- back when he was an editor at National Review.

One thing he told me was that every Monday morning, he had lawyers calling him who wanted to quit practicing law and instead work for him -- except that none could afford the pay cut when he told them about that.

[Tallman]

Coupled with the legal marketplace becomming static + more law schools comming online.

I tell college kids to avoid law school unless they really want to be lawyers for some reason.

[Kazinski]

I realized that when I worked for a government owned utility where everyone's salary was public information.

They had about a half dozen lawyers on staff and my salary in IT was higher than most of them. I was also pretty competitive with most superior court judges, and that's a pretty sought after gig.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" There will be a tipping point — I am of the opinion sooner than later "

Dr. Ed foresees tipping points everywhere.

And violent uprisings . . . and Second Amendment solutions . . .

Because he is a disaffected, desperate, delusional culture war casualty.

And the target audience of a white, male, right-wing blog that flatters bigots and gun nuts, among other losers in modern America.

Carry on, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, yeah, Klingers, Males, Guns, Nuts,
speaking of Nuts, you have trouble getting Tamsulosin in the joint?
I mean next to the Purple Drank, Cell Block Hooch, and T's and Blues, BPH meds gotta be worth their weight in gold.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, as to 2nd Amendment solutions -- https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2022/12/06/was-shakespeare-right-should-we-kill-all-the-lawyers/

[grb]

Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland : "Dr. Ed foresees tipping points everywhere"

And that's why we call him Nostradamus Ed - because he's sired scores of apocalyptic visions & dystopian futures. Chicken Little has nothing on our Ed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You may call him Nostradamus Ed. The Volokh Conspiracy calls him "our people."

[Dr. Ed 2]

About 1996, I told one of the local off-campus reporters that I thought UMass would soon have riots. Four years later (and for the following dozen years) it did, the worst being in 2004 when the Red Sox won the World Series.

Ed Was Right....

And some of the other stuff about higher ed is being said by people far more famous than I. For example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2018/12/13/will-half-of-all-colleges-really-close-in-the-next-decade/?sh=848d26452e55

And the demographics -- the children not born in 2008 not turning 18 in 2026 and the rest -- are all vital statistics that anyone can look up. Understanding enrollment management is a little more complicated, but, still...

[not me]

And back in April 2020 he predicted that if the lockdowns weren't lifted within weeks, the people would be violating those orders and protesting in the streets.
The lockdowns weren't lifted.
The people were in the streets.
He didn't say *which* people.

[grb]

I know there was one stretch where Ed predicted (1) The Second American Civil War, (2) crash and decimation of the world economy, and (3) nuclear holocaust. These were supposed to be independent occurrences, though it’s possible Ed saw each new prediction superseding the one before.

All were to be the fault of Democrats and – since none happened – I guess the Dems saved the day in the end.

[David Bremer]

As I tell people, it's not that lawyers are expensive. For most lawyers, their billable rates aren't all that much higher than plumbers or other professionals. It's that litigation is time consuming.

Any project that requires a professional to spend hundreds or thousands of hours will be expensive. If painting your house required 1,000 man-hours, it would cost a couple hundred thousand to have it done too.

If you want to cut down the cost of litigation, you need to find ways to make resolving disputes faster. Unfortunately, those things tend to be the items that clients don't want to do.

[Brett Bellmore]

My divorce papers consisted of 5 pages of generic boiler plate with names, addresses, and dates swapped. It did NOT require thousands of man hours. Or hundreds. Maybe ten, if you include showing up at the actual hearing. It still cost me close to $10K.

Probably because I'd confided my intention to kill myself after the divorce was complete to the attorney, and she saw no point in leaving any money to my estate.

[David Bremer]

I am betting that your lawyer would have a much different take. I bet that there were probably multiple calls with you or the other side, negotiation or some provision or another, follow up clarification, responding to your calls for updates, then going to the court (and possibly waiting through other hearings), then following up with you when the order came in.

It doesn't take long before you're suddenly talking 30 hours of time from open to close. At $275/hour (which is quite reasonable), and figuring you probably had several hundred in filing fees and other costs, you'd be at "close to $10K."

[Brett Bellmore]

$275 an hour only appears reasonable in a market with artificial scarcity.

[Ridgeway]

If it was so simple, you should have done it pro se.

[David Nieporent]

$275 an hour only appears reasonable in a market with artificial scarcity.

There is no "scarcity" in the legal profession.

How much do you think other service workers charge? I just had a guy come out for my HVAC (A/C unit in basement was leaking). He spent about an hour and charged about $350. (That was labor, not parts; it turned out there was a blockage somewhere that he was able to clear.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

Educate yourself.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/blog/curiosity/how-do-we-resolve-rural-lawyer-shortage

[bernard11]

The usual reason fro a shortage is price. Some would go so far as to say there is no such thing as a shortage, only a shortage at a price.

That's to strong, IMO, but it seems to me that the way to get more lawyers to practice in rural areas is to make it more attractive, financially or otherwise.

How to do that I don't know.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If you have a shortage, increase the supply.

One way to increase the supply, is to reduce the cost to produce the "product". In this case, reduce the cost of a legal education to produce a lawyer.

[David Bremer]

Educate yourself. From the link:

"What we’re seeing is that young lawyers are not as interested as prior generations were in going to rural places.”

There's not a shortage of lawyers. It's that the lawyers don't want to go there. And having grown up in a small town and started out a small-town lawyer, I can tell you that I understand why not (low pay, unexciting work, not a lifestyle I desired, etc.). It's for the same reasons that of professionals are disappearing from small towns.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That's a shortage of lawyers. If you have enough lawyers, they will take the work that is "low pay" in "unexciting locations". Because, it's a job.

Realistically, the cost of legal services has outpaced the cost of inflation over the last 30 years. Typically when costs go up like that, it's because the supply isn't great enough, and isn't keeping up with demand. i.e., a shortage

[Sarcastr0]

AL, how many different ways can people tell you it's more complicated than your high school microeconomics supply/demand curve before you get a clue?

[Don Nico]

Let's get practical Brett.
For a lawyer in a firm that provides benefits, your $275/hr actually amount to about $130/hr in pay to the lawyer.
Compare that with Grade 4 engineers and your see that the lawyer is not getting that much money in his/her pocket

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, and if non-lawyers could own law firms, a venture capitalist would pay the lawyer at $150 and bill him/her/it at $175 -- and still make money.

This would all be feasible -- but for the ban on non-lawyers owning law firms. There are no WalMarts in Switzerland for the same reason -- the Swiss require all retail sales workers to be apprenticed.

So the Swiss go shopping in Germany....

[Don Nico]

Which has to do what with the price of gas?

[bernard11]

This is utter nonsense, Ed.

Why would the VC have any sort of advantage over the current owners - the partners, I suppose?

How does the VC pay $150, plus benefits, plus the costs of running the firm, and make money billing work out at $175? Do VC's get free rent and telephones or something?

[Gandydancer]

He said "pay the lawyer at $150", not $150 plus benefits. How much is rent and telephones PER HOUR, btw? $175/hr seems a bit thin (although "billable hours" can be somewhat unrelated the time between punch-in and punch-out, so there's that) but the space between $175 and $350 is considerable.

[bernard11]

My impression is that we have a surfeit of lawyers - a glut rather than a scarcity.

[Gandydancer]

Then what is YOUR explanation of why they aren't more affordable?

[Don Nico]

" At $275/hour (which is quite reasonable)"
Which is cheap

[Noscitur a sociis]

If the job was so simple, why did you hire a lawyer in the first place?

[Brett Bellmore]

Might have had something to do with my suicidal depression, since I was capable of handling that sort of thing in a normal frame of mind.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Was talking to another lawyer about valuing "knowledge work" and how people outside the specialized field don't always see a value. In his story an estate lawyer drafted a will for a mechanic friend free of charge. Took a couple hours. Later the lawyer brings his car into the same mechanic, and the mechanic charges full price. The mechanic didn't see it as an exchange of favors because he didn't see the value in all the knowledge and training it took to get the lawyer to do it right in a couple of hours.

There is also the joke/parable about the mechanic who charges hundreds of dollars to slightly tighten one nut, and when asked why it costs that much, the mechanic responds that the price is based on all the time it took for him to learn that the problem would be solved by tightening that one nut.

The final product might not look like much to you, but years of knowledge and training went into getting that "boilerplate" to match your case and get you a divorce, even aside from all the things the lawyer did that David mentioned.

[David Nieporent]

There is also the joke/parable about the mechanic who charges hundreds of dollars to slightly tighten one nut, and when asked why it costs that much, the mechanic responds that the price is based on all the time it took for him to learn that the problem would be solved by tightening that one nut.

Heh. We thought of the same applicable joke.

[Frank Drackman]

You friggin Poindexters,
the JOKE is that the Mechanic says he couldn't afford to take his car to the Mechanic back when HE was practicing Law,
See, the Mechanic makes more than the Layers, THAT's the Joke,
Maybe it's one of those Jokes (real) Doctors only tell to other (real) Doctors

Frank "Patients with Fibromyalgia, AIDS, and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome walk into a (Real) Doctor's Office...."

[David Nieporent]

My divorce papers consisted of 5 pages of generic boiler plate with names, addresses, and dates swapped. It did NOT require thousands of man hours. Or hundreds. Maybe ten, if you include showing up at the actual hearing. It still cost me close to $10K.

There are two possibilities:

(1) This lawyer was charging you hourly, in which case there was obviously a lot more work than you think there was.
(2) This lawyer was charging you a flat fee, in which case priced in was the possibility that there would be a lot more work (contested divorces can get messy, quickly¹) and he would have to eat all that extra time.

¹Not my field, but my S-I-L does them, so I've seen.

[Frank Drackman]

$10,000?? for a Divorce? sounds like a deal!

[not guilty]

Do you know why divorces cost so much?

Because they are worth it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Is it though?

Look at historic rates. Legal services inflation has significantly outpaced general inflation since 1984.

If you go back further, to ~1948, Lawyers were paid, (annually, on median), no more than twice the going rate for a factory worker. (~1.5 to 1.7 times). Today, it's closer to 4-5 times the annual salary.

[shawn_dude]

Since lawyers are expensive, people will abandon the law and go all Lord of the Flies because armed anarchy is cheaper.

LOL.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's already happening.

It costs $1000 (or more) to do a summary process eviction -- and you aren't going to get rid of the tenant the first try.

For half of that, you can have a few teenage thugs break into the apartment and beat up the tenants. And that is more effective....

[bernard11]

Sounds like you would have a lot more legal fees with that strategy.

What do criminal defense lawyers charge?

[OtisAH]

I think he’s right and it would be cheaper to do that. A public defender is the likely legal rep for anyone like Ed who is stupid enough to hire teenagers to commit felonies on their behalf.

[Ben_]

Residents of Illinois will have a lot more opportunities to be victims of crime next year. Illinois Democrats got rid of cash bail.

Democrats saw how they were able to make life worse for the people of New York and decided to make life worse for the people of Illinois. Non-criminal Americans will continue to move away from these places.

[apedad]

From your link:

"The new law abolishes cash bail and provides for a presumption in favor of release for misdemeanors, traffic offenses and other petty offenses, provided a defendant is not deemed a risk to the community by the arresting officer.

Kane County Chief Judge Clint Hull, a task force member, said at a July town hall that the arresting officers will maintain similar discretion as they are afforded under current law.

'Do they pose an obvious threat to the community or any person or are they a risk to… their own safety?' he said. 'In both situations, if they are, the police – despite the fact that this isn't the most serious offense – (do) have the discretion to bring that person in to try to make sure that they can identify and address that issue.'”

How will that create, "a lot more opportunities to be victims of crime next year?"

[Ben_]

Assault a victim. It’s a not a felony. Back on the street in a few hours. Assault more victims.

Steal something. Value is not enough for it to be a felony. Back on the street. Steal from the next guy. Repeat.

Police eventually stop arresting anyone for misdemeanors, because it’s pointless and they get paychecks either way. Victimization by misdemeanor crimes goes way up.

[Ben_]

Eventually we will end up going back to 1990s-style tough on crime laws as citizens get completely fed up.

[Frank Drackman]

More like 1890's with miscreants heads on pikes.

[LawTalkingGuy]

More like 1890’s with miscreants heads on pikes.

Uhhhhh what do you think the 1890s was like in the United States?

[Frank Drackman]

Like in "Tombstone", "Gunsmoke" and "Rawhide" no sympathy for criminals, but then again, I wasn't there.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, we did execute more people back then. Here is the Massachusetts list: http://www.deathpenaltyusa.org/usa1/state/massachusetts2.htm

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty sure there weren't a lot of heads on pikes in the US in the 1890's. Are you thinking the 1690's, maybe?

[Mr. Bumble]

Heads on pikes; a fine English tradition.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't think that heads on pikes ever made it to the US.

[Frank Drackman]

I didn't think "Knee-Grows hanging from Railroad Trestles" would go over as well.
Now some weisenheimer's gonna tell me we don't have Railroad Trestles anymore...

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

The "strange fruit" was not heads on pikes.

And what people forget is that were "decent" people doing this -- they would have their Sunday picnics afterwards.

Look into the origin of the Klan -- White (southern) women *were* being raped -- largely by drunken Union soldiers -- and the Army of Occupation wasn't going to do anything about that. Hence the Klan.

[Nige]

It turns out the Hertz corporation have been responsible for hundreds of people getting falsely arrested and detained, many at gunpoint, but their insurance will cover the fines and nobody there will get fired or charged. Getting tough on crime is only for poor people.

[Frank Drackman]

Except for the occasional Hunter Biden, most rich peoples aren't out committing felonies.

[Nige]

Rich people commit felonies non-stop, but that's okay, they're rich.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Nah. Rich people are pretty much like other people. They do the best they can to stay within the law because nobody wants the hassle of being arrested and the risk of being tried.

The “all rich people cheat” canard comes from people that are pissed that they’re not rich.

[Nige]

Tell that to the people arrested because of Hertz.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hertz had poor internal controls and record keeping and inventory tracking. What does that have to do with rich people?

[Nige]

Hertz paid a fine for getting people arrested - rich people's justice.

[VinniUSMC]

I have no idea what this thing about Hertz is, but did "Hertz" commit a crime? If so, what crime was committed? Who should be held responsible for it besides financially? What are you asserting should have happened instead? Be specific.

[Nige]

Look it up, then get back to me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In an ideal world, where people could obtain lawyers at reasonable prices, each and every one of those false arrests would result in a quite expensive jury judgement and Hertz would be bankrupted.

Now as to why some intrepid attorney hadn't thought of a class action suit here, that is beyond me.

[Nige]

In an ideal world the people responsible would themselves face charges.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So keep people locked up who haven't been found guilty of anything?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, like has been done since Roman times, if Mohammad Atta had been locked up for Driving without a license on September 10, 2001, history might have turned out a little differently (OK, probably we'd just be talking about "September 12, or September 13"
In face Mr. Nancy Pelosi might have an intact Cranium if a certain Ill-legal Alien had been if not deported, at least, sent back to the Great White North. You wanna let him out too??

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

If the woman working security in Portland hadn't been accused of being called a racist, she wouldn't have let him on the plane -- she didn't want to.

Described him as having the face of pure evil.

[bernard11]

Do we really want to keep people off planes because a security officer doesn't like their face?

You want to think about that?

[Ed Grinberg]

The Israeli airline El Al carefully vets the people it lets board its planes. They (gasp!) “profile” them. But hey, with our approach, at least no one gets offended! (unless you count 9/11 victims, etc.)

[bernard11]

Yes. They do.

What they don't do is let a random agent look at a passenger, decide he doesn't like their face, and keep them off the plane.

[Dr. Ed 2]

She was right....

[Frank Drackman]

Yes

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't that what is being done to the Jan. 6 individuals?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yep. And everyone crying about it specifically without advocating for large-scale change is simply special pleading for their allies. But the capitol police, prosecutors, and judges are just doing the same thing that is done day in and day out to every other defendant ever. The harsh criminal process they supported was supposed to be used against THOSE PEOPLE and it never occurred to them that police and prosecutors might think their friends violated a criminal statute one day.

[Michael P]

The people who violently rioted during Trump's inauguration were treated much more mildly than Jan 6th trespassers.

[Bob from Ohio]

The female lawyer who threw a molotov cocktail and burned a police car in NYC only got 15 months. Non-violent Capitol rioters got more, sometimes much more.

Shaman Dude got 41 months because he sat in Pelosi's chair and was according to DOJ the"public face of the riot".
Heck, Podium Guy got 75 days with no prior record for parading around.

[bernard11]

Shaman dude was carrying a spear.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean a flagpole?

[Life of Brian]

Running with the inflammatory label for the sake of argument, the new standard that will be even-handedly dispensed in protests/riots/etc. from here on is multiple years of incarceration for simply carrying a weapon?

[bernard11]

1. A flagpole itself can be a deadly weapon.

2. The difference between a flagpole with a sharpened metal point attached and a spear is hard to discern.

[bernard11]

Yeah. I think carrying a weapon while participating in a riot is a pretty serious matter.

Rioters do not usually demonstrate calm, reasonable behavior. Carrying a weapon while working yourself into a lather in the middle of an angry crowd is unwise.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Welcome to the world of the federal sentencing guidelines. The world you want, Bob.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The world you want, Bob."

I want set sentences, limited judge discretion, probation only possible for first felony.

What rational federal sentencing guidelines treats throwing a molotov cocktail and destroying a police car as less serious than having a [sorta] spear you don't use? She got a sweetheart deal.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s almost like decades of right-wing tough-on-crime legal culture giving lots of unaccountable power and discretion to cops and prosecutors was a bad thing.

[Michael P]

The left is the side granting practically unlimited power and discretion to prosecutors -- with the very explicit intention of letting thugs loose to repeat their history of violent crime, but lock up conservatives without bail for peaceful protest.

[not guilty]

Can you identify any "peaceful protest[er]" who has been denied bail? Please be specific.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Michael P.

[apedad]

You know there's a difference between shoplifting and:

- assaulting law enforcement officers with a dangerous weapon
- obstruction of an official proceeding
- parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot killing Brian Sicknick with a fire extinguisher .

[Frank Drackman]

Ah yes, the old "Fire Extinguisher causing a Stroke" trick. Did the Fire Extinguisher shoot Ashley Babbitt too?

[Dr. Ed 2]

As to Ashley Babbitt, the point I raise are three police officers in the field of fire....

Forget Babbitt, he should never have fired with those cops there as -- but for the Grace of God -- he would have hit them instead. And that goes to officer training, professionalism, and judgment.

After all, friendly fire isn't...

[Frank Drackman]

When the enemy's in range so are you, Tracer rounds work both ways, a Sucking chest wound is Jay-hey's way of telling you to slow down,
everybody has a "Plan" till they get punched in the mouth, Ahh I miss the Military

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank -- three male cops couldn't tackle a 130 lb woman?

[Bob from Ohio]

"– assaulting law enforcement officers with a dangerous weapon
– obstruction of an official proceeding
– parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building"

1 is about 5 convictions, 2 is just trespass.

3 is laughably less serious than shoplifting.

[Dr. Ed 2]

For an example of lethal shoplifting: https://nypost.com/2022/12/05/n-c-home-depot-worker-83-dies-after-shoplifter-pushes-him-aside/

The video is chilling...

[Ben_]

There’s always a “reason” to make Americans’ lives worse.

– Sometimes it’s sympathy for homeless people, so they get to live in a park and regular citizens can no longer enjoy the park they paid for.
– Sometimes it’s sympathy for aliens. So Americans can no longer get many low skill jobs.
– Sometimes it’s because the people of the year 2200 need today’s Americans to be artificially poor because “climate”.
– Sometimes it’s teachers’ union members whose needs matter, so children and parents are supposed to shut up and serve the system.
– Sometimes it’s choosing trans people over women who don’t want men in the ladies’ room.
– Sometimes it’s sympathy for petty criminals and disregard for their victims.

There’s always a reason Democrats insist that regular people need to sacrifice in a hundred different ways, making our lives worse. The series of reasons is endless.

[David Nieporent]

Homeless people are "regular citizens."

[Ben_]

Don’t believe your eyes everyone, believe the stories that Democrats want to tell you.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you disagree that homeless people are regular citizens?

[Ben_]

It's awesome how you show your priorities. Families can't use parks because of homeless camps and you're splitting hairs over whether addicts and mentally ill people are called "regular citizens" or something else.

[David Nieporent]

Ben doesn't like that whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

[Ben_]

Note that no one disagrees that this will lead to more crime victims. Everyone knows that will be the result.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Non-criminal Americans will continue to move away from these places."

Notice how for many Americans, like Ben, "criminal" is a class of people distinct from non-criminal where the classification is not based on whether someone actually violated a criminal statue or has been convicted of such.

But when the criminal process they championed to deal with this class s used against people who violate criminal statutes who are not in the "criminal class" then it becomes the greatest injustice ever. Even if it is indisputably clear they violated a criminal statute.

[Ben_]

We can go with "predators" versus "regular people" if you prefer that. It’s a pretty clear divide.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lol. Guess those "predators" all have a certain, a hue, in your head.

[Frank Drackman]

Black is actually the absence of color, always wondered who started that "Colored" thang.

[Ben_]

Certainly they do in yours.

[Sarcastr0]

“criminal” is a class of people distinct from non-criminal where the classification is not based on whether someone actually violated a criminal statue or has been convicted of such.

Ben: Yes, this is true. I still think I'm a good person somehow, despite my rampant dehumanization.

[Ed Grinberg]

See: If you call for criminals to be punished, you’re guilty of “dehumanization,” but ignoring their victims is A-OK!
Who says leftists (“liberals” / “progressives”) are anti-human?!

[David Nieporent]

He didn't call for criminals to be punished. He called for suspects to be punished.

[Sarcastr0]

Ben also called them a type of person, which is not really how we roll in America.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, I agree, but I prefer to focus on the broader issue, which is the right's complete misunderstanding of what bail is for. They honestly think bail is supposed to keep criminals in jail.

[Sarcastr0]

Part and parcel of the same othering.

But I do agree that that the bail thing is one of the worse manifestations.

[Ben_]

This is also false.

[Mr. Bumble]

I guess two years in a shithole DC jail doesn't count.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Thanks to years of right-wing fear mongering about coddling criminals, pretrial detention is not very nice even thought it’s not supposed to be punishment.

[Ben_]

No I didn’t. Why are leftists always telling such lies?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Notice how for many Americans, like Ben, “criminal” is a class of people distinct from non-criminal"

In fact, criminologists will tell you criminals ARE a distinct class of people from non-criminals. Almost all crime is committed by a small minority of repeat offenders.

[Brett Bellmore]

I should say, almost all violent and property crime. Might not be so true for white collar crime.

[Sarcastr0]

criminologists will tell you criminals ARE a distinct class of people from non-criminals. Almost all crime is committed by a small minority of repeat offenders.

That depends on what you mean by 'almost all.'

I also don't think that you're right re: property crime.

Just...don't talk about the criminal class of people. It's a great mindset to never solve the problem.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts put bail bond companies out of business decades ago. No $50,000 bail with $5,000 nonrefundable for a misdemeanor. No bounty hunters with a license to kill. It's cheap to get out on pretrial release and your fully refundable deposit is paid to the court. Most of us are still alive.

[Ben_]

"Most"

[bernard11]

Yeah. Most.

Pretty low homicide rate here.

What is it where you live?

[Frank Drackman]

Of course, you aren't in jail getting Bufued by "Rocko"

[Bob from Ohio]

"No bounty hunters with a license to kill. "

Yeah, that's not actually a thing.

[Frank Drackman]

Haven't had to post bail recently, but from my experience (watching "Dog the Bounty Hunter") I understood that there's a contract involved which allows to Bounty Hunter to come and get you if you violate it i.e., don't show up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"your fully refundable deposit is paid to the court"

As I understand it, you also have to pay the Clerk Magistrate $40 and you do NOT get that money back, even if found innocent.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2010/dec/15/massachusetts-clerk-magistrates-and-assistants-pocket-millions-in-after-hours-fees/

[SRG]

Jackson's dissent from denial of stay in Johnson v Missouri:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22a463_o759.pdf

Basically, the Missouri Supreme Court decided that there was not enough evidence in Johnson's favour to require the - legally mandated - hearing to determine whether there was enough evidence in his favour.

These state supreme courts just lurvs them judicial murders, and SCOTUS is happy to go along with it.

[Illocust]

With the election of both Biden and the stroke victim, I wonder if we are seeing a shift in how Democrats choose candidates. It's been noticeable for a while that democrats prefer rule by entrenched bureaucracy that can't be removed by voters when they go to far.

I wonder if democrats might be moving towards intentionally electing people who are willing to do as they are told by a team of subordinates. Figureheads for unelected decision makers. Thoughts?

[Ben_]

Candidates matter less and less as elections become about gathering ballots rather than about what voters want. Zombie candidates let the money guys and radical leftist activists run things.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you forget that those entrenched bureaucracies you speak about are only following the laws that Congress made.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, purporting to, anyway.

[Illocust]

Except as Trump's presidency showed. The entrenched bureaucracies are willing to violate the law to prevent elected officials from taking legal actions. Two off the top of my head, leaking a confidential tax return and refusing to unclassify documents they were legally required too.

[Brett Bellmore]

Unelected federal officials have been lying about US troop levels in Syria

Not lying to the public, that's SOP. Lying to the White House.

[Sarcastr0]

refusing to unclassify documents they were legally required too

Turns out a tweet doesn't count as an order. Trump's own lawyers argue exactly that.

[Nige]

Especially if you then issue an order to not do that thing in the tweet.

[David Nieporent]

What entrenched bureaucracy leaked a confidential tax return?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol get real. Congress writes these vague ambiguous laws for the entrenched bureaucrats to later plug in the details.

[Moderation4ever]

You are correct that Congress's laws are often overly broad and ambiguous but that is not the fault of the bureaucrats. Congress could be more specific in its instructions, but often leaves that part out to shield itself from criticisms. The agencies are then left to face the public which in many cases now wants the law enforced.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Woah, that's some serious accountability! Facing the public! Wow! That's pretty powerful!

"A little-noticed rule-making proposed by the Department of Defense, NASA and the General Services Administration last month would require federal contractors to disclose and reduce their CO2 emissions as well as climate financial risks. "

FACE THE PUBLIC YOU GUYS!

[Moderation4ever]

You may think it is nothing when the government is addressed by a group of citizens, but the government is required to respond. If that is a group of parents telling the school board, they want "Heather has two mommies" out of the school. If a group of neighbors complains to the city that they want a noisy factory addressed. Or if a group of environmental organizations want CO2 reductions from companies doing business with the government. All these groups can reach back to laws and demand they be enforced to meet their own complaints.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You act like the Administrative State is accountable when we all know that's not true.

Stop pretending unelected, unfireable, faceless bureaucrats will do anything out of "fear" of the public reaction.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's beyond me how you didn't mention the dead guy, Tony DeLuca.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why is it surprising that dead guys voted for one of their own?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What is remarkable about the recent election of Tony DeLuca, from the perspective of a delusional, autistic, racist, faux libertarian conspiracy theorist?

[Illocust]

Oh, I had forgotten about him.

[jb]

Missing from this conversation is how terrible the candidates are that the Republicans are running in these races.

[Brett Bellmore]

Most of them still came close enough to winning that they likely would have won if the GOP establishment had supported them, rather than abandoning the seats.

Mainly because the people they were running against were pretty terrible, too. I mean, Oz was no prize, but he got beat by a brain damaged racist thug.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Man, it would suck to be a friend or family member of yours and then have a stroke. Just utter callousness here.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, much better to let him endanger his life and run for public office.

[jb]

To make the point more clearly: contrary to Illocust's speculation, the shift here isn't the type of candidates Democrats are choosing, but the type of candidates that are winning Republican primaries.

Fetterman was obviously a damaged candidate, but likely would have lost to McCormick or Barnette whereas Oz made it relatively easy for a Democratic win.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a combination of a shift in candidates, and a shift in the party's allocation of resources.

It's been a complaint of the activist base for decades now, that when an establishment candidate wins the primary, the activists are told to suck it up and support him. But when an activist challenger wins the primary, the party establishment abandons the seat.

Because, you know, the Democrats can only deprive the GOP establishment of a majority, the party's own base could deprive the establishment of control over the party, of not kept down.

Walker's campaign tells Republicans to stop 'deceptive fundraising' in Georgia runoff

It's possible he might have won if he'd actually gotten all the donations that Republicans made that were supposed to be earmarked for him.

[EscherEnigma]

It’s possible he might have won if he’d actually gotten all the donations that Republicans made that were supposed to be earmarked for him.

I'm reminded by the various Trump "donate to help this candidate!" scams, where some absurd percentage of donations went to Trump and not the candidate.

Don't know if Walker was one of Trump's victims there, but there sure were plenty.

[David Nieporent]

Does Brett Bellmore ever — I mean ever — read past the headline of a story once he thinks he's found something that supports his insane conspiracy theories? The article is not about "the party establishment." It's about Donald Trump effectively stealing money that people were donating to Walker.

[Life of Brian]

It’s about Donald Trump effectively stealing money that people were donating to Walker.

That's some... er, creative writing, David.

1. The SUBhead says: "At least four committees, one of them associated with former President Donald Trump."

2. The story then goes on to explain that Trump's PAC was the first to fix it: "Paradise credited Trump’s team for making the quick change, saying it “is extremely helpful and it’s what we request others do.”

I guess if you speak confidently and with enough faux indignation, maybe no one will actually look!

[Mr. Bumble]

How dare you question the Great and Powerful Nieporent!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump is not a blushing virgin, but the GOP has long been playing games with the funding -- denying it to conservatives while liberally funding RINO insiders. This dates back to the Tea Party era of 2010, likely before even that.

[David Nieporent]

Sure, that's a thing that doesn't happen.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I might have expected an autistic misfit and culture war casualty to be more sympathetic to a stroke victim, but for Birther Brett partisanship is trump.

[Frank Drackman]

Biden is a stroke victim too. When they release his MRI scans they've got more securely hidden than any of the JFK files, everyone will wonder that he was able to talk (OK, only barely able)

[Don Nico]

Just remember that 2 of the 51 D Senators elected in November are actually the same person. I guess that Padilla gets 2 votes.

[Voize]

The election must have been extra crooked to elect 51 Democrats when only 34 seats were up for grabs this cycle.

[Fort Worth Lawyer]

Why are we trading the merchant of death for a basketball player with Russia and leaving a Marine still there?

[Mr. Bumble]

Better optics to shore up the Black vote.

[Bob from Ohio]

Randi Weingarten @rweingarten

Replying to @POTUS What a great relief!!! Extraordinary news, a basketball star, but also a gay, black woman is released. And yes of course we want other prisoners like Paul Whelan released.

[Frank Drackman]

Solutions's obvious, Whelan needs to put on Blackface, suck cock, and work on his cross-over dribble.

[Commenter_XY]

I wonder about that too, Fort Worth Lawyer. I would have traded Bout for both Griner and Whelan.

[OtisAH]

And when Russia replied “Yeah, we’re not negotiating on Whelan,” which is what they said, you’d leave them both there? Cool dude.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, you arrest some other Russian [or 2 or 3] and trade that person.

[OtisAH]

Wut?

[Bob from Ohio]

You increase your collateral to trade. They arrested Griner as a hostage to trade, you don't reward that, you raise the stakes.

[OtisAH]

Wut?

[David Nieporent]

How stupid are you, Bob? I know you're not much of a lawyer; you push paper rather than conducting negotiations. But even a high school dropout could figure out the flaw in your proposal: it's not a one-shot game. Nothing stops the Russians from arresting yet another American if you arrest another Russian.

And they have it a lot easier than we do, because they don't need things like due process before they make their arrests.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I know you’re not much of a lawyer"

You are just another arrogant litigator. Transactional work isn't just "pushing paper" if done well. I help create value for all sides of my transactions.

"they don’t need things like due process before they make their arrests"

Man, that's what Mid Eastern and African client states are for.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Man, that’s what Mid Eastern and African client states are for."

Exactly. Grab a bunch of Wagner guys from Africa.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I know you’re not much of a lawyer; you push paper rather than conducting negotiations. But even a high school dropout could figure out the flaw in your proposal: it’s not a one-shot game. Nothing stops the Russians from arresting yet another American if you arrest another Russian."

Your strategy sounds great for people who get paid to negotiate deals, not so much for the people who do the paying.

"it’s not a one-shot game."

Right, People who have competed high school sometimes refer to these as iterative games, and have actually studied this and come to the same conclusion Bob has, which is that tit for tat is the correct strategy in these situations.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How unusual then, if Bob (and you) are actually correct, that the people responsible for negotiating these deals don't do that.

Maybe you're just as wrong as he is.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe, but no one's made an attempt to contradict the tit-for-tat analysis, so I guess we'll never know.

And of course, politicians and bureaucrats don't necessarily have the same incentives as the country as a whole. Escalating would be a big risk for the Biden administration, and Biden tends to be risk-averse in these sorts of situations. Putin is not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And if I am wrong, do you think we should stop arresting Russian arms dealers in the first place, if the likely response from Russia is that they will simply grab an American to use as leverage?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think that would actually change Russia's behavior, TiP?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Russia has done quite a number of things which nobody should support.

One thing they most certainly did not do, is 'grab an American to use as leverage.'

Grineer broke one of their laws. Was she punished as a message to the US? Sure. However the situation was created entirely by her.

As for the 'tit for tat' nonsense, you'd have to prove it's actually correct before anyone needs to bother proving that you're full of shit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"One thing they most certainly did not do, is ‘grab an American to use as leverage.’"

They grabbed an American, and they used her as leverage. If they didn't realize at the time that her arrest would allow them to use her as a bargaining chip, they certainly will the next time they want something from the US.

"Grineer broke one of their laws. Was she punished as a message to the US? Sure."

She wasn't punished, she was exchanged for an arms dealer. Please try to keep up.

[OtisAH]

TiP: “She wasn’t punished, she was exchanged for an arms dealer. Please try to keep up.”

Griner just spent 10 months in a Russian prison, asshole.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

She was not 'grabbed.' She was lawfully arrested for breaking Russian law.

She was in fact punished for her crime. She was punished more harshly as a propaganda tool to use against the US.

She was exchanged for an arms dealer, and served her purpose as Russian propaganda for Putin to celebrate his negotiation skills.

Somewhere along the lines of a very straight-forward argument, you managed to misunderstand things. Perhaps you shouldn't be telling others to 'try to keep up' when the confusion is entirely yours.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Griner just spent 10 months in a Russian prison, asshole.”

Of a 9-year sentence, dickbreath.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"She was not ‘grabbed.’ She was lawfully arrested for breaking Russian law.

She was in fact punished for her crime. She was punished more harshly as a propaganda tool to use against the US."

Lol. You're making a distinction between "grabbed" and "lawfully arrested but sentenced to a harsh prison sentence for propaganda purposes" (but certainly not to be used as leverage)?

Maybe you should just stop.

[not guilty]

Whenever I read the phrase, tit for tat, I think of Dennis Miller's joke:

What is tat?
Where can I get it?
How can I exchange it for the other?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But even a high school dropout could figure out the flaw in your proposal: it’s not a one-shot game."

Uh, this is not a flaw in his proposal, it's the foundation of his reasoning. You're not doing so good compared to your hypothetical high-school dropout.

[bernard11]

This sounds like the kind of stuff you read on baseball fan sites.

"We should trade Joe Shlabotnik for Ohtani and Trout."

[Frank Drackman]

Great Peanuts reference.

[Nige]

A society that values basketball players over arms dealers still has something to be proud of.

[John F. Carr]

She's a celebrity.

A Russian blogger was remarking how great a deal it was for Russia.

[santamonica811]

It was a great deal for Russia. It apparently came down to: Make a sucky deal to get her back, or make no deal at all. Neither is a wonderful result. And, apparently, Russia--from the very beginning--simply was not willing to treat Whelan's case the same way. Just or unjust; that's been their position, and it's been rock-solid consistent.

If you own a house that's worth $250,000, and I come up to it and offer you that $250K fair offer, you are not obligated to take it. If I then offer you $300K, you're still not obligated to accept. If I then offer you $1,000,000...still not obligated. You're legally permitted to tell me to take *any* offer and go pound sand. Does anyone think that the Trump administration was unmotivated to get him out? And that the Biden administration then felt the same? Maybe he's still there because (a) Putin and Russia are fuckwads, or (b) his case is actually substantively different, or (c) Russia is demanding something so wildly ridiculous in exchange that both Rep. and Dem administrations have been unwilling to comply? Or...something else.

[Frank Drackman]

No "Homeland" fans here?? She's just gonna be a female "Brody"

Frank "An American Lesbian has been Turned"

[Absaroka]

Fair points.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It apparently came down to: Make a sucky deal to get her back, or make no deal at all."

Except that this sucky deal ensures that we'll have to make more sucky deals in the future. Kidnapping and hostage-taking (which is what this was) require sticks, not carrots.

[santamonica811]

Absolutely a fair point. You're making an excellent argument for making a policy decision to never get her (or Whelan) out. (ie, "We don't negotiate with terrorists...or with foreign states holding our citizens in custody.")

I'll note that, while Trump was in charge, I heard few liberals say, "Trump is doing the right thing by failing to get Whelan back, since our president should not be negotiating with Russia at all about this." And that, once Biden took over, few conservatives rushed to his defense, saying, "Biden should not give anything of value to get Whelan back, and good for him, for--so far--no doing so."

There's a lot of (at least, perceived) political benefit to criticizing the other side, regardless of what's actually being done. The fact that I saw this during Trump and now during Biden is thoroughly unsurprising.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Absolutely a fair point. You’re making an excellent argument for making a policy decision to never get her (or Whelan) out. (ie, “We don’t negotiate with terrorists…or with foreign states holding our citizens in custody.”)"

Well, we can negotiate about what levels of retaliation there will be, but if we let them benefit from this, they'll be arresting more Americans.

What happened today is an excellent argument for not arresting Russian arms dealers in the first place, because it will just result in some poor American like Brittney Griner sitting a Russian jail while the exchange is negotiated.

[Jmaie]

"She's a celebrity"

But, is she?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDYyjOM3YdU

[Absaroka]

"Why are we trading the merchant of death for a basketball player with Russia and leaving a Marine still there?"

That's pretty bad. Whelan is either A)innocent or B)was working for the US Government. Either way, getting him out is a priority.

Griner tried to sneak drugs through Moscow customs. I'm all for legalizing drugs, but trying to smuggle them into Russia is pretty dumb.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, but I'm all for supporting American Citizens who are being oppressed by foreign nonsense, even if they were stupid to put themselves in that position.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, but you're not supporting American citizens in the big picutre if you're incentivizing their kidnapping.

[John F. Carr]

According to sources citing a paywalled Bloomberg story, the U.S. wanted him released and Russia wouldn't give him up. The DoJ will need to arrest more Russians to have enough to trade.

[Absaroka]

If we're short of trading material, we shouldn't have used up the limited stock.

Case 1: Whelan is completely innocent. He's been held since 2018. He was just in the prison hospital. That sounds like a compelling case.

Case 2: Whelan actually was working for the CIA. That's even a stronger case. If we want people to be willing to work for the CIA without diplomatic passports, then we really, really want to make getting them out if they get caught a priority.

[David Nieporent]

Griner might have been an idiot, but she wasn't trying to "smuggle drugs."

[Absaroka]

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with the definition of smuggle, or the facts??

The first definition my google found (Merriam-Webster) says:

1: to import or export secretly contrary to the law and especially without paying duties imposed by law
2: to convey or introduce surreptitiously

The first article I found on her arrest (Newsweek) says:

"Griner is detained at Sheremetyevo International Airport in Khimki while returning to Russia to play basketball during the WNBA's off-season, just a week before Russia invades Ukraine on February 24.

She is accused of having vape cartridges containing hashish oil, which is illegal in Russia."

My understanding is she isn't saying it was an inadvertent "it's legal at home and I forgot" kind of thing. Did she show up at customs and declare the vape cartridges, thinking they were legal? If so I'm a lot more sympathetic.

I really feel for her - drugs should be legal and Russian prisons are barbaric. Likewise, guns should be legal, and Mexican prisons are pretty bad, but if you deliberately try to go through Mexican customs with a gun stuffed under your skivvies, then bad things happen to you.

[David Nieporent]

I'm quarreling not with the facts, but with the characterization. The connotation of "smuggle drugs" is that she had a brick of heroin in a hidden compartment in her luggage or something. There's no evidence that she was trying to conceal anything. She just had the stuff in her luggage, presumably unthinkingly.

[Absaroka]

Got it.

"The connotation of “smuggle drugs” is that she had a brick of heroin in a hidden compartment in her luggage or something."

Not a connotation in my mind, FWIW - personal use quantities would still qualify.

"There’s no evidence that she was trying to conceal anything. She just had the stuff in her luggage, presumably unthinkingly."

You may be right, but does 'presumably' imply no evidence she was taking it in openly, as in declaring it? I guess I discounted that as 'no one could be dumb enough to think it's safe to take hash vapes to Russia, or almost any foreign country, or for that matter lots of US states'. But in fairness, some people do e.g. think their home state CCW lets them carry in NYC, so 'no one would be that dumb' can be a risky assumption. If so, mea culpa.

[Mr. Bumble]

She's Black and a basketball "star" in her experience that made her special. Maybe here, Russia, not so much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And why are we giving the Russians back their merchant of death when they are in the midst of a war and need him to help obtain more weaponry???

[santamonica811]

I think a better sentence would have been, “Why are we giving the Russians back one of their many many many many merchants of death, when they . . . [etc]?”

It’s a reasonable question to ask. I am guessing that the answer is something like, “Russia currently has 1,938 similar weapons dealers working for them (or willing to work for them). Releasing back to Russia Person # 1939 will have zero-to-minimal impact on its ability to wage war.”

I don’t know if the above is accurate. What I’ve read about and heard about this particular situation is that Whelan was and is fungible. He’s most assuredly not a stock TV/movie villain, where he--and only he--has the ability to deliver the deadly McGuffin to Putin.

[Ben_]

She’s one of the special people.

[John F. Carr]

The President wanted to prevent Congress from doing its job and terminate the constitution. Within a day he was impeached and arrested. Peru does things differently.

[shawn_dude]

Yeah, I read that and thought--we should aspire to be more like Peruvian voters. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

[apedad]

Former Louisiana Police Officer Sentenced for Abusing an Arrestee
Former Prisoner Transport Officer Pleads Guilty to Sexually Assaulting and Kidnapping Male Detainee
Former Correctional Officer Sentenced for Assaulting a Hawaii Inmate
Former Muncie, Indiana, Police Officer Pleads Guilty to Eleven Civil Rights and Obstruction Offenses for Assaulting Arrestees and Writing False Reports
Former Oklahoma Supervisory Correctional Officer Sentenced for Promoting White Supremacist Assault on Black Inmates and Ordering Other Abuse
Two Former Mississippi Department of Corrections Officials Indicted for Excessive Force Against an Inmate

https://www.justice.gov/news

As a retired federal agent, if pisses me off to no end when law enforcement mistreats personnel in their custody.

"A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals." - Dostoyevsky

[LawTalkingGuy]

The everyone "I don't like is a groomer" crowd never seems to have an opinion on the high levels of sexual abuse present in juvenile detention facilities.

[Mr. Bumble]

In Democrat run jurisdictions?

[LawTalkingGuy]

In every jurisdiction. Ever. Dumbass.

[Mr. Bumble]

Testy today asshole?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. Because thinking the widescale problem of juveniles being abused while in government custody is something that only happens in “Democrat run jurisdictions” is both extremely stupid and indicative of moral callousness. “Dumbass” is actually the nicest thing that can be said about such an attitude. I tend to get testy at people who diminish the seriousness of assaulting minors.

In fact “hur dur only democrats assault children in juvenile detention” is more indicative of being an asshole than me calling you a dumbass for that belief.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does that include showering with your young daughter?

[LawTalkingGuy]

What the actual fuck is wrong with you?

[Mr. Bumble]

So you think Biden showering with his daughter is normal and OK?

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. That was easy. Since you are engaged in the stupidest form of whataboutism possible. Do you want me to list all the prominent republicans who have committed sex offenses against children now?

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure, why not? You've got nothing else to do.

[Nige]

See? The supposed concern for children is just edgelord partisan cyncism.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If you look at Christina Pushaw's twitter account, DeSantis's attack dog who pushed the "groomer" nonsense, you won't find any references to the Sun-Sentinels deep dive reporting of sex-trafficking in Florida's foster care system.

[EscherEnigma]

For that matter, we have years and years of sexual abuse claims in regards to religious leaders. Never a peep about "groomers" even though that label actually fits.

But some rando in Florida fondly remembers when you could just call queer people pedophiles to shut down arguments you're losing, and bam, suddenly "groomer" is everywhere.

It's almost like the sudden concern is entirely unrelated to actual events.

[Sarcastr0]

Testy today asshole?
You accused Dems of condoning child abuse, and then get all smug when someone calls you on it?

Be better than a patriots.win reactionary.

[Mr. Bumble]

I didn't accuse Dems of condoning child abuse, only pointed to the fact that they have done little to put an end to it where they control government. Talk is cheap and to be honest there is a lack of action all around by both parties.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn’t accuse Dems of condoning child abuse, only pointed to the fact that they have done little to put an end to it where they control government.

1) Weird focus on Dems here.
2) Don't be coy. It is quite clear what you implied when saying it's the Dems who are the ones allowing all the abuse.
3) Democrat? In TYOL 2022?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Not just sexual abuse and not just juvenile. We treat prisoners like subhumans. Food that your dog wouldn’t touch. We contract out simple phone calls to subcontractors that charge massive fees to them and their families to simply talk on the phone. Beatings from guards. Ignore medical conditions even when symptoms are overwhelming.

They are an extremely unpopular demographic and there’s nobody that matters that advocates for minimally humane treatment for those guys. Shame in us for letting this happen.

[LawTalkingGuy]

We also wonder why recidivism rates are so high after keeping people in an environment of constant violence and neglect for extended periods!

[Mr. Bumble]

Like Riker's Island?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. Exactly. Or literally any jail in Southern states. Or maybe you want to examine the jail ran by conservative darling David Clarke? Your effort to make this a "democrat only" problem is completely at odds with reality.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but it's OK for you to single out "Southern states"?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. Those states are run by republicans and have notoriously abusive jails.

[Sarcastr0]

Bumble, you singled out NY.

There is at least a statistical reason to look at the South.

Are you extra hypocritical today, or is it just me?

[bernard11]

Did that offend you? Hurt your feelings?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Like prisons run by the state of Texas. On top of the things I mentioned we are fighting lawsuits filed by prisoners asking for some cooling mechanism in the summer, when temps inside prisons are routinely above 100 degrees.

Those prisons aren’t run by Democrats. It’s a universal problem. Or , because this phrase pisses off so many on here, let’s say it’s both sides.

[Frank Drackman]

100 degrees? Oh dearie, you mean they don't have AC??? In Desert Shield it was 120 degrees (OK, by the time it became "Storm" it was January, and heat wasn't the problem) and the only "Cooling Mechanism" was the occasional Sirocco.

[Brett Bellmore]

Agreed. I cringe every time somebody makes a prison rape joke. That sort of thing being able to happen is unforgivable.

[Frank Drackman]

As the great William F. Buckley once said, "If Rapes are going to occur, better to be in a prison"

[Sarcastr0]

^

[bernard11]

Amen, Brett.

[Nige]

Agreed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

AND what about the credible reports of mistreatment of the Jan 6 prisoners? Come January, the House Committees will have subpoena powers and I suspect this will be included.

And then there was Jeffery Epstien and Whitey Bulger -- the BOP doesn't have a good track record on this...

[bevis the lumberjack]

They are prisoners Ed. We mistreat all of ‘em.

[bevis the lumberjack]

California has passed a law threatening discipline up to and including license forfeiture for doctors who “spread misinformation or disinformation” regarding Covid. California is putting out phony commercials talking about how free Californians are and then pulling this crap n

To demonstrate how this appalling law will be abused, one of the targets of the law is a Stanford doctor who along with two other doctors who in 2020 suggested that we should consider replacing lockdowns with a program of “targeted protection”. Nothing radical, not telling people to ignore protocol - just suggesting a technical discussion about the best way to handle the pandemic. But nope, it contradicts the government’s dogma, so it must be suppressed. Hard.

Under this law, doctors suggesting to their patients that it’s not certain that the vaccine stops transmission would have been stripped of their licenses even though they were, you know, right.

It’s the modern Democratic Party again demonstrating their commitment to free speech. As long as it’s uniform speech of course. Seems like a pretty flagrant violation of the 1A, so eventually it’ll be quashed. In the meantime, I wonder how many doctors trying to talk in good faith will be harmed.

[Bored Lawyer]

It’s the modern Democratic Party again demonstrating their commitment to free speech. As long as it’s uniform speech of course.

It's the Henry Ford version of the First Amendment.

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : “California has passed a law threatening discipline up to and including license forfeiture for doctors who “spread misinformation or disinformation” regarding Covid”

If you’re looking for a real villain, try today’s Right. They remade a whole political party / ideology into anti-vaxx loons – and did so for the cheapest of political motives. One result was the sizable difference between Left / Right vaccination rates and corresponding needless deaths found in the latter. I linked the study below, but Kevin Drum provides a summary:

1. The overall excess U.S. death rate in this period was about 600,000, or 12%.

2. Therefore, the D excess rate is 9.3% & 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, a difference of 135,000 extra Republican deaths.

135,000 useless deaths. Just so the Right could play sleazy cartoon politics. If that doesn’t infuriate you, nothing will.

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

[Brett Bellmore]

"135,000 useless deaths. Just so the Right could play sleazy cartoon politics."

Highly ironic given that Trump was, all along, a solid vaccine booster, and the only reason a vaccine had been available as early as it was, was his efforts to quash every bureaucratic attempt to slow things down.

I never did understand people who transformed "People should have a choice about taking the vaccine" into a "People shouldn't take the vaccine" message.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Highly ironic given that Trump was, all along, a solid vaccine booster”

Absolutely true, but you miss the big picture. Aside from vaccines, Trump’s record on covid was abysmal and repugnant. He downplayed the pandemic’s reach & effects, ridiculed precautions & made a public show of ignoring them, promoted useless quack cures, sneered at doctors’ advice, demonized public health officials, and playacted in press conferences like the disease was a joke.

The anti-vaxx Right just extended Trump’s playbook to vaccinations. They saw political logic in going the one place he refused to go. But their toxic message followed the same trail Trump had blazed before.

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean, he didn't foment a panic, urge that the economy be crashed, or usurp state responsibilities? The cad!

[grb]

I kinda mean what I said.

Also : Lipstick doesn't look good on the pig I described

[EscherEnigma]

Yes, highly ironic that Republicans responded so vehemently against the Trump vaccine. That Republicans chose to go anti-vaxx, rather then turn vaccination into a Republican success story, is a pretty big mystery.

[Don Nico]

grb,
Forget the whataboutism. Let's discuss the California law rather than the whining of some rightist nutjobs.

[Don Nico]

GRB,
Let's also investigate the dubious metric of excess deaths. Under that metric, 18 million died of COVID-19 world wide, yet tens of countries had NEGATIVE excess deaths. How did that happen with a SARS-C0V-2 variant as virulent as the Delta?
What you are doing is simple spreading more medical misinformation that suits your politics.

Try reading: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01278-8,
Published online November 17, 2022, "Human rights and the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective and prospective analysis"

[grb]

Don Nico : "Let’s also investigate......"

God alone knows what you're trying to claim here. We have three factors: (1) The disparity between vaccination rates by political party/ideology in the United States. (2) The disparity of death rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated in the United States. (3) The use of an "excess death" static in the United States as a measure of the above factors combined.

So are you objecting to Factors 1 or 2 at the same time you blow smoke over 3? If you are, on what basis? If you're not, then give us your own ballpark estimate how many tens of thousands died because their political party promoted an anti-vaxx message. I understand you won't be able to provide an exact number. Please feel free to round down to the nearest twenty-thousand needless deaths.

Actually, what I expect is you'll pull out some obscure Zambian "study" on left-handed albino plumbers which will magically "prevent" you from discussing vaccination rates by political party or deaths by vaccination rate. You always seem to have a "study" on hand to duck unpleasant issues.

[Don Nico]

GRB,
What I am saying is that your metric is dubious at best and that the remainder of your comments are political smoke blowing. Next time lets talk about serious epidemiology.
Of course any literature that is inconvenient to you gets dismissed in racist terms, "Zambian “study”
There are many studies in the literature, I have read and cited many in my peer-reviewed papers. But you should do you own research in depth rather than relying on the usual partisan BS.

[grb]

And what I’m saying is scores of thousands needlessly died. I invited you to address that point – even to attempt to refute it. But you came back with empty bullshit like you always do. Somehow we’ll always be one “serious epidemiology” study short when the subject of Right-wing maleficence is raised. If there’s a topic you don’t want to address, the mighty edifice of science suddenly becomes impotent and postmodern. Nothing can be discussed and all things are true at once. In short, you weasel. All those useless deaths and you just weasel.

And it’s not just the “whining of some rightist nutjobs”, as you well know. The new savoir of the GOP, Ron DeSantis, appointed a very vocal anti-vaxx flake as Florida Surgeon General. He refused to say if he got vaccination shots, which is comical in its pandering cowardice. His Florida was the only state in the entire country that refused to order Covid vaccines for kids under 5. DeSantis stood smiling alongside people as they told crude anti-scientific lies about vaccines. He offered cash bonuses and employment to public servants who defied the vaccination rules in other states. He issued a public statement saying a person’s vaccination decision doesn’t affect anybody else, which is just wrong.

Of course he isn’t a leader in the Right’s anti-vaxx crusade, just a follower. But he’s had his effect: Vaccination rates are down in Florida, for measles and polio as well as covid.

[Don Nico]

grb,
You don't KNOW that thousands needlessly died. We both know that millions died. Some doubtless died from COVID-19 and many doubtless died from lack of hospital treat because SARS-CoV-2 foreclose such treatment and many died from the societal effects of the lockdown.
How many died in each category is speculation. I do epidemiology, not speculation based on political ideology.
As I see you comment you are fixated on political blame. I try to understand the relevant medicine and epidemiology.
As for questions that YOU ducked. How do you explain statistically significant negative excess deaths through the period dominated by the delta variant.

[grb]

(1) One party promoted vaccines; one party promoted anti-vaxx

(2) Prior to covid, anti-vaxx ideology was evenly spread across the ideological spectrun.

(3) No longer. The party that promoted anti-vaxx is anti-vaxx

(4) This is reflected in the vaccination rates of the two parties.

(5) There is documented difference in the death rates of the vaccinated & unvaccinated.

(6) Therefore, anti-vaxx politics needlessly cost lives in large numbers.

Back to you, Don. You’re welcome to weasel & bluster to the degree required to obfuscate those pointless deaths.

[Sarcastr0]

In his signing statement, Newsom acknowledged that he was “concerned about the chilling effect” of legislating doctor-patient conversations.

But this law, he wrote, “is narrowly tailored to apply only to those egregious instances in which a licensee is acting with malicious intent or clearly deviating from the required standard of care while interacting directly with a patient under their care.”

The text of the measure doesn’t spell out what constitutes an egregious instance, or what metrics will be used to determine malicious intent.
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2022-10-06/spreading-lies-about-covid-19-could-get-doctors-disciplined-in-california

Still seems like crap tho.

[shawn_dude]

Look like it sets up clearer rules on professional misinformation as a form of malpractice, to me. There are aspects to this I'm not happy with, but loss of license due to malpractice is not controversial.

I'm more curious as to why this is just for COVID and doesn't apply to the sorts of serious childhood diseases that left-wing anti-vaxxers are infamous for politicizing.

[Sarcastr0]

Should the state be doing policing of medical information, though?

Certainly not at the state law level. We have medical boards.

[shawn_dude]

Exactly, and that medical board is a government body at the state level. See: https://www.mbc.ca.gov/

Note that I'm making an assumption here that malpractice claims have to be adjudicated before there is guilt and that the main thrust of this law is to make it clear that providing false, COVID-related medical advice in a professional capacity is included in the scope of malpractice.

[Sarcastr0]

But this was a law.

It's like when states mandate what teachers can and can't say. Teachers have loads of bad stuff they shouldn't say, but that should be done lower down, not where politicians are.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It’s like when states mandate what teachers can and can’t say."

Any examples of that? I know sometimes states mandate what public school teachers can and can't say, but if they apply it to all teachers, that would certainly be bad.

[Sarcastr0]

Irrelevant pedantry.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You don't understand the difference between limiting what government employees can say on the job, and limiting what private Doctors can say?

Hardly surprising.

[Sarcastr0]

No, everyone knew what I was talking about even if I didn't specify.

This isn't debate club.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Again, how is limiting what Doctors can and can't say similar to limiting what public employees can and can't say on the job?

[shawn_dude]

Malpractice is a tort. Where else are these things defined but law? The linked article even addresses this:

"This isn’t California’s first law against a specific type of medical misconduct. Over the years, the state Business and Professions Code has been updated to explicitly bar physicians from breaking laws related to human cloning and to the long-discredited cancer treatments laetrile and amygdalin. The code specifies that it’s “unprofessional conduct” to distribute liquid silicone for breast implants, or to fail to give patients written summaries before cosmetic collagen injections."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Teachers have loads of bad stuff they shouldn’t say, but that should be done lower down, not where politicians are."

In the case of public school teachers, the public gets to decide what teachers should and shouldn't say, and if that doesn't get done lower down, people are going to elect politicians who do it.

[Don Nico]

" We have medical boards."
Exactly, so. Sure they have their flaws just like every other human mechanism, but at least they are set up to incorporate actual medical expertise

[Krayt]

Wow, 11 am and only 40 posts?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I didn't get put up until 10.

[Mr. Bumble]

Be patient Grasshopper. It went up late today.
Sarcastro, Nige and Queen almathea decided to sleep in this morning.

[Sarcastr0]

VC is actually part of my morning routine. It came in too late, and I had to work.

What's your excuse?

[Mr. Bumble]

Why an excuse? Mine was the first comment.

[Sarcastr0]

Morning routine? Retired? Easy job? What's your excuse?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Does anyone find it weird that in Maricopa county, 25% of the GOP voters election day voters (when they had all those voting problems) voted for Democrats at the top of the ticket but Republicans the rest of the way down?

Especially when that isn't congruent with any of the early voting?

[OtisAH]

The obvious answer is they didn’t want to elect Lake. But presumably that’s not the answer you want so happy hunting!

[Bored Lawyer]

Perhaps, but 25% is far more than the spread in other places, like Georgia (compare Kemp v. Walker).

[Moderation4ever]

Maricopa county was under a lot of scrutiny in the 2020 election and many accusations were made, some against Republicans. Republicans in the county may have gotten their belly full of election deniers and just were not going for Lake because of that fact.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

But only election day voters, not early voters.

Weird.

[santamonica811]

Lake was batshit crazy. And uber-extreme. And one of the ultimate Trump supporters. Kemp was decidedly not tied to Trump. He was seen as much more "normal" of a candidate . . . and more of a normal human being.

In other words, while some of you seem to be desperately hunting for conspiracy-laced reasons why there is this huge discrepancy in ticket-splitting or other anomalies, in comparing state to state, why not use Occam's Razor? "Candidate quality" seems to give an easy, logical, and easily-understood explanation.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

This is what you tell yourselves when you can't reconcile these weird electoral anomalies and excessive voting outliers that always favor Democrats.

[santamonica811]

Ah, my sweet, innocent, forgetful, BCD. How quickly you forget 2016, and the shocking win by Trump. Behind in ALL the polls in those critical states. BARELY winning (total of 70K+ votes, *combined*) those 3 states.

A conspiracy? Evidence of something untoward happening in those 3 states, to subvert the will of those states’ voters?

Nope. Merely where predictions were very very wrong. Trump won, fair and square. Alas, for the country and for the rest of the world**

When it happens for your side, you see no evil. When it happens for the other guy . . . surely, it was *obviously* due to some bad and corrupt acts. [sigh]

————–

** Not including Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, et al.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Nope. Merely where predictions were very very wrong.

Where have you been? They fortified elections in response to Trump. They bragged about this in Newsweek. Also, only the polls were wrong. None of these anomalies like bellweathers being nearly all wrong, first incumbent to increase votes to lose, or weird behaviors like vote spikes at 3am with 90%+ in favor of the dems, or split tickets, or excessive adjudications. or kicking out observers, etc.

None of the other signals were wrong. Only the polls. But not the Traflagar poll.

[Aunt Teefah]

Gotta be fraud or mules or something. Definitely couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Republicans nominated a revolting freak who creeped out voters as their Senate candidate.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Now explain the incongruence with early voting results.

How that phenomenon only manifested on ED votes.

[santamonica811]

Because very different populations voted at these different times.

You're welcome.

Any other easy answers that you can't figure out on your own?

[jb]

Yes, it is weird that Republican candidates for statewide office would go out of their way to shit on the largest county in the state as part of their campaign strategy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why did it only impact election day voters?

[jb]

Clearly because in-person election day voting is much more susceptible to fraud than mail-in votiung?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you know the process of ballot adjudication and how it's a subjective interpretation by a bureaucrat? And did you hear about all the election day malfunctions and problems that happened on election day in Maricopa County?

[jb]

Ah, so mail-in and early votes aren't adjudicated?

And yes, we've all heard about the printer problems, but I'm struggling to understand your theory about how it's relevant. Can you help us out?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The election workers, some of whom even formed an Anti-MAGA PAC, manipulated the votes.

[jb]

Ah, I got it. So there were some printer problems which required further ballot processing. The election workers from 60 different sites then conspired to tamper with these ballots.

The principle problem with this theory (besides, you know, lacking any evidence whatsoever) is that even if it's correct (and there's no evidence to support it other than the fact that a bunch of people split their tickets) it doesn't change the outcome of the election. There were ~17,000 affected ballots, which is roughly the size of Hobbs' lead. According to your Arizona Sun Times article below, 72% of in-person voters on election day were Republican, so even if all of their votes were switched, Lake would still lose by about 5,000 votes.

Speaking of that Sun Times article, it doesn't actually identify any difference in vote-splitting between election day and other votes cast by Republicans. It just assumes that anyone who voted Republican for Treasurer must have also wanted a MAGA election-denier for governor. Which turns out to be a bad assumption, just like lots of Georgians who liked Brian Kemp didn't like Herschel Walker or 400,000 Ohioans liked Mike DeWine but not JD Vance. Maybe your team should try recruiting some less shitty candidates next time.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, Lake expressly told McCain supporters to go fuck themselves; she said she didn't want them or their votes. What a shock when she didn't get them.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Reconcile how this phenomenon only manifested on election day votes? And wasn't even a hint in any of the EV by Republicans or Democrats?

[David Nieporent]

Where did you get the idea that it was only for Election Day votes?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://arizonasuntimes.com/2022/12/07/data-analysts-question-how-25-percent-of-arizona-voters-flipped-to-oppose-trump-candidates-despite-gop-voter-registration-advantage/

Data Analysts Question How 25 Percent of Arizona Voters Flipped to Oppose Trump Candidates Despite GOP Voter Registration Advantage - The Arizona Sun Times

[David Nieporent]

Nothing in that article says one word about Election Day vs. early votes. The sole argument is, "How could Kari Lake get fewer GOP votes than other GOP candidates in the state?" And I already explained the answer: she proudly announced that she didn't want the votes of McCain Republicans.

It's hardly surprising that a significant number of normal Republicans would vote Republican, except be unwilling to pull the lever for the crazy candidates.

[OtisAH]

Good morning to all “conservatives” who just cannot figure out why so few GOP’ers and gop’er adjacents vote early. Prior to 2018, registered republicans voted early in larger numbers than registered Dems. But suddenly, and for no reason anyone can see, that‘s no longer the case.

How does such a thing happen? Congress should look into this…

[Brett Bellmore]

Have the percentage of Republicans voting early declined? My impression is, no, it's just that the percentage of Democrats voting early has skyrocketed.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you are right here. Republicans have traditionally voted early and many of the laws allowing early voting were written by Republican legislatures. Voting in the pandemic caused more people to use early voting and they like the process. So, while Democrats continue to vote early, Republicans have been held back by calls to vote on election day. Senator Scott of FL acknowledged that Republicans need to do a better job of getting their voters to vote early.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd say they need to do a better job of repealing Covid emergency changes, but that horse has probably left the barn already, and won't be coming back.

[grb]

Why? Aside from your loathing of voters, what justification do you offer for repeal?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, look at PA, for example: Fetterman won in large measure on the votes of people who'd voted before they found out how badly the stroke had compromised him, in that one vote he agreed to. Running out the clock like that was only feasible because of early voting.

That's the sort of thing widespread early voting enables. Issues you might bite the bullet and address, you can now try to run out the clock on, and bank as many votes as possible before the voters learn of them.

I mean, we will always disagree on how to evaluate information on the candidates, but it's not good that a lot of the votes are in before all the information is even available.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s the sort of thing widespread early voting enables. Issues you might bite the bullet and address, you can now try to run out the clock on.

Um, how does this work? An arbitrary date where voting begins is the same as another arbitrary date where voting ends.

[grb]

I appreciate a spirited effort at post-hoc justification as much as the next guy, but let’s say I faced the peril below.

Somebody has a gun to my head and says this: “You have one answer and it’s life-or-death. Does Brett Bellmore dislike early voting due to angst over votes preceding last minute info, or because he wants voting as hard as possible”

Life or death, Brett, so I can’t be generous. It’s the second choice, obviously. You want as few votes as possible. Perhaps the whole Democracy-thing gives you a sour queasiness in your belly.

[Brett Bellmore]

I obviously don't want voting to be "as hard as possible", because that encompasses a lot of measures I'd clearly oppose. I just want it to be all on the same day, in person, for everybody who can't provide a damned good excuse for not being able to show up on that day.

You know, SOP for all elections until recently?

[Sarcastr0]

I obviously don’t want voting to be “as hard as possible”, because that encompasses a lot of measures I’d clearly oppose.

I'd say it's more that you think disincentivizing voting has zero cost.

[OtisAH]

Obviously: ob·vi·ous·ly /ˈäbvēəslē/ adverb — In a way that is easily perceived or understood; clearly. “She was obviously sick.”

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “You know, SOP for all elections until recently?”

Nope; I don’t know that at all. For example, Arizona allowed absentee ballots for any reason a quarter-century ago. By 2007 any Arizonian could sign-up for early voting and receive a ballot by mail. According to the Election Assistance Commission, about 43.2% of Americans voting in the 2018 election did so by mail or early in-person voting.

It’s a strange little history you’ve created in your head. Pre-pandemic, all the Ozzie and Harriets walked to the polling booth on Election Day to vote (in black and white, of course) for Republicans. Then nefarious ruffians used covid as an excuse to destroy this hallowed tradition (encouraging way too many of THOSE people to cast a ballot as a result).

It’s a fantasy. Non-traditional voting has grown cycle-by-cycle over decades. We’ve regularly had elections taking forever to decide. None of this is new – except all the phony bullshit about fraud. There has always been litigation about election issues during the campaign season. There has always been adjustments to voting procedures by state executive authorities dealing with voting problems. The only recent innovation is constitutional faux-panic because Trump needed an excuse.

[bernard11]

I just want it to be all on the same day, in person, for everybody who can’t provide a damned good excuse for not being able to show up on that day.

Which will make it extremely hard, especially in cities. But for you, that's a feature, isn't it?

[bernard11]

Brett, all the information is never available. There is nothing magical about election day. New information might come out on the 9th as easily as on the 7th.

Suppose you establish early voting beginning on Oct 15. Then voters have all the information available by Oct. 15, or later if they want to wait. Instead, under your plan, they have all that is available by Nov. 8. What's the big difference?

Stop making up excuses. Early and mail-in voting helps Democrats and you don't like that.

[David Nieporent]

Well, look at PA, for example: Fetterman won in large measure on the votes of people who’d voted before they found out how badly the stroke had compromised him, in that one vote he agreed to.

1) So what?

2) What reason do you have to think early Democratic voters would have changed their votes if they had waited and seen Fetterman's condition? Would that have made Oz less sleazy, corrupt, New Jerseyan, or Republican?

I mean, seeing how awful Trump was didn't cause you to switch your 2016 vote to Hillary, did it?

[Ed Grinberg]

"...your loathing of voters..."
What a tool!

[OtisAH]

I already said “good morning” to you, Brett. They’re the very first words in my post.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I answered your question: Republicans didn't vote early in reduced numbers. They simply didn't change their voting behavior, while Democrats did.

[jb]

I think the answer is yes, although I am struggling to find data one way or the other.

Prominent Republicans explicitly told people not to vote by mail; you'd have to think that would have some sort of effect.

[Don Nico]

"How does such a thing happen? "
Trump got R's to become stupider.

[Bored Lawyer]

Three interesting cases before the Supreme Court, all of which implicate free speech in some way.

Reynaldo v. Gonzales — cert. granted. determining whether Section 230 immunity extends to “recommendations” of Youtube videos by a site algorithm. Plaintiffs are family of a woman murdered by ISIS, whose videos were posted to Youtube and then “recommended.” (I posted about this one in another thread).

Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. Cert. granted. Application of “fair use” in copyright law to “transformative” art.

Jack Daniel’s Properties v. v. VIP Products. Cert. granted. Trademark case. Whether the respondent can sell dog toys that spoof the Jack Daniels famous bottle and make dog-poop jokes. You can see a comparison of the two items here:https://patentlyo.com/patent/2022/11/daniels-properties-products.html

So, yes, SCOTUS takes up a lot of cases that don’t make the front page.

[Bored Lawyer]

On the last one, for some reason dog toy manufacturers seem to like spoofing famous brands. There have been several such cases in the lower courts. One involved a dog toy named CHEWY VUITTON.

IIRC, the district judge ended his opinion dismissing the case by telling LV to "chill."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. Cert. granted. Application of “fair use” in copyright law to “transformative” art.

That Warhol added distinctive style, and thus transformed the works he stole, I don't think anyone can deny. The question I doubt his lawyers can answer is why that should excuse him from paying royalties.

Pretty obviously, those works offered something Warhol could not supply himself, or chose not to try to create on his own. It probably was not even a choice. It was probably impossible for Warhol to create photographs which he could use in the same way. As a general matter, an original photograph of a person is a good deal harder to copy convincingly than a Renaissance masterpiece portrait. Same with landscapes.

There is a danger, I think, that judges who do not understand photography will try to push, "transformative," too far.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Attorneys contributed an amicus brief on behalf of Taamneh and Gonzales in Moody v. Netchoice.

[Bored Lawyer]

Is that a separate case?

[Jonathan Affleck]

Taamneh has been granted cert.

Gonzales has been granted cert.

The above two cases are consolidated.

The petition Moody v. Netchoice and the cross-petition Netchoice v. Moody go to conference Jan 6.

The lawyers for Gonzales and Taamneh have some discomfort with the direction of argument in Moody v. Netchoice and Netchoice v. Moody.

[Josh R]

I have been arguing that refusing to serve a same-sex wedding discriminates against gays because a same-sex marriage is inextricably linked to being gay (it’s discrimination on the basis of status). At the same time, I argue refusing to serve a person who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds does not discriminate on the basis of religion because opposition to same-sex marriage is not inextricably linked to being religious (it’s discrimination on the basis of belief – plenty of people have a secular-based opposition to same-sex marriage - and I assume such people would also be refused service).

Many others disagree, including Justices Gorsuch and Barrett at oral arguments this week, arguing either both are discrimination on the basis of status or both are discrimination on the basis of belief. Let’s assume they are right. In that case either:

1) Both are discrimination on the basis of belief. In that case, a limo driver can refuse to service a same-sex marriage because he isn’t breaking the law (in most places). Moreover, DOMAs and laws which proscribe same-sex sexual relations do not discriminate against gays (they only have a disparate impact on gays).

2) Both are discrimination on the basis of status. In that case, a limo driver who won’t serve a same-sex marriage because of his religious beliefs should win his Free Exercise case because the law as applied to him is not neutral towards religion (because opposition to same-sex marriage is inextricably linked to religious belief, that application of the law cannot be held to have only a disparate impact on religious objectors).

Both outcomes strike me as wrong, and hence I think my original argument holds. But for those of you who disagree, which of those two outcomes do you accept (or do you think my reasoning is flawed)?

[Bored Lawyer]

The whole "inextricable intertwined" doctrine is flawed. It originates with a hypothetical, I believe by Justice Ginsberg, about a tax levied on yarmulkas, which are "inextricable intertwined" with being Jewish. I don't buy that analysis. The reason that would be problematic is much simpler: there is no rational reason, other than targeting Jews, that such a focused tax would be enacted. So by both intent and design, it's an anti-Jewish measure.
As opposed to, say a tax on hats, or a tax on clothing. The former would be Constitutional, and the latter actually exists in some states.

Your question also does not take into account there are two levels of issue, the statutory (is this outlawed discrimination) and Constitutional (does it impinged on some right, like freedom of speech.) Limo driving is not expressive, so you only have the former issue.

DOMAs implicate the 14th amendment, so they are a completely different issue.

[Josh R]

It sounds like you believe both are discrimination on the basis of belief. But then the limo driver isn't breaking the law in the first place (the statutory analysis)? And DOMA survives a 14th Amendment equal protection challenge because there isn't intentional discrimination against gays (noting that DOMA fell on 14th Amendment due process grounds)? Have I accurately stated your position?

[Bored Lawyer]

(1) Neither are status discrimination, so in my view neither are statutory violations. There is no free speech issue I can see in driving a limo.

(2) IMO, DOMAs are constitutional, but the analysis is completely different. See the dissenters in Obergefell. The 14th Amendment is both broader and narrower than civil rights statutes, so in my mind it's a different kettle of fish.

[bernard11]

The 14th Amendment is both broader and narrower than civil rights statutes, so in my mind it’s a different kettle of fish.

Is this your entry in the VC mixed metaphor contest?

[Bored Lawyer]

I’d comment, but I think the horse has already left the garage on that one. I’ll wait till the woodchuck comes home to roost.

[ducksalad]

So, your exercise here is to adjust starting principles to get an outcome decided a priori. Why bother? Just make your outcome (people you disagree with should have less right to act on their beliefs) the first principle and move on. Most everyone else has.

You, Gorsuch, and Barrett all have the same problem. The line between status and belief is very murky, the line between belief and religion is more or less completely arbitrary. Most attempts to draw bright lines are unsuccessful and lead to some kind of legal paradox if observed consistently.

[Josh R]

So, your exercise here is to adjust starting principles to get an outcome decided a priori.

No. I’m trying to arrive at a previously unknown answer which I only reached when one of the potential answers leads to an absurd (in my opinion) conclusion.

[DaveM]

Sorry, but “inextricably linked” is just another bit of rhetorical fluff that the left wants everyone to use right now because it serves their Argument of the Day. Tomorrow they will flip to the other end of the spectrum and make up another cute, focus-group-shopped phrase. It’s all BS.

The way you can spot the difference between rhetoric and a reasoned position is to reverse the subjects of your hypothetical and then see if your opponents would agree with the statement. If they do, it’s rhetoric. True things stay true regardless of who says them, they aren't dependent on who benefits.

[Josh R]

Sorry, but “inextricably linked” is just another bit of rhetorical fluff.

So, you are saying both examples are discrimination on the basis of belief and 1) the limo driver isn't breaking the law by not serving the same-sex marriages and 2) DOMA and laws which proscribe same-sex sexual relations do not discriminate against gays?

[ducksalad]

Well, I guess if you (and those SC justices) have a point if there is some need to define "discrimination" as a category independent of whether we are talking about government action, or isolated individual choices.

But having the government, or an entire society, discriminate against you is not comparable to experiencing discrimination from some isolated individual you can trivially walk away from. I see no value in applying the same criteria to both.

A woman saying she does not want to even consider marry a woman is in some sense "discriminating", the government saying woman cannot marry women is also discriminating. But other than English using the same 14 letters there isn't any comparison between the two situations. Likewise for the actions of a limo driver and a government should not be judged on the same scale.

The false dichotomy you're presenting is the result of conflating them. We can simultaneously decide DOMA is bad, availability of same sex marriage is a right, the limo driver is to be tolerated, and the woman's unwillingness to marry another woman is beyond tolerated, it is a right to be positively affirmed.

[EscherEnigma]

But having the government, or an entire society, discriminate against you is not comparable to experiencing discrimination from some isolated individual you can trivially walk away from. I see no value in applying the same criteria to both.

If you want "trivially walk away from" carve-outs in non-discrimination laws, then go for it.

But if you want "trivially walk away from" carve-outs in non-discrimination laws only as they cover gay folk, then that's DOA.

And that's your problem: basically everyone who is seriously fighting non-discrimination laws that cover gay folk? Want the carve-outs to just be about gay folk, and not to all non-discrimination law.

Or, as I said earlier, they want to be able to refuse me because their god has a beef with gays, but even though they can just as trivially walk away from me, they still want to legally obligate me to ignore their god's beef with gays and serve them. And that's not really acceptable.

[Josh R]

Having a different standard for government discrimination versus private-party discrimination (proscribed by statute) is something I need to think much more about (*). But even in that case, you are arguing the limo driver doesn’t have to serve a same-sex wedding.

(*) If anything, precedent suggests the standard is less strict for a statute. A disparate impact is not sufficient to establish unlawful government discrimination. But it can be if written into a statute (see for example, Title VII - employment law).

[EscherEnigma]

I have weak preferences for how non-discrimination law should eventually work out, but I have a very strong preference that it should be equally applied.

To put it simply... if the SCOTUS endorses the view that someone can refuse me service because their god has a beef with gays, then they had better endorse the view that I can refuse service to someone else because their god has a beef with gays.

The obvious alternative is that we both are obligated to ignore whatever their god says about gays and serve the other.

So either we both get to fuss over their god's bigotry, or we both must ignore their god's bigotry. But no halfsies.

[Bored Lawyer]

You do know that the State of Colorado's position is not yours. They can force one side to provide the service, but won't do so to the other side.

[EscherEnigma]

You do know that the State of Colorado’s position is not yours.

Correct. Colorado played into the ADF's hands in this case and gave them the fight they wanted.

They can force one side to provide the service, but won’t do so to the other side.

Incorrect.

The message from Colorado all along has been that you can refuse a specific message, but you can't refuse a customer on the basis of their inclusion in a category that Colorado has specifically protected.

This is consistent through Masterpiece, Azucar and 303. But frankly so much digital ink has been spilled on this that at this point, I must conclude that you either understand but do not care about the distinction, or you are unable to understand the distinction.

[Bored Lawyer]

Third option: I understand that the distinction is sophistry to achieve an ideologically driven aim. I'd go with that one.

[EscherEnigma]

No, using sophistry to ignore the distinction puts you pretty solidly into option 1.

[Josh R]

if the SCOTUS endorses the view that someone can refuse me service because their god has a beef with gays, then they had better endorse the view that I can refuse service to someone else because their god has a beef with gays

You do know that the State of Colorado’s position is not yours. They can force one side to provide the service, but won’t do so to the other side.

That should not be controversial if the “beef with gays” results in a refusal to serve gays (not just same-sex marriage). The law does not permit you to refuse to serve gays while allowing others to not serve you because you won't serve gays.

[ducksalad]

You could get to your second paragraph versus a different route:

Does the issue involve someone's god? Then the default position is given by the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law", supplemented by the Fourteenth Amendment extending that to the states. It doesn't say Congress will protect religions from private boycotts, or protect ungodly behavior from boycotts by the religious. It says Congress "shall make no law".

Not as an absolute, but the default and starting position.

You don't want that limo driver advertising on your website or buying gas at your station, he doesn't want you riding in his car, you're both fine. If one of you can show some life-blighting harm that you couldn't just walk away from, we'll reconsider.

[EscherEnigma]

You could get to your second paragraph versus a different route [...]

Not with this SCOTUS you can't.

[Josh R]

if the SCOTUS endorses the view that someone can refuse me service because their god has a beef with gays.

It's not directly a beef with gays. It's a beef with same-sex marriage. The first question that needs to be addressed is whether a beef with same-sex marriage is a beef with gays.

[EscherEnigma]

You do realize that sophistry hasn't fooled anyone, ever, right?

[not guilty]

A recent search of a storage unit in Florida used by Donald Trump has turned up more documents with classification markings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/12/07/trump-tower-bedminster-records-search/ This is further evidence of noncompliance with a grand jury subpoena issued last spring and of fraud in Trump records custodian's June 3 certification that all documents responsive to the subpoena had been produced.

I remain baffled as to what motivated Trump to unlawfully retain and conceal governmental documents. The maxim, cui bono, is often helpful, but not here. What benefit or advantage did Trump gain?

[Bored Lawyer]

None that any sane person would consider a benefit.

[Bob from Ohio]

"storage unit in Florida used by Donald Trump "

Controlled and managed by the federal government. It wasn't a U-Store-It with a $5 padlock.

[John F. Carr]

If it was a government site, why didn't the FBI search it? Did they not know that Trump was using it?

[Brett Bellmore]

They not only didn't search it themselves, they turned down an offer to have the FBI present when Trump's people searched it, a strange offer if they thought they were going to turn up anything illegal.

[not guilty]

"If it was a government site, why didn’t the FBI search it?"

Perhaps because they had no search warrant and lacked probable cause to obtain one? The Washington Post article which I linked states:

Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell told Trump’s legal team to continue to search for documents after the Justice Department expressed concerns that the team had not fully complied with a subpoena earlier this year. Howell, according to people familiar with the matter, did not give specific orders on how a search should be done.

[John F. Carr]

Did Trump have a legally recognized privacy interest in items in a government storage facility? I was thinking the site manager could let the FBI in.

[not guilty]

The General Services Administration leased the premises for the use of the Office of the Former President and Office of the Former Vice-President. https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rIMR1MdnBBbU/v0 Without having researched the question in detail, I would think that Trump, as a person having access to and control of the contents of the storage unit, would have a reasonable expectation of privacy therein.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do know that they don't need a search warrant if they have the owner's permission, right? They only need one to do searches the owner DOESN'T want. And, again, they were offered the chance to be present during the search by Trump's people, a really weird offer if they thought anything incriminating was going to turn up.

[Mr. Bumble]

No fair Brett. Using facts is NOT fair!

[Don Nico]

If they were invited, they did not need a warrant.

[David Nieporent]

Paid for by the federal government. Does that mean that the federal government controlled or managed it?

[Brett Bellmore]

"A person familiar with the matter said the storage unit had a mix of boxes, gifts, suits and clothes, among other things. “It was suits and swords and wrestling belts and all sorts of things,” this person said. “To my knowledge, he has never even been to that storage unit. I don’t think anyone in Trump World could tell you what’s in that storage unit.”"

I think it was a combination of wanting souvenirs and sheer carelessness, actually. It's not like he would have expected this level of scrutiny based on the experience of past administrations.

I mean, he should have expected it based on the treatment he got while in office, but one of his failings as President was never anticipating how far his foes would go.

That said, the report says, "items with classified markings" which ≠ "classified items". It's not like the markings are printed in a special ink that evaporates when a document is declassified. The news report seems to ignore this distinction.

[Nige]

Ah, yes, his ruthless foes who gave him two years and numerous notifications about returning the documents.

[SRG]

The contents of the storage locker have been revealed!

10,000 remaindered copies of "Art of the Deal"
100 framed phony Time covers showing Trump as Man of the Year
20 inflatable Melania dolls
3 gold plated toilets with matching seats
4 cases of Heinz ketchup sachets
Filing cabinet marked "invoices not to be paid"
Gold plated samovar and cups set
2 sable men's coats with GUM labels still on them
Documents and supporting model for a proposed Death Star type satellite
2 boxes of McDonalds free kids toys
Box marked "Defense contracts misc"

[Bob from Ohio]

Comedy is hard, best not to attempt it.

[Frank Drackman]

you left out "Humor" I don't mean in the contents, but in your post.

[SRG]

Or, as The Onion would put it, "Area Trump supporter finds anti-Trump jokes 'not funny'".

[Bob from Ohio]

You used the gold plated joke twice. Poor form.

[Frank Drackman]

Not nearly as funny as.....
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=Rr8307fY&id=DE282DE7B059D387C2E7EC117BEB5DD00FF3342F&thid=OIP.Rr8307fYgA4ojYgFXfuMDwHaJv&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.46bf37d3b7d8800e288d88055dfb8c0f%3Frik%3DLzTzD9Bd63sR7A%26riu%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252famericandigest.org%252fwp%252fwp-content%252fuploads%252f2019%252f07%252fd8a871eb12ee0f41efb26f9ee5a3280e-768x1011.jpg%26ehk%3Dx%252btmLjGaYm4qT%252f3rQFACHwwWa2y2TurVhRkSJTeYMg8%253d%26risl%3D%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=1011&expw=768&q=if+ted+kennedy+drove+a+vw&simid=608043932294923570&form=IRPRST&ck=C74B6F0FFCF26C762F88EA8CAB304C1F&selectedindex=1&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0&pivotparams=insightsToken%3Dccid_UjlRr%252Bc%252B*cp_1266DA503702BF0FB3E2E4E9FF6B9FEB*mid_5F1A6EC95A84C1B5389AE52804111FD98026C0F8*simid_608028148283553469*thid_OIP.UjlRr-c-qqYt77LNMS-DUgHaDr&vt=0&sim=11&iss=VSI

[David Nieporent]

That said, the report says, “items with classified markings” which ≠ “classified items”. It’s not like the markings are printed in a special ink that evaporates when a document is declassified. The news report seems to ignore this distinction.

No, actually, it's like the documents are marked with regular ink with the words "declassified" when they are declassified.

[Brett Bellmore]

Supposed to be, anyway. Assuming your minions are actually following their orders.

I must confess, I thought Trump would bring a private sector gift for hiring the right people to the Oval Office. Man, was I ever wrong about that.

[bernard11]

It’s not like he would have expected this level of scrutiny based on the experience of past administrations.

Oh bullshit. He got all sorts of accommodation on this. He just decided to act like an asshole.

[not guilty]

The Washington Post reports that DOJ is asking a U.S. District Court in D.C. to hold Donald Trump’s office in contempt of court for failing to fully comply with a May subpoena to return all classified documents in his possession. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/12/08/trump-contempt-mar-a-lago-records/

The purported June 3 certification by Trump’s custodian of records — chock full of weasel words and qualifications — proved to be a sham and a fraud. The Post reports:

One of the key areas of disagreement centers on the Trump legal team’s repeated refusal to designate a custodian of records to sign a document attesting that all classified materials have been returned to the federal government, according to two of these people. The Justice Department has repeatedly sought an unequivocal sworn written assurance from Trump’s team that all such documents have been returned, and Trump’s team has been unwilling to designate a custodian of records to sign such a statement while also giving assurances that they have handed documents back.

The article also states that “some of Trump’s lawyers are also wary of making any claim under oath based on Trump’s word alone, two people familiar with the matter said.”

As Groucho Marx sagely observed, time wounds all heels.

[not guilty]

I wonder who will represent Trump in responding to the contempt motion. Christina Bobb has blamed M. Evan Corcoran for the fraudulent June 3 certification; I suspect that Corcoran is a potential witness against Trump. (The prior false certification should be admissible to help establish the requirement of willfulness.)

Upon a finding of willful civil contempt for violating a court order, one of the remedies available to Judge Howell would be to order Trump confined in jail until compliance occurs.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Relatively soon, Bob from Ohio will be the only lawyer in America who is willing to represent Trump and has not been disbarred.

Trump should hope his legal needs include having a backwater deed proofread.

[Life of Brian]

Upon a finding of willful civil contempt for violating a court order, one of the remedies available to Judge Howell would be to order Trump confined in jail until compliance occurs.

Well, so much for that wet dream: https://thehill.com/homenews/3769327-judge-declines-request-to-hold-trump-team-in-contempt/

Hope springs eternal....

[John F. Carr]

Sometimes judges in Massachusetts get angry at procedural missteps by the prosecution and engineer an acquittal. One such case reached the Supreme Judicial Court recently.

The prosecution turned over the wrong document in discovery. The document provided was not incriminating. At trial the defense attorney objected when a different, incriminating document was offered in evidence. The judge could have sustained the objection or called a recess to let the defense look at the correct document. Instead as a sanction for the discovery violation he ordered the case dismissed with prejudice in the middle of a jury trial. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled the prosecution could appeal because the "dismissal" was really a mistrial. The prosecution lost on the merits because there were inadequate grounds for a mistrial.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2022/12/07/t13242.pdf

[Dr. Ed 2]

What do you think the SJC will do with the bogus breathalizer readings?

[John F. Carr]

I think they will not make a blanket pro-defendant rule like they did in the drug lab cases, and most guilty pleas will stand.

[M L]

Reading between the lines of all available evidence, you can find an organized effort by the bureau to put its thumb on the scale for Joe Biden’s campaign.

I can appreciate clever. It’s when people — especially government officials — insult my intelligence that I get angry. And we should all be angry over the United States government’s interference in the 2020 presidential election, hot on the heels of its self-abasement during and in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/12/the-twitter-files-miss-the-real-scandal-fbi-interference-in-the-2020-election/

[Nige]

When you’re categorising the FBI being concerned about foreign interference in the election as interference itself because you perceive it as detrimental to your side, you’ve pretty much given the game away.

[Sarcastr0]

I, for one, do not agree with you that Hunter Biden's dick was material to the 2020 Presidential campaign.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What's really wild is that so many Republicans think that Hunter's personal life is bad for Biden. Biden's best moment in the 2020 debate was when Trump stupidly attacked Hunter while Biden talked about Beau, and Biden was like: yeah my son struggled with addiction and I'm proud of him for trying to get over it. Or when the Post or Hannity published the texts and voice messages of Biden telling his son "I love you" as if it was some kind of scandal.

Unsurprisingly, most people don't like bullies, and attacking the ne'er-do-well addict and his dad for standing by him through his struggles is peak bullying. And so many on the right simply don't see it for what it is. But of course: the cruelty is the point.

[not guilty]

Hunter Biden appears to be a scoundrel. He is reportedly being investigated by the United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, a Trump holdover whom President Biden reappointed so as not to interfere in that investigation. If Hunter is charged with a crime, let the chips fall where they may.

[Don Nico]

"Unsurprisingly, most people don’t like bullies"
If there is one thing that the Orange Clown is, he is a BULLY."

[bevis the lumberjack]

How about Hunter Biden’s influence peddling? Could thst have been material.

You accuse me of saying talking points of a party I’m not even sympathetic toward and look at you spouting the silly dick talking point. The issue is, and always has been, influence peddling.

[Sarcastr0]

How would that have been material? Hunter Biden isn't running for President.

Also, that has nothing to do with twitter, which is what ML's linked story is about.

You're too eager to get outraged these days.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Was the Big Man involved? That’s hugely material.

You’ll say “there’s no evidence of that” and I’ll respond “who knows with no investigation”.

But you’re the one spouting party talking points.

And you’re manufacturing outrage again. There’s nothing in what I said that indicates outrage because I’m not outraged. I’m embarrassed for you that you can spout the penis stuff and expect to be taken seriously.

[Sarcastr0]

The Big Man nonsense is nothing. It's never been anything. If it were something, the right would have had more than just yelling BIG MAN over and over again.

And. Importantly. ML's complaint is about twitter. Which didn't really have anything to do with your complaint.

You came in hot about an off-topic issue that is also not even an issue. Wonder why I thought you might be eager to post some outrage?

You keep crying about talking points. I say what I think, who cares if someone else also says it? You spew right wing narratives all the time yourself. Find a better accusation.

[OtisAH]

I’m sorry you didn’t get the chance to see Hunter Biden’s dick. But I do have to warn you, admitting this stuff here is risky. A lot of the commenters don’t really care for your lifestyle. Just looking out, buddy!

Oh, and have you considered photoshopping Hunter’s head on one of your favorite dick pics? It won’t be the same but, when all is said and done, does it really matter?

[M L]

You're kidding right? You can't be this stupid.

[OtisAH]

No, I’m genuinely sorry you didn’t get to see Hunter’s dick. It seems to have affected you greatly.

Or do you mean the photoshop bit? Listen, I was just trying to be helpful. If you already came up with that stopgap measure I had no way of knowing. I didn’t mean to be redundant.

[not guilty]

The linked National Review article is behind a paywall. What facts do you claim evince federal government interference in the 2020 presidential election?

As for the 2016 election, James Comey's shenanigans regarding Anthony Weiner's laptop likely resulted in Donald Trump winning the electoral college, so where was any self-abasement?

[bernard11]

Don't forget his shenanigans over Clinton's emails.

[shawn_dude]

Conspiracy Porn!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Here's a cure for some of your ignorance:

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/

[M L]

Which part of Andrew McCarthy's article is wrong?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're so far gone into partisan delusion that you can't figure out the answer on your own?

[M L]

I mean, McCarthy's article seems pretty mild to me as usual. National Review is not exactly a cutting edge right wing polemic these days, closer to a Lincoln Project lite.

I'm not reading your 10,000 word link since too many people want to pay me for my time. If you actually understood what you are talking about though you could provide one sentence answering my question.

[not guilty]

Congress has now given final approval to legislation to mandate federal recognition for same-sex marriages. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/us/politics/same-sex-marriage-congress.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20221208&instance_id=79643&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=115389&te=1&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f That is an encouraging development, what with chatter about SCOTUS abrogating Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).

It has been nineteen years now since Goodridge v. Deptartment of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), was decided, and same sex marriage has become commonplace. Are the Chicken Littles going to admit that during this time the sky in fact has not fallen, contrary to their fanciful predictions?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, and the Brave New People's Republic is re-issuing birth certificates so as to indicate the preferred sex -- and we are cutting healthy parts off children.

[shawn_dude]

Sex reassignment surgery for infants has existed for many decades. When a child is born with visible characteristics of both sexes, it's common for the hospital and parents to choose one and remove the other. The myth that there are only two sexes is supported by, as you put it, "cutting healthy parts off children."

[Don Nico]

"visible characteristics"
visible externals are not what determines the sex of the infant. The distinguishing characteristics are internal organs.
Persons of truly indeterminate sex are extremely rare.
You've proved nothing.

[shawn_dude]

There's a list of things that can classify someone as intersex. Not all of them are visible and not all of them are necessarily tied to internal organs. This is why I mentioned "visible" since the subject is surgical adjustments to genitalia. There are a number of studies that go into how many intersex children are born each year and it depends heavily on what the researchers defined as "intersex." For the subject at hand, an person born with an outwardly female appearance, including a vagina, but with XY chromosomes would probably not qualify for surgery. But a person born with one set of indeterminate genitalia or both sets, is going to be a candidate for surgery. The rates in various reliable sources I've seen run over 1% of babies (1.0-1.7%), but again, that depends on a number of factors and not all of them are visible differences that might lead to surgery.

That the condition and the surgery is rare is besides the point. It exists, naturally, and doctors know what to do when they encounter it.

[Don Nico]

Shawn,
Why are you trying to prove that freak fetal developmental abnormalities are only the mark of a 3rd or 4th gender? That is obviously nonsense.
Moreover, why are doctors trimining off excess parts on the say-so of parents. Your ideology holds that such alteration should be the decision of the child once it reaches the age of reason.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Which is completely unrelated to gays getting married.

[not guilty]

Cutting healthy parts of children (foreskins) predates recorded history. What is the nexus to SSM?

[Don Nico]

also true

[SRG]

"Are the Chicken Littles going to admit that during this time the sky in fact has not fallen, contrary to their fanciful predictions?"

The predictions were debating tactics - I'm not sure how many of those people who made adverse predictions believed them. IMO, religious concerns slightly to one side, the issue is that these people think of the world as zero-sum, so if rights are extended to gays, then by definition they're losing. What it is they're losing isn't ever clear, but if teh gayz win, it must be a loss to them.

Expect more whining.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Of course not. They have doubled down on demonizing LGBT people Since opposition isn't linked to their material conditions, but simply cultural/social aesthetics, society has already collapsed to them and the sky has in fact fallen since SSM was legalized.

[not guilty]

Right. It's all about the need to look down upon a disfavored class of people. As then-Senator Lyndon Johnson said in 1960, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1988/11/13/what-a-real-president-was-like/d483c1be-d0da-43b7-bde6-04e10106ff6c/

Since then, overt race baiting has become socially unacceptable. More recently, gays and lesbians were the chosen target. That has abated to some extent since SSM has taken hold, but now transgendered persons and alleged "groomers" are vilified.

[shawn_dude]

"Groomer" is just the modern slang for pedophile. Accusing LGBT persons of pedophilia is an old, tired stereotype. My ability to marry hasn't changed anyone's mind about LGBT persons in general. DeStantis, who is good at understanding how to reach the MAGAts and is succeeding and calving some away from Trump, is doubling down on anti-LGBT rhetoric. Recent shoot-em-ups at LGBT events and businesses are proof that this hate isn't just limited to trans people.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That demonization of gays will be costly. Young people (especially the educated young who will lead our society in coming decades) have advanced to a point at which race, sexual orientation, and the like are not much of an issue — until someone makes it an issue with bigotry, at which point the young people are largely hostile to anything and everything the bigots says or wants.

The consequences of this tone-deafness and ignorance seem likely to be severe for conservatives with respect to guns, abortion, immigration, and just about every position regarding which conservatives hope to persuade America to reject the liberal-libertarian mainstream position.

[shawn_dude]

This is why they're attempting to control the conversation in schools, because they understand that they've lost the youth vote.

[Jacob Grimes]

You're looking at the wrong case. The Chicken Littles after Lawrence v. Texas were proven right.

In any case, legislation allowing same-sex marriage is fine, it was the court decisions that caused worry.

There's still plenty of time for the sky to fall, too. The reasoning of Obergefell applies equally to incestuous marriages. After all, what is the rational basis for prohibiting adult siblings from marrying if immorality is now animus? Who are we to stop incestuous couples from aspiring to the "transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning?"

[not guilty]

The analogy to Obergefell is misplaced. What incentive to sue would adult siblings, who have not been criminally prosecuted as in Lawrence, have to challenge prohibitions of incestuous marriage? They typically do their coupling in private, with little risk of detection, and I would surmise that that activity is much more fun than litigating.

[Bored Lawyer]

You do realize that Lawrence was a case about sex and Obergefell a case about marriage, right?
Two siblings decide they want to get married. Which certainly has many legal advantages. State of X says no. They now have a claim.

[not guilty]

Let a practitioner of adult incest who wishes to marry a sibling sue, and let the parties develop an evidentiary record. I doubt that the defendant state officials will have too much trouble prevailing. Would any lawyer take such a case on a contingent fee or pro bono publico? If not, what would motivate siblings surreptitiously fucking one another to pay out hundreds of thousands in legal fees?

[Bored Lawyer]

Same thing that motivated the gay couples who sued in the prior cases: money.

Simple example. If you are rich and you die, your estate is taxed above a certain exclusion (nowadays $ 12 Million). But if you leave any amount of money to your spouse, that amount is not taxed. One could leave billions to a spouse and there would be zero estate tax, at least until the spouse dies.

So if Bro and Sis want to leave each other money, getting married means they avoid taxes.

[EscherEnigma]

Not really.

Monetary harms make good legal arguments, but they aren't persusassive.

Nah, those persuassive ones were all the stories where someone not recognizing a gay couple as a family caused harm. Hospitals, childcare, death, birth, inheritance.

But siblings? They're already recognized as family in all those stories. Heck, in many of them it's a brother or sister being recognized as the "real" family over the chosen partner that's the problem.

So nah. Sibling-fuckers are going to have to find their own sympathetic stories. The stories of the harms caused by a lack of marriage recognition don't transfer over.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Homosexuals are grooming children in schools with buttplugs and dildos and debating whether or not spit or silicon is the best lubricant.

That's what's happened in those nineteen years.

[not guilty]

That is untrue, but if it were the case, how would lawfully married homosexuals be more likely to do that than unmarried homosexuals?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Someone missed the latest PV drop where some homosexual dean was bragging about doing precisely what I said.

[not guilty]

Supporting facts? Or do you merely make an incendiary ipse dixit assertion? And again, how would lawfully married homosexuals be more likely to do that than unmarried homosexuals? Where is the nexus to SSM?

[Sarcastr0]

PV = Project Veritas.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas/status/1600656430151135232

[not guilty]

Nothing in the tweet you link relates to whether gay couples and lesbian couples can or cannot lawfully marry. Stop dancing around the maypole and answer the question I have posed above. (Or man up and admit that you are unable to do so.)

[Sarcastr0]

Dean of Students Brags About Bringing in LGBTQ+ Health Center to Teach “Queer Sex” to Minors

“Passing around dildos and butt plugs…kids are just playing with them…Using lube versus using spit…that’s a really like, cool part of my job”

The usual out of context propagandistic trash they do.

Yes, gay sex should be part of sex ed. Teaching about and demystifying sex toys is a great way to teach about safe ways to have sex.

Tell me, BCD, do you think this person should be killed for being a pedophile enabler? Because this is the kind of shit that gets death threats aimed at whoever this or that national account decide to spotlight.

The politics of just taking random people's scalps to feel righteous is one of the worst things to grow on the right.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The usual out of context propagandistic trash they do.

There's a context where teaching little children about buttplugs, dildos and spit or saliva is good?

Yes, gay sex should be part of sex ed.

For normal kids? Why should normal kids learn about gay sex?

Teaching about and demystifying sex toys is a great way to teach about safe ways to have sex.

You homo's are gross and evil. Stay away from normal people's kids.

[not guilty]

One more time. What does the tweet you link have to do with whether gay and lesbian couples are able to lawfully marry?

[Sarcastr0]

You homo’s are gross and evil
You sure do think a lot of people are gay...do you think every liberal is a rampant-member jamming buttsexlord?

You didn't answer my death penalty question. Or ng's question about relevance...

[M L]

LOL

"Having this man pass around dildos and buttplugs to your underage children and teach them about using spit for anal sex lube is perfectly normal and healthy."

"Also, you need to keep what he's doing a secret and not publicize it, otherwise parents might kill him or send death threats and if you publicize these facts that means you think he should be killed."

Sarc - How many kids do you have? Maybe you should form your own private school where your kids can do this stuff, and leave the rest of us alone.

[grb]

Yesterday I read one of the countless op-eds from Right-types announcing the party’s divorce from Trump. Of course it’s the right decision (however belated), but came with some ludicrous points.

1. The writer found Trump’s recent conduct infuriating, unethical, dishonest, puerile, childish & destructive. But that spoonful of medicine came with sugar : In the past, everyone had so “unfair” to DJT. Pure bullshit. In the past, Trump was equally infuriating, unethical, dishonest, puerile, childish & destructive. The writer just refused to see then.

2. Per the writer, dumping Trump will usher in a new Golden Age for Republicans. What malarkey! Their new savoir, DeSantis, is only Trump-Lite. His shtick is the same WWE-style entertainment as Trump; the same cartoon theatrics; the same cheap stunts. Trump didn’t force GOP primary voters to pick reality-TV entertainment over serious candidates. Trump wasn’t the one who made a campaign theme out of kitty litter in the classroom for kids who identify as cats.

The moral rot is in the core of today’s Right. Trump is symptom, not cause.

[David Nieporent]

No. And making this argument exonerates Trump. Trump is not the only bad actor in the GOP, of course. But he is Patient Zero.

Well, that's a bad metaphor, but I don't have a good one. Take away Trump and the whole MAGA edifice collapses. Look, for instance, at all the Trumpkin candidates running in 2022: virtually every one, no matter how far up Trump's ass their heads were, conceded quickly after the election. (Kari Lake is the one exception.) This is all Trump. He's sui generis.

[not guilty]

FWIW, Kari Lake's attorneys have been sanctioned by an Arizona federal district judge for filing of a baseless complaint on her behalf against Arizona officials. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23323655-kari-lake-v-katie-hobbs-sanctions-12-1-2022

That is encouraging. I expect to see more sanctions imposed against Team Trump attorneys (and hopefully, against party litigants as well) for abusive litigation tactics.

[David Nieporent]

Just to be clear, that wasn't about the results of the 2022 election.

[shawn_dude]

How do you square that with the whole Tea Party movement, which is just the prior incarnation of MAGA? I don't think Trump is the root (or patient zero) of this issue. He just finally found a product he could sell to an undersupplied market. That market will exist with or without Trump to milk cash and adoration from it.

[Nige]

He wasn't Patient Zero, he was a catalyst.

[Don Nico]

" don’t think Trump is the root (or patient zero) of this issue."
Patient zero was Sarah Palin.
Had McCain followed his instincts and chosen Lieberman as a running mate we would have been spared, Palin and Trump and a bunch of other loonies.

[shawn_dude]

Palin remains a loon but I also think she's just a symptom of the larger problem driving dissatisfaction among mostly blue-collar, white Americans.

[Don Nico]

shawn,
you missed the point of my comment. That "loon" paved the way for the Orange Clown and worse.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think it would have affected one thing. Palin's selection didn't have any long term effects except on her own life and career. What we do know is that the GOP threatened to revolt if he tried to pick Democrat Joe Lieberman for his ticket, which is why McCain didn't follow through on that idea.

[Don Nico]

David,
I disagree about Palin. She remained a rallying point for nutjobs until the Orange Clown bullied his way into the scene.
A GOP revolt in 2008, if it had the balls to follow through, would have been good for the country which would at least have seen what true moral leadership is all about.

[grb]

I have my own Grand Unified Theory of right wing politics. It may not exist anywhere outside my own enlightened consciousness, but here ya go:

1. It starts decades ago with the growing popularity of right-wing talk radio. Conservatives enjoyed a few hours of feisty fun each day as an escape from the tedium of reality.

2. Then came Fox, and they got their entertainment-cum-politics twenty-four-seven. As consumer, the Right was highly pleased. Plus there wasn’t the disconnect as the viewer shifted from cartoon theater to boring policy. It was all dessert, all the time.

3. But there were still all those drab politicians in the background, like extras on an action movie set. They weren’t pulling their weight theatrically, so evolution dictated they mutate into entertainers themselves. The Decider and Sarah Palin led the way, but Trump completed the progression into a Reality-TV presidency.

4. Right-wing world today is like WWE wrestling. It doesn’t matter it’s not real. The consumers know (at some lever) it’s not real, but they just don’t care. Hell, it wouldn’t work if the slightest nod to reality was required. It wouldn’t be as knee-slapping, blood-pumping fun, and that’s the sole reigning standard.

This arc of development existed before Trump and will continue after.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Trump was historically awful behaviorally, but somehow he brought out the worst in the people who opposed him. A whole lot of the media wrecked their credibility for a generation with what Trump drove them to. There was so much actual stuff Trump screwed up that there was no need to exaggerate or fabricate things, but they hated him so much they couldn’t seem to help themselves.

Don’t know what I think of DeSantis yet but he’s nothing like Trump as an administrator or as to temperament. Orders of magnitude back toward normal.

[shawn_dude]

The media makes money off of clicks. Rage farming is the fastest and cheapest way to get clicks. Trump stokes rage. If the media didn't swarm over Trump's stench like flies on a carcass, they'd have found another bad smell to exploit.

Desantis attacks corporations and restricts free speech in his schools. He's a classic authoritarian, just like Trump. They aren't "orders of magnitude" different. Desantis is just more polished and his choices appear more strategic rather than Trump's gut-based reactions.

[Don Nico]

Desantis and Trump are not even on the same Riemann sheet.

[DaveM]

Any unusual first-Holiday-movie-of-the-season choices out there? Mine is "Surviving Christmas". A solid B movie that gets all my cynical feelings about the commodification and commercialization of Christmas out of the way, so I can relax and enjoy the real reason for the season. And yes, of course it has a happy ending. Wouldn't be a Christmas movie without it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Can't say I'm a fan of "unusual" Holiday movies. Our go-tos are,

1. Rise of the Guardians. Works for every holiday!
2. The Christmas Chronicles. Pity Netflix won't allow release on disk, I have to sign up for Netflix once a year to see them.
3. The Santa Clause.

I can't seem to get my family to watch the old one about the elf who aspired to being a dentist. Ok, it's just nostalga on my part...

[LawTalkingGuy]

Maybe you can get them into Rankin-Bass by showing them the incredibly bizarre Rudolph's Christmas in July.

[YepThatGuy]

I don't care what anyone says about you B. Bellmore, that is a damn good list. My kids and I watched them in exactly that order this year once they decided it was officially Christmas Movie Watching Season.

[Nige]

Not movies (I always watch Blade Runner on Christmas Eve and we usually put one of the Lord Of The Rings films on Christmas Day) but I listen to a lot of MR James stories this time of the year - also ghost stories from other Olde Englande writers, but always MR James, and watch some adaptations on YouTube, and the BBC usually do a new one, this year it's Count Magnus, I believe.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It's probably because I got the DVDs for Christmas in 2004 and I just associate them, but I like to watch LOTR around Christmas time too.

[SRG]

MR James is very fine, and the BBC adaptations are generally solid. Also check out the 1957 film Night of the Demon for a decent albeit dated film adaptation of The Casting of the Runes.

[Nige]

That is a GOOD film.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I usually don't watch many holiday movies in the lead up to Christmas. Always watch A Christmas Story on Christmas. Usually try and watch Elf. Those aren't "unusual" of course, but you can't beat the classics.

[Moderation4ever]

Let me put a plug in for Donavan's Reef made in 1963. I love this film set at Christmas Time, but in the south pacific (I believe it was actually filmed in Hawaii). John Wayne leads a wonderful cast. I has the all the hallmarks of a Wayne film, a love story and fist fights.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Die Hard.

[Frank Drackman]

In the Joint? I thought you guys would be big "Shawshank" fans

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Jerry Sandusky, like Joe Paterno, was a registered Republican, a conservative, and a stain on American society.

[Brett Bellmore]

Great movie, wasn't it? I think my son hasn't seen it, maybe we'll watch it this weekend, before we start binging Christmas movies.

[Nige]

Oh, yes, Krakatoa East Of Java has to go on some afternoon between Christmas and New Year's or the whole season is ruined.

[Nige]

AND Ice Station Zebra.

[shawn_dude]

We re-watch the Harry Potter movies. They aren't technically "Christmas" movies but they were released during the Christmas season so we associate them.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah, nothing villainous about stripping competent conscientious doctors of their livelihood - and denying their patients doctors that they like - because they wander outside of groupthink.

Sure the right is a problem on Covid, although your numbers are generated using silly logic, but you’re clearly avoiding talking about THIS problem in California.

There are plenty of villains around Covid. You only want to discuss one type.

[Nige]

‘because they wander outside of groupthink.’

Okay, I think you have a point that this is certainly bad on the face of it but we’re talking about medical misinformation that can cause injury or death and potentially help spread a dangerous virus, not some rigid political opinion that you have to hold to be in a particular club, it’s peoples' lives and health.

[Brett Bellmore]

But the problem is that they've racked up a remarkably poor track record at identifying "misinformation". Why, it almost seems like all they mean by the term is "Whatever we don't want people to believe at the moment."

Even for long standing medical issues, it's quite common for things to be up in the air. In the midst of a pandemic, with no hard info, it's pretty ballsy to be sanctioning doctors for saying anything that has the remotest chance of being true.

[Nige]

Actually, most misinformation is quite easy to identify, though since you fall for so much of it I can see why you think everybody else would have the same difficulties. It's usually easy enough to know where there are gaps and uncertainties, too, especially in a developing situation - those are the ones misinformation merchants exploit as 'lies' or 'switching narratives.'

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Misinformation” in the context of the zealots that govern us means “things that we don’t agree with or contradict what we say”.

No recognition that they themselves have incomplete information or could be just plain wrong, which has been the case plenty of times during the pandemic. Understandable due to how fast things were moving.

They can’t be trusted to reasonably decide who should and shouldn’t be punished. And none of that addresses the 1A issues.

[Nige]

Yes, official messages and information can turn out to be wrong - but misinformation is usually lies, often capitalising on official mistakes. Let's not pretend we're dealing with simple disagreements and doubts here, there's a whole political party devoted to misinformation, and it's dangerous.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Nige, you’re a committed zealot. There isn’t A PARTY devoted to misinformation. Almost Truth Minister Wackadoodle was a consistent promoter of erroneous bullshit.

And the point eludes you as to things that are wrong but turn out to be right. During the period where they’re wrong they are lambasted as misinformation. But since they turn out to be right it means that the Misinformation Police were actually spewing the misinformation.

None of these people of either party can be trusted to identify truth because their brains are twisted by politics. Hell, the thing that politicians are most known for is lying. And you believe them when they tell you what is true and what isn’t? Out of the hole, man. Out of the hole.

[Nige]

I'm not sure what Wrong Things That Turned Out To Be Right you're talking about. I'll go with the party that thinks covid is dangerous, vaccines reduce risk and wearing masks helps reduce the spread, not the party that thinks all those are lies to promote some sort of New World Order.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The opinion that vaccines didn’t prevent transmission was once wrongthink thst is now known to be correct.

The opinion that the Biden laptop was legitimately Biden’s laptop was wrongthink that is now known to be correct.

Want me to keep going?

[Nige]

Sure, then it changed as we learned the facts about how the vaccine and the virus interacted.

It may be Hunter Biden’s laptop, but it damn sure hasn’t been proven.

Keep going.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, as we learned the facts.

So, maybe don't ban as "misinformation" things you don't actually have the facts on, and thus can't actually establish ARE wrong?

[Nige]

See? Even you do it, exploit uncertainty and changing facts to promote misinformation. I don't think it can be banned, but it can be identified, and it definitely shouldn't be part of any doctor's treatment or medical advice.

[Brett Bellmore]

God, you're being stupid about this. How the hell do you KNOW a claim is false before the facts are in?

They weren't banning false claims, they were banning dissent!

[Don Nico]

Nige,
What you call misinformation has been shown to be a valid criticism of CDC policy in many instances. Citing "many deaths" etc. is a propaganda technique used to avoid talking about specifics.

[Nige]

There are VERY valid criticisms of CDC policy. It is not the same thing as misinformation.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what we're saying. It IS the same as what the CDC calls "misinformation", though.

[Nige]

No, it's not.

[Don Nico]

CDC call misinformation anything that disagrees with the statements blassed or issued by its political leadership. its mistakes have grossly undermined the stirling medical reputation that it once enjoyed.

[Sarcastr0]

Why did you post about this twice?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I fucked up a response to a post above. Old Man Cell Phone Confusion Syndrome.

[Sarcastr0]

After I hit post I thought maybe I shouldn't ding you because exactly that has happened to all of us many times.

The reason interface remains the best that 1999 has to offer.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet you muddle through.

[Brett Bellmore]

We live with it because it's coupled with the best moderation 1999 had to offer, too: Virtually none.

[Sarcastr0]

Many of us come here despite that, Brett.

I can't imagine you're much of a fan of the increasing stream of antisemitism around here either.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm not. But I AM a fan of their not deciding what people are allowed to say.

It would hardly be a principled stance on free speech if I only applied it to speech I agreed with.

[EscherEnigma]

For a moment here I thought you were talking about red states that are trying to outlaw doctors treating gender dysphoria.

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : “Sure the right is a problem on Covid, although your numbers are generated using silly logic, but you’re clearly avoiding talking about THIS problem in California”

You can challenge the numbers as statistically inexact and the logic as faulty. Please feel free to do so. But are you challenging the substance and scope of the issue? I ask this of Don Nico above but it’s impossible to get anything of substance from him, so I’ll try you:

We have a political party that promoted an anti-vaxx message across a broad spectrum. We have a corresponding disparity between vaccination rates by party. We have a documented disparity between death rates of the vaccinated & unvaccinated.

It’s easy to criticize any attempt to quantify the human cost of the above factors, but that cost does exist. Personally, I think the California law is foolish, will be rarely enforced, and won’t hold-up functionally when it does. But it won’t cost tens of thousands of pointless deaths. When has that topic been discussed around here? Which topic is more important? Which topic has the greater cost? Does sneering at this number or that make the scale of the problem disappear?

[Moderation4ever]

Interesting legal question about the term "hack". Some of the reluctance to report on data from Hunter Biden's rests in the question was the data hacked. We know that Hunter abandoned the laptop and therefore forfeited the hardware, but did he also forfeit data privacy to the information on the laptop. It is likely he authorized some access to data for the individual repairing the equipment but how far does that authorization extend? In turning data over to a third party was the data hacked?

[Jacob Grimes]

I think in both the Fourth Amendment and privacy-related tort contexts, you have to have an objectively reasonable privacy interest in the thing searched. Once you abandon the computer, I don't think you can maintain a reasonable privacy interest in any part of it, especially if its not independently protected (like encrypted files or something).

[Nige]

I’m not sure we do know he abandoned a laptop in that shop, we certainly don't know who had access to it, which is why it seems likely the confirmed information on it was probably hacked. Nobody has claimed that any data was ‘turned over’ to anyone, so if it wasn’t hacked it was definitely stolen.

[Brett Bellmore]

You may not be sure of a bunch of things that are amply proven public record, but that's your problem.

We've literally seen his signature on the repair order.

[Nige]

You’ve certainly seen something that claims to be that, yes. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t, we definitely don't know who had access to it while it was there.

[Mr. Bumble]

You sound like a "birther".

[Nige]

You sound like a non sequiter.

[David Nieporent]

We’ve literally seen his signature on the repair order.

Are you now a handwriting analyst too?

[grb]

If the only thing that supports the Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman story is a scrawl on a receipt, then maybe its bizarre improbability can’t be ignored. What we know is this:

For two years, Rudy Giuliani and his low-grade crook henchmen (Lev Parnas & Igor Fruman) made regular trips to Ukraine. They conducted a smear campaign against U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch, and negotiated with corrupt/discredited Ukrainians like Viktor Shokin, Dmytry Firtash, and Yuriy Lutsenko. At one point the CIA warned Trump there were surveillance tapes of Giuliani talking with known Russian agents as he sought Hunter dirt. That was the whole point of this trip down the Ukrainian rabbit hole: To buy something on Hunter Biden.

Then Giuliani appears with the laptop on the eve of the election, and this magical laptop has a magical cover story: The Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman. It takes a lot more than a receipt scrawl to make that plausible.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/cia-other-spy-agencies-told-white-house-about-rudy-giuliani-n1243718

[shawn_dude]

From a purely technical perspective, if the person in possession of Hunter's laptop was given login credentials by Hunter, then no, it wasn't "hacked." Hacking, or "cracking" depending on where you fall on that dichotomy, requires some element of force or subterfuge to gain access.

Then there's how the law defines "hacking," which will vary but could easily mean nothing more than entering a system or portion of a system without permission even if you were given a valid username and password.

Regardless, I think the question here, which I cannot answer, is whether it was theft of data.

[Frank Drackman]

The Hunter's Laptop that isn't real? it's like a Schroeder's Cat scenario.

[Bored Lawyer]

It is and it isn't. 🙂

[shawn_dude]

If y'all want to be taken seriously, maybe rely less on transparently stupid conspiracy theories and spend more time in reality with the rest of us. I think pointing out that the stopped clock is right twice a day doesn't lend the remaining 23 hours and 58 minutes any more credibility.

[ducksalad]

“Hacked” to me means evading protections like usernames and passwords to avoid a clear intent to keep you out. The computer equivalent of breaking the lock on a door. It doesn’t matter if the lock was flimsy, what matters is that it was locked.

The repair guy may have violated an implied duty to his customer. I’d hesitate to use a repair service that said if I was late in pickup they’d put all my files on the Internet or sell them to the highest bidder. Or that had a reputation for doing that. But it’s not hacking.

Similarly, someone with legal access to classified information who sells it to the Russians is guilty of a lot of stuff but it's not hacking.

[Voize]

abandoned the laptop and therefore forfeited the hardware

Not according to Delaware law.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

Thought of the day: By a group of Republicans caving on gay marriage, it gives ammunition to the left that their positions are the "right" ones and that conservatives just need to "come around."

[Moderation4ever]

Did these Republicans come around or did they just wake p to the fact that's i s 2022 and views on homosexuality have changed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Life on the wrong side of history and the losing end of the American culture war is difficult . . . and shorthand for the Volokh Conspiracy.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

Views have changed because people have been misled to think gays are just normal people, but who are attracted to the same sex. Once they realize that homosexual men are actually sex-crazed fiends with mental illness who like to pummel hundreds of men in bath houses, their turn changes.

[shawn_dude]

You appear to have given much thought to how much freedom and fun gay men get up to in bathhouses.

I'd point to the similar, though primarily heterosexual, antics one might find at Spring break events but suspect you know your own tastes better.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is no coincidence that the Volokh Conspiracy attracts such a concentration of deplorable bigots. This is the audience this white, male, right-wing blog has cultivated.

[Brett Bellmore]

Question is, did they run on voting that way? Because I have zero respect for politicians who "come around" AFTER an election. Regardless of whether they change their minds to disagree with me, or to agree with me, doesn't matter.

You win an election by lying to the voters about what you'll do, that counts as a form of election fraud so far as I'm concerned.

[shawn_dude]

I would imagine people should be given the chance to learn and change their positions for legitimate reasons and not just because they were trying to harvest votes from bigots.

[Sarcastr0]

Coming around to what the people think is a fine thing for a politician to do, so long as they don't do it on everything.

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean, running on doing one thing, then doing the opposite after the election, is fine sometimes. But it depends on whether they ran on doing something you disliked, then did something you liked, (Good!) or ran on doing something you liked, then did something you disliked. (Bad!)

Totally about getting your way, even if the voters have to be lied to in order to get it.

Democracy can't work if politicians routinely lie about what they'll do if elected.

[Sarcastr0]

This is an awful post, Brett.

Your made a general point about politicians. Specifically independent of policies. I made a counterpoint that my values regarding what I'm okay with politicians doing is different.

Then you accuse me of...lying, I guess? Or being note sticking to the values I espoused. What about your dislike for politicians who change their minds? Are you consistent because you're just a better person than I am?

Evidenceless accusations of hypocricy don't have much heat, Brett. Especially coming from someone with such a demonstrated pattern of awful telepathy. If you want to actually make this argument, come with examples, not empty condemnation.

[Brett Bellmore]

You said, "Coming around to what the people think is a fine thing for a politician to do, so long as they don’t do it on everything."

What distinguishes the things it's fine for them to come around on, from the things it's not? I think it's whether they're coming around to agreeing with you.

I'm not fine with it at all. It's running a bait and switch on the voters. You think these pols actually changed their minds? Why didn't they change their minds before the election, then? Why is it always right after an election, or after they've decided to retire?

It's because they didn't change their minds at all, they saw the opportunity to politically survive betraying the people who'd elected them.

[Frank Drackman]

Guess nobody told the Hiv-ie Virus that's still killing millions of Homos (OK, not in the US, but worldwide)

[bevis the lumberjack]

Caved to who/what?

They changed on one concept. It’s not an admission of anything else. If you vote with the other party for one vote it doesn’t mean you’ve joined the party. Kind of a silly concept.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Republicans caving on gay marriage"

It gives ammunition to people who correctly think GOP senators are largely useless.

[Ben_]

Why do any non-leftists give two shits about what leftists think about anything? Like what would the Soviet government perspective be?

It’s always that they are right and their ideas work and when they fail it’s always because of CIA monkeywrenching or some other conspiracy theory so it doesn’t count. Otherwise it would totally have worked all those times.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s always that they are right and their ideas work and when they fail it’s always because of CIA monkeywrenching or some other conspiracy theory so it doesn’t count.

I figure Ben can't have any mirrors in his house at this point. No reflection allowed.

[Moderation4ever]

[dwb68]

American Girl: Who buys these dolls? I am guessing its not liberals, who don’t want to push feminine stereotypes like the limited edition Sapphire Splendor on girls. And I am guessing its not conservatives because American Girl has gone woke with a book about puberty blockers.

Do corporate boards think these things through: Lets offend all our customers instead of only 50% of them?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Most corporate boards, when weighing inclusiveness and modernity against bigotry and knuckle-dragging backwardness, are unlikely to side with the disaffected, downscale culture war casualties.

I blame their education, accomplishments, and sense of decency.

[Frank Drackman]

Too bad you don't have any of them.

[Aunt Teefah]

Maybe there's still a segment of consumers whose brains have not been totally rotted by partisanship to the point that every purchase has to affirm their political identity. Some people buy their kids a toy because they think they will like it and have fun with it.

[dwb68]

Corporations want your purchase to affirm their corporate political identity, so why shouldn't the reverse be true?

I would like to buy a toy, or watch a movie, except corporations are telling me what it means.

Top Gun was the highest grossing movie this year, because it was not infused with woke madness. It was just plain seat of the pants fun.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Corporations want your purchase to affirm their corporate political identity"

Wrong. Corporations want to maximize profits for their shareholders. If taking a political posture serves that end, they will do so. If it does not, they won't.

"I would like to buy a toy, or watch a movie, except corporations are telling me what it means."

Wrong again. You want corporations to hold your hand and tell you you're a good person for being a conservative. That's fine, and there will always be a market for that (Black Rifle Coffee, the Babylon Bee, and the like continue to exist, after all). But there are plenty of people who don't share your obsession with politics. Which is why liberal and conservative parents continue to buy their kids American Girl dolls.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

ESG does not maximize profits for shareholders, yet corporations are changing to get higher scores.

They are so harmful to profits that Deep State Democrats in the government are changing the rules so 401k's can invest in these woke stinkers, because otherwise they couldn't since 401k's have a fiduciary responsibility to its contributors.

[Aunt Teefah]

"ESG does not maximize profits for shareholders"

Got any actual proof of this? I'm going to guess that, like your constant inane election fraud allegations, this is yet another claim that you just pulled out of your ass.

[dwb68]

There now have been numerous academic studies ESG funds underperform.

[bevis the lumberjack]

By definition ESGs can’t perform as well because you are ignoring what otherwise would be better investments for political reasons.

A simplistic explanation – let’s say you’re a fund manager and you have 200 companies in the universe that you follow. Your goal is to invest in around 30 if them. If you rank the companies from most attractive valuation to most expensive odds are that the top 30 aren’t all going to be ESG friendly. To the extent you replace whatever number of companies with investments with less return potential you hurt performance.

I avoid ESG funds. Nothing to do with politics. I want managers owning their best ideas regardless of political judgments.

[bernard11]

I stay away from funds managed by people with "ideas." Just index.

[Sarcastr0]

Liberals still buy the dolls. Daughters (and some sons I'm sure) love them.
Liberals are not all 100% purchasing what their ideology might seem to demand. Probably conservatives as well; plenty of them in Nikes.

Though mostly those dolls come from the secondary market...

[bevis the lumberjack]

My wife and I had four daughters and we (actually she) bought them. It never occurred to us that it was a political act.

[dwb68]

I never occurs to me either, until a corporation decides to remind me that my purchase affirms their identity.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It was a simpler time when my kids were kids.

Disney has gone haywire woke as well. I watch from time to time with my grandson and….holy hell. No Disney stuff from us to him this year.

You want a nice, normal well done apolitical cartoon (and related toys) then watch Bluey.

[EscherEnigma]

Well, your kids have got to be in their forties or fifties by now then, 'cause 90s Disney was hella political.

Aladdin - feminism
Hunchback of Notre Dame - anti-catholic, racism
Pocahontas - feminism, racism
Lion King - vegetarianism
Little Mermaid - romancing while disabled

And as far as sexual goes... c'mon, Little Mermaid had a song all about kissing, Hunchback's plot was driven by an incel's lust, Lion King also had a song about getting it on...

So what, you're talking bout Snow White and Sleeping Beauty? You know, the whole "woah, this chick's dead, means she can't say no to a kiss" set of movies?

And it's not like TV shows were any less "political" either. The same complaints today were lobbed back then against shows like Rug Rats and Hey Arnold. Too feminist, too forcing-racial-diversity, too-this ant too-that.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You gotta be looking for that shit to see it. Those are all basically innocent movies. And I had all girls so I liked movies that showed strength in women. None of those has a 4 minute infomercial with a smartass preaching about microaggressions.

Now that you mention it though, Pocahontas was pretty damn preachy.

[EscherEnigma]

JK Rowling has literally said that the royalties she continues to receive on Harry Potter stuff is an affirmation of how popular her anti-trans views are.

[David Nieporent]

She doesn't have anti-trans views. What she has is disagreement with some positions of radical trans activists, who demand 100% fealty to their proclamations.

[Noscitur a sociis]

When did she say that?

[Brett Bellmore]

“I read my most recent royalty cheques and find the pain goes away pretty quickly,”

[Sarcastr0]

a corporation decides to remind me that my purchase affirms their identity.

That's it, though - the Internet is not real life. Most people don't pay a lot of attention to the corporation behind the toys they buy.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I know they don’t. I usually don’t.

But when a company pushes microaggression bullshit to 4 year olds and flaunts it right in my face I can’t help but notice it. So I react.

But I’m not out there looking for companies to be angry at. Usually I don’t know about the politics of companies I buy stuff from. Since I hate politics that’s how I prefer it.

[Sarcastr0]

Right in your face!

Seems like based on profits, not everyone is having that experience, whether you know you're looking for it or not.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seems to me that, given the way profits trend down in companies that do it, it's about anything BUT profits.

[Mr. Bumble]

"American Girl: Who buys these dolls? "

Gay men?

[Frank Drackman]

Rich guy's daughters. It's a phase like Ballet, Gymnastics, they played with dolls until they got older (6 or 7) and I channeled their aggression into competitive sports, academics, and military aviation.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Col. Pup Ravage locked his twitter, lmao what a embarrassment for the Democrat military.

What a cesspool of degenerates and freaks the US military has become.

[Frank Drackman]

Degenerates and Freaks? I thought it was a prerequisite. I'm still living in 1982 but don't be hate-in on the current generation, I've seen some of these current AF/MC/USN/Army Lesbo/Homo Vets, they'll cut your heart out and eat it like friggin Dahmer (in a good way) like our guys(and now gals, guy/gals, gal/guys) have done since 1776

[OtisAH]

You’re still living in 1982? You’re as big a loser as he is.

[not guilty]

Peter Finley Dunne's fictional Irishman Martin J. Dooley observed, "No matter whether the constitution follows the flag or not, the Supreme Court follows the election returns." Perhaps the three justices who decades ago helped to install George W. Bush as president (Roberts, Kavanaugh and Bear It) have noticed the outcome of the midterm elections regarding Moore v. Harper. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/kagan-court-back-from-brink-democracy.html

[not guilty]

See also https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/07/supreme-court-independent-state-legislature-theory-00072713

[Frank Drackman]

Somebody tell the Lesbo Hoops player to get rid of her Marriage-a-Juan-A before she goes through US Customs, it's Ill-legal here too.
21 U.S. Code § 952
"It shall be unlawful to import into the customs territory of the United States from any place outside thereof (but within the United States), or to import into the United States from any place outside thereof, any controlled substance in schedule I or II of subchapter I, or any narcotic drug in schedule III, IV, or V of subchapter I, or ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine"

[not guilty]

The DOJ Special Counsel reportedly has sent grand jury subpoenas to officials in Dane County, Wis.; Maricopa County, Ariz.; and Wayne County, Mich., late last week, and in Milwaukee on Monday, regarding communications with Donald Trump, in addition to employees, agents and attorneys for his campaign. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/06/jack-smith-trump-communications-subpoenas/

I suspect that this line of inquiry includes the Trump team's involvement in the creation and transmission to the Archivist of the United States of bogus slates of electors. Those fraudulent submissions were essential to the efforts of Trump, John Eastman and perhaps others to corruptly importune Mike Pence to unilaterally reject valid slates of electors.

[John F. Carr]

The Wisconsin subpoena was directed to the County Clerk's office. That office would be more likely to have information about requests to change vote counts than a plot to submit fake electoral votes. If I wanted to know about fake electors I would ask state level officials and Republican party leaders. The Special Counsel may be doing that too. The subpoeans include a request not to disclose their contents. Three recipients did not comply and they are the sources for the Washington Post story.

[EscherEnigma]

Wasn't Arizona one of the states that Trump/Trump's lawyers tried to talk into "finding" more votes for Trump (like he did in Georgia)?

Might be about that.

[Frank Drackman]

So sort of the opposite of 2000 where AlGore tried to keep military absentee votes from counting in Florida (what a frigging chucklehead, there's plenty of "D" voters in the military, especially those disciplined enough to request an absentee ballot back in the days of mail and slow Internets) probably cost himself the election.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think so. I think his team (including Ginny Thomas) tried to talk them into throwing out the election results and picking their own slate of electors regardless of the actual vote.

I mean, sure, various MAGA types also engaged in litigation in Arizona throwing every piece of monkey poo at the wall in a desperate attempt to find something that would stick and prove corruption, but that was a direct and overt attack through the courts — not a covert effect like in Georgia to get election officials to manufacture votes.

[Darwinnie]

Can local library boards ban “drag queen story hours?” Or does that constitute viewpoint discrimination?

[ducksalad]

Is it a case of an outside group signing up to reserve a room at the library for DQSH? The library needs to allow it if they're letting other groups hold story hours or club meetings.

Is it a case of one group of library personnel disputing another group of library personnel about whether to organize a DQSH? Tougher call, both the board and the librarian are the government as far as the First Amendment is concerned. Also, what do we mean by "ban"? We clearly can't say that every government decision to buy/sponsor/organize something constitutes "banning" everything not bought/sponsored/organized. But if the order to the librarian was "spend on anything you like, except no DQSH" maybe there's a case.

[EscherEnigma]

Step 1 is to define "drag queen" that targets the class of people you are trying to discriminate against, and no others. This precludes using terms like "cross-dresser" (which includes women who buy men's pants for the pockets), costumes (many children entertainers wear costumes), and so-on.

So that's your first challenge.

Step 2 is to define "story hours" in a way that targets the events you are trying to prevent but not others. This is optional if you're fine just criminalizing drag queens all-together. Forewarning: if you enter with bad assumptions (like drag queen performances always beeing sexual) and try to regulate based on those assumptions, you will have unexpected results and probably won't stop what you're trying to stop.

For the record? The pre-filed Texas bills H.B. 643 and H.B. 708 are examples of what not to do. They would classify a community theater as a strip club for showing Peter Pan and classify a church as a sexual oriented business (with the attendant regulations that classification entails) if they had a transperson in the choir.

[ducksalad]

The sponsors of those Texas bills have a pretty good idea who would be doing enforcement, and probably aren't too worried their favorite community theater putting on Peter Pan, or church putting on a Joan of Arc skit, will get raided by the vice squad.

Don't get me wrong, they're bad bills. But they aren't making a mistake about the effect.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I cannot for the life of me understand the seemingly irresistible urge to sexualize children. This stuff for adults? Sure, no problem. But in elementary schools and story time at the library. That’s something that has always been unpopular to the point of taboo. Things haven’t changed that much.

[EscherEnigma]

I cannot for the life of me understand the seemingly irresistible urge to sexualize children.

Dude, if you can't read Heather Hast Two Mommies without sexualizing children, that's on you. It's got less sexual content in it then Snow White or Sleeping Beauty, both of which involve men kissing what appears to be a corpse.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Dude, you’re the one that went from Drag Queen Storytime to Heather Has Two Mommies, which isn’t what I’m talking about.

And minimal intelligence allows us to understand that Snow White and Sleeping Beauty aren’t dead.

You changed the subject and I’m not sure you’re bright enough to understand that you did.

[Sarcastr0]

Drag queens aren't really that sexy.

[Nige]

Wearing a costume while reading stories to children isn't sexualising them or anyone you utter prude.

[bernard11]

Isn’t it the content of the story, rather than how the storyteller is dressed, that potentially sexualizes children?

If a man puts on a dress and reads Little Red Riding Hood to some kids, how does that sexualize them?

I in fact seem to recall that, when I was a kid, comedians used to appear in drag on broadcast TV and no one thought much about it. It was part of Milton Berle’s shtick.

[EscherEnigma]

Eh, the performer absolutely can add sexualization to a story that otherwise lacks it. Imagine a soccer mom reading Red Riding Hood who goes all heaving breaths and draws out "what big... teeth... you have." and then makes a specific gesture when describing the wolf "eating" Red.

Folks like Bevis there just kind of assume that Drag Queen Story Time is categorically like that, as though it was a form of burlesque. That they're wrong is irrelevant. It's just like the bathroom panic. The lack of victims and cases is irrelevant. That the manufactured panic led to cisgender women being harassed and attacked is irrelevant. All that matters is that hysteria drives people to the polls.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Drag Queen stuff generally has a schtick to it that is sexual, even if playfully.

Flip it around. What is gained by showing that sort of stuff to 9 year-olds?

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what "sort of stuff" you refer to. I believe that the general idea behind DQSH is to "normalize" drag queens. I mean that literally: so that kids who later encounter them in daily life won't point and stare and go: "Look at that crazy guy," but instead will shrug and say, "Yeah, whatever."

[bevis the lumberjack]

There was no Drag Queen Story Time when I was a kid and somehow I’ve never once pointed or stared or said anything. I (and most people that I know) made it to “yeah, whatever” without the guidance of the school system. It’s a miracle, huh?

[Nige]

Sure, but they don’t bring that schtick to storytime for kids. Eddie Murphy performing in Raw is not the same as Eddie Murphy performing in Mulan.

The benefit is it makes storytime aproximately one thousand percent more fun if it’s done by a performer in a silly costume.

Also it's weird that we're talking about this and nobody's raised the heavily armed paramilitary types that turn up to protest these things, nor the power outage that may or may not have been done to target a drag event, but which lots of people said they were ok with if it was, and the bullet fired through the window of a venue.

[David Nieporent]

I cannot for the life of me understand how Republicans can think¹ that anything mentioning or depicting homosexuality or transgenderism to children is “sexualizing” the children. “Oh, no; this G-rated Disney movie has a gay couple in it, in the background, doing G-rated things. But it shows a gay couple, so it’s sexualizing the kids!”

Drag Queen Story Hours are silly, but they are not sexual. (This is distinct than taking them to some drag strip show.) DQSH simply involves a man dressed as a woman reading stories to kids. (Libraries routinely host events in which people read stories to kids.²)
​
​
¹I know how they can say it, but not how they can believe it.

² In other words, these are specific, scheduled events that parents choose to take their kids to. They do not involve drag queens randomly showing up at the library and starting to read to random kids there.

[EscherEnigma]

So what you're saying is that Texan Republicans care more about persecuting queers then upholding the law.

Yeah, that checks out. Reason loves 'em though.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What does this have to do with gay? And I hate Texas Republicans worse than you do except I have actual reasons. Don’t expect me to defend them.

[not guilty]

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has stated that he is willing to defend sodomy prosecutions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/texas-sodomy-supreme-court-lawrence-paxton-lgbtq/ The statute, Texas Penal Code Ann. § 21.06, which was declared unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is still on the books. Who knows whether a rogue District Attorney will charge someone with violating that statute notwithstanding Lawrence, in hope of ultimately persuading SCOTUS to abrogate Lawrence.

[David Nieporent]

Come on; that's not what the crooked asshat said. He said that if SCOTUS overturned Lawrence and a prosecution were brought, he'd defend it. It was a response to a ridiculous hypothetical, not a serious proposal. SCOTUS just isn't overturning Lawrence. It's not happening.

And prosecutors weren't even charging people with violating the law before Lawrence; they're not doing so decades later.

[not guilty]

Lawrence came before SCOTUS arising out of a criminal conviction. (There is some question as to whether the two male principals in fact had sex. They nevertheless pleaded guilty.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/books/review/the-story-of-lawrence-v-texas-by-dale-carpenter.html)

And who can predict what a grandstanding Texas district attorney may do in light of recent chatter about reconsidering Obergefell? The sodomy statute remains on the books, so legislative action would be unnecessary.

[Nige]

Someone'll put a bullet through a window, that'll sort it out.

[ducksalad]

Totally off topic...

I'll drive by the nearest McDonald's at 5:30am, or 10:30am, or 3pm, and both lanes are stacked up 12 cars deep. But then at what used to be prime time, say 7:45am or 8:45am or 12 noon, there's literally no one and I can go direct to the window without waiting. Asked a person who worked there and she said they noticed it too, and had no explanation.

Same at other places. Crowds in Walmart at 11pm. Restaurants that used to be popular empty, others with lines out the door. Attendance dropping by half in my class on certain days, when I ask what happened each student has a totally different reason.

Paranoia to even notice this, or evidence that civilization is spontaneously collapsing?

[John F. Carr]

Commuting patterns changed due to the pandemic. Commuter rail around Boston is dead. Commuting hours have changed. Traffic jams have moved.

[EscherEnigma]

Service workers vs. office workers.

Work-from-home is part of it, but also the more white-collar crowd is eating out less and eating-at-home more.

[ducksalad]

For sure people did develop a habit of eating at home during Covid. Will it drift back?

Could also be some not-working-at-all people. Small but still surprising fraction of engineering students are declining to post their resumes, and saying they haven’t decided whether or not to get a job after graduation. Seems like quite a few figured out that in reality this is a wealthy country and that no regular job does not mean starvation or dying untreated on the curb outside the hospital. Just means living with parents (which parents don’t seem to object to) and/or living a bit smaller (which they seem inclined toward anyway).

[Frank Drackman]

That's what happens when 1/2 the population doesn't have a job they have to be at the next day.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"Joe Biden released the most dangerous Russian terrorist in the world to Russia while we are at WAR with Russia."

-- Benny Johnson

Uh, guys, why would Pedo Joe do that?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

AP is reporting that Biden was given a choice between the Marine and the gay black woman.

His choice is sickening.

[Moderation4ever]

I have not seen anything that suggest Whelan release was on the table. Russians offered Grimms or nothing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Griner was a dope whose conduct has cost her country severely. Whelan was a dope whose behavior and character were far sketchier; nothing about him generates much sympathy.

I hope he can return to the United States, but he has done nothing to deserve it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol wtf dude

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/12/08/thats-unfortunate-nbc-reported-white-house-had-to-choose-between-brittany-griner-or-paul-whelan-biden-chose-griner-then-nbc-changed-report/

[David Nieporent]

So, in other words, NBC corrected an error in its initial reporting, and you choose to pretend to believe the wrong one because you think it makes Biden look bad.

[Brett Bellmore]

Would this be like NBC correcting the 'error' about Mr. Pelosi having greeted the police at the door, and then walked back in to his attacker?

[David Nieporent]

1) We aren't at war with Russia.

2) What on earth makes a random arms dealer a "terrorist?"

3) Why would he be "dangerous" — let alone "the most dangerous" — after 15 years in prison? Would you expect that after 15 years out of business, out of contact with both suppliers and customers, he could just pick up where he left off?

[Absaroka]

"What on earth makes a random arms dealer a “terrorist?”"

The Gray Lady reports:

"After a three-week trial last fall, Mr. Bout was convicted of conspiring to kill American citizens, officers and employees by agreeing to sell weapons to informants from the Drug Enforcement Administration who he believed were members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a terrorist organization. A jury decided after less than two days of deliberation that Mr. Bout had believed the organization, also known as the FARC, had been intent on killing Americans.

Mr. Bout, 45, was also found guilty of conspiring to acquire and export surface-to-air antiaircraft missiles, and of conspiring to provide material support or weapons to a foreign terrorist organization."

Note that Mr. Bout maintains his innocence: “I am not guilty. I never intended to kill anyone and I never intended to sell arms to anyone.”.

The jury disagreed, and perhaps they got it wrong - it was a sting operation, after all. But a conviction is at least some evidence.

Or I suppose one can argue that "terrorist" is an inaccurate label for someone that merely provided material support or weapons to terrorists intent on killing Americans.

Also, from the Christian Science Monitor "The US has alleged that Bout's operation armed the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the months leading up to the 9/11 attacks". Of course, those are mere allegations by the US government. One can obviously believe that it is inappropriate to label someone as a terrorist based on an accusation. I'm not sure I'd adopt that as a hard rule - IIRC bin Laden was never convicted of anything, but I'd be comfortable calling him a terrorist.

[Sarcastr0]

2012. Which is rather DMN's point.

[Sarcastr0]

He's a bad guy, but mainly seems special among arms dealers because we managed to catch him.

“He got a hard deal,” said [Shira] Scheindlin, the retired judge, noting the U.S. sting operatives “put words in his mouth” so he’d say he was aware Americans could die from weapons he sold in order to require a terrorism enhancement that would force a long prison sentence, if not a life term. Scheindlin gave Bout the mandatory minimum 25-year sentence but said she did so only because it was required.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/merchant-of-death-arms-dealer-now-part-of-a-deal-himself/2022/12/08/5409cfa8-770a-11ed-a199-927b334b939f_story.html

[Nige]

I'm not opposed to classing all arms dealers as terrorists, tbh.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Imagine how odious most Americans believe Democrats are if even after all the institutional bias, government manipulations, FBI election interventions, social media manipulations, Hollywood bias, media bias, search engine manipulations, they still have to massively cheat to "win" elections.

[Frank Drackman]

and they consider losing the House "Winning!" (HT C. Sheen) Other than headaches for the Speaker, doesn't matter if you have a 1 vote or 89 vote majority. I'm actually a little happy that the very Wrong Reverend Farakhan won in Jaw-Jaw, because if he's the Atlanta Politician I think he is, only a matter of time before he's wearing an Orange Jumpsuit, and wow, guess who gets to appoint his replacement?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Democrats at the DOJ won't go after Democrats in the Senate.

[David Nieporent]

Imagine how sad and pathetic BCD's life is that he has to live in a fantasy world in which his massively unpopular ideas and associates actually win anything.

[bernard11]

ABC News:

A prominent adherent of the QAnon and "Pizzagate" conspiracy theories posed for photos with former President Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort Tuesday night after speaking at an event hosted at the club, according to photos and videos posted to social media.
...
Videos and photos posted to social media appear to show Liz Crokin, a prominent promoter of QAnon and pro-Trump conspiracy theories, speaking at an event at Mar-a-Lago and later posing for photos with Trump. In one photo, the duo make a "thumbs up" sign together.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Meanwhile the Democrats chose to swap a gay black woman who hates America instead of a US Marine for Russia’s number one terrorist while we’re at war with Russia.

But you give a shit about some stupid high school mean girl bullshit with Trump.

What mental children you bootlickers are.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That U.S. Marine was dishonorably discharged -- a shameful stain on our nation -- and has been a lying jackass ever since.

By the way, BCD -- thank you for your continuing compliance with the preferences of your betters. Obsequious culture war casualties are among my favorite losers.

[Sarcastr0]

Can't imagine why your ideas aren't getting much traction.

Must be voter fraud.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think my opinion about that tranny is fringe? lol, they're shitting on these even in a liberal cesspool like Reddit.

[Estragon]

Shouldn’t you be shooting up a substation somewhere?

[David Nieporent]

I believe that comes after his cross-burning antics, maybe spray painting some swastikas on a synagogue.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not the substance, it's how you post like a complete asshole. Like, I don't understand how anyone would like to be around you.

So when you post how your are so sure that that the Dems are so bad it's impossible that anyone can agree with them, and fraud is the only answer...but the other side is you?
I find it pretty amusing.

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, there's a reason these nutters --from QAnon to Proud Boys-- think they have Trump's support.

[Brett Bellmore]

Politico says they've figured out why the red wave fizzled: Californians who'd moved out of California to red states, continuing to vote like Californians. They screwed up their own state, now they're setting out to screw up the states they moved to. That everything they moved to get was a result of the local politics NOT being like California does not move them.

I've been worried about this for years, but there's very little you can do about it on a state level, given freedom of travel within the US. Like a gangrenous limb poisoning the body instead of neatly falling off, California is going to take the rest of the country with it.

[Sarcastr0]

Politico posts an article that provides zero proof that population growth is due to Californians moving. Nor that said population voted for Democrats (indeed, for a lot of their math to work, ridiculous proportions of said population would have had to vote Democrat).

Almost like they're pushing an already popular narrative.

And here you are!

And even if it is right, people from California are citizens; their vote is worth as much respect as yours wherever they live.
It's fucked up when liberals talk about the South as dead weight we could do without, and it's fucked up when you call California a gangrenous limb.
Deal with people disagreeing with you in ways that don't dehumanize them.

California makes more money than wherever you're from. By the dumbass metrics of capitalism, they're better than you are. So quite wishing they couldn't vote.

[apedad]

Heck, I've been saying that for years when people gloat about people moving out of Cali.

They're moving because of the costs but are keeping their progressive values and bringing them into TX, etc.

It's fun watching the country turn blue.

[Brett Bellmore]

About that supposed Alito leak.

Turns out the guy who claims it happened is a proven liar about the Supreme court.

Ouch!

Not that this will make many leftists admit that the Alito leak story has evaporated.

[Sarcastr0]

im Jordan found a passage from a book written by the guy claiming Justice Alito leaked the Hobby Lobby decision where he completely lied about Justice Rehnquist referring to his brother as a “reverend” in a case title.

LOL. You're desperate, seems like. Ouch!

This bit of nonsense proves very little about later credibility. Plus there is substantiating evidence of that weird phone call.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Evidence that somebody lies about the Supreme court proves nothing about whether you should trust their word about the Supreme court!", says Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

Evidence that an anecdote in a book may not have checked out does not say a lot about a much later, much more political statement made in an utterly different context, yeah.

Especially given the timeline checks out with that weird text. And the admitted campaign of influence this was related to.

You are certain as always. And with flimsy evidence, as always. Your eagerness, as I said, bespeaks desperation. I guess you're really bothered by the idea that Alito is a tool...

[Brett Bellmore]

It was an objectively false 'anecdote', Sarcastro.

Remember, Schenck says Alito leaked to Gayle Wright. But Wright denies it.

So it's down to Schenck's credibility, and he has demonstrably lied about the Supreme court. So why should we believe him over Wright and Alito?

This reminds me of the allegations against Kavanaugh, where the accuser cited witnesses who supposedly were present and none of them backed her up. But we were supposed to believe her anyway, for some reason.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Evidentiary tips from a conspiracy-addled, right-wing misfit like Birther Brett Bellmore are always a treat.

[apedad]

Gee Brett!

You caught a really big fish.

Mommy will be so proud.

[apedad]

Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema leaves Democratic Party, registers as independent

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/arizona-sen-kyrsten-sinema-leaves-democratic-party-registers-independent

Yeah, good luck with that Sen. Sinema.

You think AZ will remain purple?

That's just a phase until it too turns permanently blue.

[Don Nico]

That is just your wish apedad.
There is a reasonable case to be made that the R's in AZ actively undermined their own candidates by their stupidity concerning mail-in and drop-off ballots.
If Sinema can get Manchin, collins and Murkowski to join her (a longshot, I admit) that would make for a sea change in Congressional politics, especially if the bulk of Rs enlist D's to get a more moderate voice as Speaker. (I know. That is wishful thinking).

[elnurmamedrafiev]

No, Arizona became blue because the white population stagnated or died off and was replaced by Mexican mestizos. Democracy is a racial headcount.

[apedad]

FYI, Sen. Sinema political "trajectory suggests she’s adept at ditching anyone or anything no longer useful to her.

She began her public life as a Green Party activist. That went nowhere so she became an independent, which didn’t work either. Her big break came after she conveniently became a Democrat."

And now she's back to being an Independent.

Her only plan is to do whatever it takes to get re-elected - including switching parties according to the political winds.

[Don Nico]

What can I say except, we'll see.
Your charge of self-interest is hardly a distinguishing characteristic of a large fraction of politicians. If they stay in their original party, we call them political hacks.
If the switch to the opposition party, they are opportunists or traitors.
With respect to Ms Sinema, we'll see.