Thursday Open Thread

Comments

[not guilty]

The special purpose grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia has completed its investigation and compiled its final report. A hearing on public release of that report is scheduled for January 24. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23567792/order-ending-fulton-county-special-grand-jury.pdf The District Attorney General is now free to seek indictments from a regular grand jury.

I hope that among the prosecutions to be pursued is the scheme to submit a bogus slate of electors to the National Archives.

[not guilty]

There is significant evidence of Donald Trump's personal culpability in agreeing to the bogus elector conspiracy. During December 2020 Trump made a telephone call to Ronna McDaniel, chair of the Republican National Committee, to enlist her support in the fraudulent elector scheme. Trump placed the call and then handed the phone to John Eastman, who solicited Ms. McDaniel's participation in the scheme. https://www.rawstory.com/ronna-mcdaniel-trump/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Please explain how they are "bogus" electors when (a) they wouldn't have been if (a) Trump's vote tallies were the accurate ones and (b) Trump honestly believed they were.

[David Nieporent]

Please explain how they are “bogus” electors when (a) they wouldn’t have been if (a) Trump’s vote tallies were the accurate ones and (b) Trump honestly believed they were.

There were no "Trump's vote tallies." There are only state vote tallies. They are bogus electors because they falsely signed a forged piece of paper saying that they were the electors, even though the states had actually certified other people as the electors.

For two of the seven states (PA and NM, I believe) in which Trump tried this scheme, the bogus electors had the sense to sign pieces of paper saying, "If the election results are overturned and we are named the electors, then we would cast our votes for Trump." Frivolous, but honest. But in the other five states, the bogus electors falsely swore that they were the actual electors and that they had cast their votes for Trump.

[santamonica811]

David,
Why do you think those two states were smarter? Just better lawyering? I guess that the silver lining is that the various states were clearly not conspiring with other states...if they had been, you'd think those other 5 states would have said, "Oh shit, we should add that cover-our-asses conditional language to what we have now."

As bad as it was; I guess it could have been worse, huh?

[not guilty]

That disclaimer could help to rebut or negate a suggestion that the folks from Pennsylvania and New Mexico were willfully propounding a falsehood. That is important as regards 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).

[David Nieporent]

Well, contrary to what many people here might think, I'm not privy to the internal discussions of the Trump litigation team, so I can only speculate. My understanding is that the overall scheme was top-down, driven by Eastman and Rudy and Jenna Ellis and such, who enlisted Ms. Not-Romney to coordinate it. There were no lawyers on the ground who were involved. So my guess is that it was just a couple of individual GOP 'electors' in those states who were smart enough to be concerned about what they were signing.

[John F. Carr]

They claimed they had been duly elected, or some such language. That was not true. Even if Trump was right, the election was fraudulent, and they could prove it, it was not true. At most they could claim the Democratic electors were illegitimate. Fraud in electing Democrats does not automatically mean a win for Republicans.

[grb]

not guilty : “evidence of Donald Trump’s personal culpability”

Speaking of which, there was a small discovery by the January 6 Committee that few people noticed. Remember Jeffrey Clark? He was the DOJ underling who hatched a scheme to seize the top job, approaching Trump to offer this: If Trump fired the acting head of the Justice Department and appointed him, Clark would send a letter to Georgia & other states, asking them to delay certifying their votes. The reason was a (supposedly) ongoing DOJ investigation into voting fraud allegations. Said investigation didn’t exist; Clark invented it out of whole cloth.

So Trump held hours of meetings on this scheme in his freak-show of a White House, finally rejecting it only under threat of mass resignations in the Justice Department. But he did reject it, his Cultists say; the whole sleazy scheme was just talk – never accepted by Trump.

Or was it? The Jan 6 investigators uncovered a fascinating detail. Before Trump was forced to back down, Jeff Clark was being listed as “Acting Attorney General” in the White House call logs. It seems like some people thought Trump on-board with this fraud.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Jeff Clark was being listed as “Acting Attorney General” in the White House call logs"

Yes, he probably identified himself as such -- how is the operator (probably career civil service) to know otherwise? Or that it really was Clark for that matter?

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t think the WH call log recorder would know who the Attorney General is?

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is reflective of how bad things have gotten -- scorched earth tactics never work in the long term. Nor do political show trials...

[Nige]

Guy whining about the breakdown of law and order wants people who may have broken laws to be allowed to get away with it.

[David Nieporent]

But he wants mass murder at the U.S. border!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Killing members of an invading horde is not mass murder -- it's actually a form of self defense.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"I think we should shoot ILLEGAL aliens."

I don't know if this is a cry for attention or if you have completely derailed.
DMN's observation that pre-hiatus Dr. Ed 2 was "generally good-natured" is no longer operational. Without ludicrously tall tales of maratime heroics (semi-plagiarized) your posts are no longer worth reading.

Not too late to get help.
The UMass Board of Trustees must've really laid some PTSD on your ass.

[bernard11]

Fuck you, you jackass.

People walking across the border looking for work are not an invading horde.

[Bob from Ohio]

That's what the Romans said about the Goths.

[bernard11]

Right, Bob.

Fuck you, would-be murderer.

[Sarcastr0]

No. It isn't. Because they came armed.

[Randal]

You seem to be misremembering your yore. The Romans were generally quite happy when people showed up wanting to be Romans. The more Romans the better! But the Goths didn’t want to be Romans.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That’s what the Romans said about the Goths.

And the Vandals, from which we get the word.....

[Nige]

It's not even what the Germanics said about the Romans you ass.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Shooting a group of unarmed anything is a fucking war crime.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Citation, please?

We have the right to defend our national borders.

[BrotherMovesOn]

OK, you've definitely derailed.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"We have the right to defend our national borders."
"I think we should shoot ILLEGAL aliens."

What's stopping you. I'm sure you own a long gun.
I think someone called you an internet tough guy and coward.
I'm embarrassed you're a New Englander.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Where are the bigoted assholes who tried to defend Prof. Volokh by claiming Volokh fans never call for murders, Prof. Volokh doesn't let those comments stand, that Prof. Volokh does not regularly publish vile racial slurs, etc.?

These are your people, Volokh Conspirators. Un-American bigots who want to kill the culture war's winners, immigrants, Blacks, gays, and the rest of the Republican hit list.

[John F. Carr]

It is hard to avoid charging David Shafer, who appears to have been the ringleader. As for the others the prosecutor will have to ask, if they testify that Shafer promised the fake document would be kept secret and not submitted until the election results were overturned, would a jury consider that reasonable doubt of criminal intent? The defendants can say they were told it had to be signed on the proper date or the chance was lost forever. Shafer would not be in a position to testify to the contrary.

[not guilty]

Mr. Shafer may have been the leader among actors within the State of Georgia, but the Georgia shenanigans were part and parcel of a larger conspiracy involving several states. John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani and Kenneth Chesebro appear to have been driving the train. Donald Trump was personally complicit in the conspiratorial agreement. The final report of the House January 6 Investigating Committee states at page 372:

The evidence indicates that by December 7th or 8th, President Trump had decided to pursue the fake elector plan and was driving it. Trump Campaign Associate General Counsel Joshua Findlay was tasked by the campaign’s general counsel, Matthew Morgan, around December 7th or 8th with exploring the feasibility of assembling unrecognized slates of Trump electors in a handful of the States that President Trump had lost. Findlay told the Select Committee “it was my understanding that the President made this decision. . . .” As recounted by Findlay, Morgan conveyed that the client—President Trump—directed the campaign lawyers to “look into electors in these potential litigation States[.]”

President Trump personally called RNC Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel days before December 14th to enlist the RNC’s assistance in the scheme. President Trump opened the call by introducing McDaniel to John Eastman, who described “the importance of the RNC helping the campaign to gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing changed the results in any of the States.” According to McDaniel, she called President Trump back soon after the call ended, letting him know that she agreed to his request and that some RNC staffers were already assisting.

On December 13th and 14th, President Trump worked with Rudolph Giuliani on the plan’s implementation. On the 13th, Miller texted some of his colleagues to check in about the fake elector meetings scheduled for the following day. He let them know that Giuliani had told him “POTUS was aware” that they would be filing litigation in four States just “to keep the effort going”—which the Select Committee believes was to create a pretext to claim that it was still possible for the fake electors to be authorized retroactively. (In subsequent litigation, a Federal district court found that President Trump “filed certain lawsuits not to obtain legal relief, but to disrupt or delay the January 6th congressional proceedings through the courts.”) The next day, Miller sent an email asking whether they were going to issue a press release about electors, and he was told the “Mayor [is] going to discuss with POTUS.”

[Footnotes omitted; ellipsis in original] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf

Georgia Code § 17-2-2(d) provides that “If the commission of a crime under the laws of this state commenced outside the state is consummated within this state, the crime shall be considered as having been committed in the county where it is consummated.”

[John F. Carr]

Those paragraphs don't expose Trump to any additional liability (beyond what he faces for asking Pence to lose votes or Raffensperger to find them). Describing them as "contingent electors" suggests that the intention was to submit their votes only if the election results were overturned, or to make them explicitly contingent as two states's fake electors did. If the election got switched over to a Trump victory Trump was entitled to have electors. Who can testify that Trump knew they were to be submitted without even a fig leaf of legality?

[not guilty]

"Those paragraphs don’t expose Trump to any additional liability (beyond what he faces for asking Pence to lose votes or Raffensperger to find them). Describing them as “contingent electors” suggests that the intention was to submit their votes only if the election results were overturned, or to make them explicitly contingent as two states’s fake electors did."

I'm not so sure of that. Conspiring to commit an offense and committing the substantive offense are separate crimes, and they may be punished cumulatively. Here, though, the conspiracy to submit phony slates of bogus electors (in Georgia among other states) appears to be factually distinct from Donald Trump's overtures toward Brad Raffensperger.

And the Georgia pretenders did not claim to be contingent electors.

[Ben_]

The walls are closing in!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Well, I'd like to see ol Donny Trump wiggle his way out of THIS jam!

*Trump wiggles his way out of the jam easily*

Ah, Well. Nevertheless,"

@BronzeHammer October 1, 2016

[not guilty]

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has announced that she will reopen a criminal investigation into a group of Republicans who she says inappropriately attempted to award the state's electoral votes to ex-President Donald Trump following the 2020 presidential contest, rather than waiting longer to see what the U.S, Department of Justice will do. https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/06/nessel-gop-fake-electors-investigation/69785142007/

Good for her. The bogus elector scheme is Donald Trump's Achilles heel, along with everyone else that he conspired with in that regard.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Political stupidity begets political stupidity. And the dogs keeps chasing their tails while fucking up anything anyone really cares about.

[bernard11]

It's stupid to investigate possible criminal behavior that had the intent of replacing valid election results with fraudulent ones?

Sorry, Bevis, you've lost me there.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Upon reflection, bernard, I’m ok with this, hyper partisan though it may be. We’re all better off in the situation where government people spend all their time investigating each other.

[Sarcastr0]

Facilie hostility towards government.

If you want a smaller government, that's legit. But the whole 'dysfunctional government is good, actually' is just virtue signaling; no one actually wants that.

[bernard11]

Wait, bevis.

Republican/Democrat does something that looks like it might be a serious crime. So Democrat/Republican AG is not supposed to investigate, because it's "hyperpartisan?"

Really?

And "spending all their time?"

[bevis the lumberjack]

Not just this AG, bernard. Look at all of the investigating the new House majority is gleefully planning. And I'm not sure how these legislators, who are admittedly idiots, could have "attempted to award the states electoral votes to...Trump". They didn't have the power to do so, so how could they have tried to do so? Talked about it? Did they hack the state system and try to insert their own tallies? Hijack the guy carrying the results envelope? This "crime" was committed two years ago, why hasn't she already investigated it?

Sarcastro, what - the government gets to be hostile to us without returned hostility?

[Sarcastr0]

Trump did lawbreaking shit. This is a fishing expedition that was predetermied to happen regardless of underlying facts.

But more importanty bevis, you don't understand what you said above - you didn't say House revenge investigations were legit eye-for-an-eye politics, you said this: "We’re all better off in the situation where government people spend all their time investigating each other."

That hos nothing to do with the facts of either side's investigations, and that is what I took issue with - empty-headed hostility to government qua government. Which is just virtue signalling, as I said.

[Voize]

Corrosive though they may be, the planned investigations are best option the House Republicans have to make waves over the next two years. Legislation is going to be a black eye, dealing with their own extremist wing plus a Democrat Senate and President will relegate them to an obstructionist role that will not play well with the public, but the investigations are something all the House Republicans can unite behind and something they can execute without any Democratic cooperation.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"This “crime” was committed two years ago, why hasn’t she already investigated it?"

Bevis, you might want to try and READ the article before bitching.

Article:
"The decision is a reversal — Nessel previously said she had enough evidence to charge the so-called "fake electors," but instead wanted federal authorities to pursue a broader probe. But Friday, during a news media call with the Democratic Attorneys General Association, she appeared to show she'd lost her patience with federal prosecutors.

"Quite candidly, yes, we are reopening our investigation, because I don't know what the federal government plans to do," Nessel said."

[Nige]

Why does this allegedly 'centrist' calculation always boil down to 'Trump must never be held accountable?'

[Ed Grinberg]

https://compactmag.com/article/they-can-t-let-him-back-in

[Nige]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7f/18/76/7f1876eaa2f12697d20a751ff7a20b36.jpg

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey, doofus, where did I say that Trump shouldn't be held accountable?

My point is that both should be held accountable in the same manner for the same actions, with variation for size of the crime and degree of cooperation. Just like with any other pair of criminals.

[bernard11]

OK, but all the actions weren't the same.

[Nige]

The Republican investigations have nothing to do with any actual crimes or wrong-doing. if you're talking about Biden, his own DoJ have appointed a special counsel. So tell me again - who is holding people accountable and who is grandstanding, and, indeed, retaliating?

[Kazinski]

The walls continue to close in.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I focus more on the culture war, which is settled but not quite over.

Bigotry, backwardness, superstition, ignorance, insularity, our desolate backwaters, and conservatism have lost. Reason, science, inclusiveness, modernity, progress, education, strong (educated, diverse, urban and suburban) communities and schools (reason-based), and the liberal-libertarian mainstream have won.

Clingers hardest hit.

[Michael P]

If at first you don't succeed, perform blatant partisan shenanigans until you do!

[Kazinski]

Should there be a special counsel.appointed to investigate Joe Biden's possession of classified documents 2017-2021 when he was out of office? Evidently there were documents stashed in two different locations. The first batch of documents were found in a.suite of offices rented by Biden's "think tank" to provide Joe with a private office when he was in Washington.

Seems to me if there was a special counsel appointed to investigate Trump's possession of classified documents one needs to be appointed to investigate Biden, and whether the classified documents were procured to aid Hunter's pay to play scheme.

[AmosArch]

He's on the right side so it doesn't count when he does the exact same thing.

[not guilty]

Classified documents being found where they did not belong does bear further investigation. The U.S. Attorney assigned to investigate is a Trump Administration holdover.

I think appointment of a special counsel is premature. Not all of the facts are known at this point, but what has become public does not suggest criminal conduct. The documents were found by Joe Biden's personal lawyers, and the office of White House Counsel promptly notified the National Archives, which took possession the next day. If Donald Trump had acted in a similarly circumspect manner, he would not be in criminal peril for the documents found at Mar-a-Lago.

[Life of Brian]

The documents were found by Joe Biden’s personal lawyers

I don't know about any of you rank amateurs, but I for one often use lawyers to pack up and move my belongings, particularly from offices I used to occasionally show up at for puffy PR gigs years ago. So this pitch-perfect, uber-convenient tale doesn't even make me blink. /sarc

[Bob from Ohio]

Liberals are pretty gullible.

[bernard11]

We're the most skeptical people on earth compared to those who believe anything Trump says, and think he's not a giant crook.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Someone from the Trump Wuz Robbed Party shouldn't be criticizing others for gullibility.

[Bob from Ohio]

Point out where I ever said " Trump Wuz Robbed" or anything like it.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That would involve the unenviable task of reading large numbers of your comments.

[Armchair Lawyer]

What was it you said...

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

[Sarcastr0]

Assuming this law must be applied to the maximum extent possible (not a safe assumption) do you think Biden himself did this?

That's not in evidence.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Do I think Biden had proper authorization to have classified documents in his personal office when he wasn't employed by the US government?

No, I don't think he had such authorization.

[Nige]

He doesn't think so either, which is why he returned them as soon as they were discovered.

[Bwaaah]

"I know it's illegal to rob banks, but I gave the money back as soon as the police asked for it."

(Oh, and I'm a senior Democratic leader.)

And that's what it takes to be OK in Nige's book.

[Nige]

Who said it's okay? Prosecute him if he broke the law, just don't lie about it.

[David Nieporent]

Um, as far as we know the police didn't ask for it. He gave it back as soon as he found out that he had it, without being asked.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you think Trump personally packed the boxes that ended up in Mar largo?

[Nige]

Maybe just the boxes with the classified documents in them.

[Sarcastr0]

His personall staff repeatedly lied and moved the documents around.

That's pretty notable.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Statement not in evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

No - it's well reported. You just don't wanna believe it.

You've been doing this narrowing of reality to tune out all the things you don't like a lot lately.

[OtisAH]

Do you think Big Baby, who proudly boasts he has first, middle, and final say on everything, allows a lot of people to put things in his desk and fancy cigar box without his knowledge, Brett?

[bernard11]

What difference does it make?

If it was all an innocent oversight he had plenty of opportunity to apologize and return the documents.

He plainly didn't, even when subpoenaed.

This simple fact, which you and A.L. and the other cultists refuse to acknowledge, makes a big difference.

[David Nieporent]

This. "Did Trump pack the boxes himself?" is a complete red herring. As I noted earlier in this thread, Trump is not facing legal jeopardy because he took the documents to Mar-A-Lago. He's facing legal jeopardy for what he did after that, when the government tried to get them back.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well, what actually happened...

Documents were requested. And 15 boxes of documents were returned.

Then they requested more documents and came in person...and more documents were presented, and they were shown the location of the rooms.

Then they requested the surveillance tapes of the storage room. And those were presented.

And then...for some reason...despite all the previous responses, they decided to raid the house. It's odd really....

[not guilty]

Uh, you left out details about a grand jury in D.C. issuing a subpoena for documents in Trump's possession, Trump's refusal to comply with that subpoena, the fraudulent certification by Trump's "custodian" of records that all documents responsive to the subpoena had been produced, and the issuance by a U.S. magistrate judge of a search warrant based on probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found on the premises.

Why am I unsurprised?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

2023 will evidently not be the year that you decide to start telling the truth.

Fuck you.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Do you think Trump personally selected the boxes that ended up in his place?

It seems that Biden and Trump committed the same “crime”. In the fantasy world where either of these guys is punished for their malfeasance Biden’s apparent cooperation and the lower magnitude of documents (so far) would suggest a much reduced punishment for him. It does not eliminate his violation of the law.

[Armchair Lawyer]

But that's the fun here. Given Biden's indiscretions, the partisan supporters of him need to twist the law in such a way that Biden somehow gets off without a scratch, while Trump is super super guilty.

[Nige]

But if you think Biden is guilty, what was the point of all that hysterical defending of Trump as a victim of evil Dem persecution?

[Armchair Lawyer]

You miss the point Nige.

Personally, I think Biden made a dumb move, but shouldn't necessarily be criminally charged for anything. I view his indiscretion as similar to Trump's.

But if you're going to criminally charge and investigate Trump, then you should criminally charge and investigate Biden.

Not charging/investigating Biden, but charging/investigating Trump, for what is on its surface similar actions...that just means the laws are being twisted for political ends. That's really what happened in the Trump case, but this just makes it more apparent. And it's an abortion of justice.

[Nige]

'But if you’re going to criminally charge and investigate Trump, then you should criminally charge and investigate Biden.'

Why? Trump ignored a subpoena and lied on an affidavit, or had his lawyer lie. Biden did not. Trump tried to keep the documents, Biden did not. There's every reason to suppose Trump knew about the classified documents, and that he was illegally holding onto documents he had no right to, there's no reason to suppose Biden did. What do you want them to do, send a subpoena and an FBI search party just to treat him the same as Trump, despite the fact that there's no apparent need for either?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Trump did not lie on an affidavit regarding documents. Keep to the truth.

Documents were requested. They were provided.

[not guilty]

Trump's "custodian" of records on June 3, 2022 falsely certified that all documents responsive to the grand jury subpoena had been produced.

[Sarcastr0]

Your point is that two different things are the same because you are committed to ignoring every part where they are different.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Evidence not present.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The likelihood Armchair Lawyer is (or even was) a lawyer resembles the likelihood that everyone reading this will win a lottery this week.

[OtisAH]

I guess you’ve forgotten that sitting presidents will not be criminally charged for anything. If Biden has criminal exposure here, dealing with it will have to wait until he’s out of office. Turnip, on the other hand, is no longer in office and is eligible to be criminally charged should such charges be warranted.

[Kazinski]

So why did they appoint a special counsel to investigate the Trump Russiagate hoax if there was no point until investigating until the President leaves office?

[OtisAH]

If you, after all this time, still struggle to understand that matter there is nothing I can tell you to set you straight.

[David Nieporent]

First, there was no "Russiagate hoax." The only hoax is the claim that it's a hoax. Second, they were investigating lots of people, not just Donald Trump.

[Kazinski]

“there was no “Russiagate hoax”

Can you name one allegation against Trump that was substantiated?

[Nige]

That he, his campaign, and administration had many, many dodgy Russian connections.

[David Nieporent]

That he, his campaign, and administration had many, many dodgy Russian connections.

And they knew in advance about the Russian desire to help them win and welcomed it.

[David Nieporent]

It seems that Biden and Trump committed the same “crime”.

Really? Where was Biden's defiance of a request and a subpoena? Where is Biden's perjured affidavit claiming he returned everything?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Where did Trump purjure himself on an affidavit claiming he returned everything?

Stick to the facts David. Don't imply something that didn't happen.

[Sarcastr0]

Those new goalposts? That's how everyone can see you're spouting bullshit.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

On the June 3, 2022 statement that all responsive documents with classification markings had been returned.

It was not true that a 'diligent search' had been performed, and it was not true that they returned all responsive documents.

Go fuck yourself, you lying piece of shit.

[bernard11]

Bevis,

It seems that Biden and Trump committed the same “crime”.

See DMN's comment above yours.

Trump is not facing legal jeopardy because he took the documents to Mar-A-Lago. He’s facing legal jeopardy for what he did after that, when the government tried to get them back.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
If you are in possession of classified documents, they are your personal responsibility. That is the way the classification system is supposed to word.
Full stop.

[Sarcastr0]

1) There is mens rea in the cited statute, so I don't think what you're talking about (which is training I got as well) applies.

2) Yes, if Biden was in personal possession back then. The facts are not in. I’m pretty sure investigation is ongoing.

3) Even when that does happen, are such things executed to the fullest extent of the law when unintentional, this far back, and by an executive official? No. It’s a flimsy hook for the Republicans to hang their hat on, and everyone by AL knows it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, no.

What if you come to have possession of classified documents because they were put in your custody unawares, among a great many other documents and effects, none of which have been catalogued? For instance, plenty of civilians do national security related business, and create classified documents as they go. Some of them become noted public figures. When they die, they may leave their papers to an academic institution, where papers and effects will be shipped en masse, to await occasion and resources to catalogue them. Prior to that day—which may never come—no one can say what that collection may contain. If there are classified papers in it, and happenstance turns one of them up, do you insist the archivist of the academic institution was responsible before finding out about it?

As you might guess, I am telling you about a real example I happen to know about. The academic archivist—who lacked a security clearance by the way—immediately contacted the national archives, and put the classified materials in their hands. Nobody thought there was anything amiss in the way that was handled, either before the donation of the papers or afterward. Do you think it should have been otherwise?

In another challenging incident, that same archivist came upon an archival-quality hand grenade, resting benignly, if obscurely, in a different unexplored collection. That too was handled without untoward fuss or adverse consequences.

[Don Nico]

SL, no.
If the marked classified documents come to you unawares, the person who put them there have committed a serious security violation. That you are unaware of classified materials in your possession for long periods of time shows you 1) do not take safeguarding the materials properly, 2) do not maintain proper classified storage for documents, 3) do not do or have cleared staff do a periodic audit to your documents and your storage locations.
If you as a cleared individual create working documents that may contain classified information, you are obligated to treat the working documents as if they are classified, unless they have been reviewed by a competent derivative classifier.
The blah-blah about grenades is just a poor attempt at obfuscation.

As for S_0, the mens rea is established when you sign the non-disclosure forms saying that you accept the responsibility for documents in your possession.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who do you think stashed the second set of classified documents next to his corvette in his garage?

[Mr. Bumble]

Dr Jill? She has a thing for Corvettes.

[not guilty]

The prompt disclosure and voluntary, immediate return of the documents when they were found is contrary to any suggestion of intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location. Who removed the documents, and whether any removal was done knowingly bears further investigation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Who exactly found the documents? Did they have the proper security clearance?

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

"Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, "

[Noscitur a sociis]

Those adverbs in criminal statutes aren’t just window dressing. What evidence is there that Biden acted willfully?

[Don Nico]

N_a_s,
Many run of the mill government employees lose their clearance because of inattention to detail rather than willful violation of regulations.

[David Nieporent]

How is that relevant to Noscitur's question, which was about criminal acts, not administrative penalties?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Prompt? He had them for at least six years.

[Nige]

Can you prove he knew they were there? Otherwise yes, returned promptly upon discovery.

[Mr. Bumble]

Could anyone prove that Biden actually knows or remembers anything?
Diminished capacity defense.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Could anyone prove that Biden actually knows or remembers anything?"

The special counsel interview will be a hoot.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Can you prove he knew they were there? "

Well, some of them were found next to his beloved corvette in his garage in his house.

[Life of Brian]

You know, I wasn't originally inclined to agree with the folks seeing this as a sign they're finally drum ready to Biden out, but I have to say I'm starting to warm to the notion seeing them let stuff like this hit the daylight (and in such exquisitely-metered and ever-worse dribbles over the past couple of days, after ostensibly having conducted a super-duper diligent search all over the place after the original discovery on... November 2?).

[Kazinski]

Well obviously Biden had the classified documents illegally much longer than Trump did.

That's hardly "prompt disclosure".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No way this Kazinski clown is a lawyer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's been reported that the CCP paid for the space where the docs were stored.

[not guilty]

Reported by whom? Based upon what supporting facts?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6318487263112

[not guilty]

Consider the source.

[Randal]

By his own suggestion, a court of law has found that reasonable people don't take Hannity seriously, allowing him to lie with impunity. He's "entertainment programming."

[David Nieporent]

No. That never happened. First, you're confusing Tucker and Hannity. Second, you misunderstand what argument was made.

[Randal]

It happened in my mind! Which, as you know, is the burden of proof on this site.

[Randal]

Still… yes it was Tucker not Hannity. But the argument is pretty much as I described it. Where’s your beef? From the opinion, somewhat heavily edited for form:

Fox persuasively argues that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes. The “general tenor” of the show should inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable.

I think the same argument would apply to Hannity. In fact, Sidney Powell made this argument in the Dominion defamation case about her segment on Hannity. (That’s probably where I got Tucker and Hannity confused.)

[David Nieporent]

The argument Fox made was about a specific segment on Carlson's show — the one that was the subject of the suit, obviously — not about the entire Tucker Carlson oeuvre. At no point did Fox argue that the show (or even that particular segment) was "entertainment." What Fox argued was that given the tenor of the show, no reasonable viewer would have interpreted the words that sparked the suit as literal factual reporting rather than hyperbolic commentary.

[Randal]

They made both arguments.

[ThanksForTheFish]

It's been reported that the Loch Ness monster is real.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We have the SONAR technology to answer that one way or another if anyone ever wanted to.

[Nige]

They did that in 1987.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We have MUCH better SONAR today.

[Nige]

But nobody really cares.

[David Nieporent]

There was not, in fact, a special counsel appointed to investigate Trump’s possession of classified documents. Although it may have violated the law, Trump is not facing the specter of prosecution because he had some classified documents at Mar-A-Lago. He is facing the specter of prosecution because (1) he refused to return classified documents despite (a) a polite request; and (b) a subpoena; and (2) he lied about it, going so far as to supply a perjurious affidavit.

That having been said, for political reasons I believe they will indeed have to have a special counsel look into this matter with respect to Biden.

And that having been said, we all know that MAGA people will accept neither a prosecution of Trump nor a non-prosecution of Biden as legitimate, regardless of what any special counsel finds.

[Commenter_XY]

Aren't the facts different, though? One a POTUS (with declassification authority), the other a VP (no declassification authority whatsoever). Personally, I would not have chosen this route, the route of political lawfare. It is not good for the country.

Both men were wrong. Can there not be a face-saving formulation that addresses both situations the same, and results in nothing more than an admonishment to be more careful with classified documents?

[Nige]

But what does the declassification power have to do with either case? Neither Trump nor Biden are claiming the respective documents were declassified. Biden's people returned them *becuase* they were classified and had no business being among his other papers. Trump... doesn't appear to give a shit.

[Don Nico]

A sensible suggestion, C_XY

[Commenter_XY]

They'll never fucking do it Don Nico. That is the sad part. I mean, how hard would it be? Here is the dialogue.

Fed Govt: Ok, can you look through your stuff and turn in all your secret shit? Pretty please? No questions asked.

Person who has secret shit: Whew, I'll do that tomorrow. Thanks!

This ain't hard. Calculating Shapley Values is harder. 🙂

[bernard11]

WTF are you talking about, XY? Wake up.

They fucking tried exactly that with Trump, and he didn't cooperate.

After they tried that a few times they sent a subpoena and guess what, he didn't cooperate.

So they got a warrant and sent the FBI. That wasn't the first try. It was a last resort. Your nice polite dialogue didn't work.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
we're speaking about Biden right now, not the Orange Clown.
Just because the OC is worse does not make Mr Biden blameless.

[bernard11]

Trump quit being POTUS on Jan. 20, 2021, whether he admits it or not.

And no, he didn't declassify the documents. And no, he didn't turn them over when asked. It wasn't carelessness that led him to disregard requests, and a subpoena.

[David Nieporent]

Aren’t the facts different, though? One a POTUS (with declassification authority), the other a VP (no declassification authority whatsoever).

No, the facts aren't different. Trump didn't declassify any of the documents, so the fact that he previously had the authority to do so¹ — but no longer did! — is irrelevant. (We know he didn't, because Judge Dearie ordered him to identify which documents had been declassified and he refused to identify any. Plus, there is no documentation anywhere to that effect.)

(Moreover, Obama certainly had declassification authority while Biden was Vice President. By the Trump standard, how do we know Obama hadn't done so?)
​
​
¹ Maybe — depends what they are.

[Life of Brian]

We know he didn’t, because Judge Dearie ordered him to identify which documents had been declassified and he refused to identify any.

Ah, this must be the technicality you were holding in your head in the prior post. I suppose it slipped your mind that Judge Cannon overruled Judge Dearie's order?

[bernard11]

"Judge" Cannon - possibly the worst judge in the country, and Trump puppet - ruled in his favor. Wow. I'm impressed.

[David Nieporent]

Um, once again, you're reading the things in your head rather than in my comments. Why did Judge Cannon overrule that order? I mean, besides the obvious: that she's unfit for the bench. Let me rephrase the question: what were the circumstances that led to her overruling that order?

Hint: Trump refusing to identify any documents he had declassified, and objecting to Dearie's order.

[Life of Brian]

Why did Judge Cannon overrule that order?

More importantly, why are you so desperately trying to change the subject? The bottom line is that she did so, which knocks the legs right out from under your latest cute lil’ argument.

Hint: Trump refusing to identify any documents he had declassified, and objecting to Dearie’s order.

Not taking a position unnecessarily early in a legal proceeding is so basic a legal strategy that you’re either playing immensely dumb or probably should not be practicing law. Care to share which?

[David Nieporent]

Not taking a position unnecessarily early in a legal proceeding is so basic a legal strategy that you’re either playing immensely dumb or probably should not be practicing law. Care to share which?

Good point. If someone tries to prosecute me for murdering Prof. Volokh, and I have conclusive proof that Prof. Volokh isn’t even dead, I will obviously wait until trial to present that dispositive argument, rather than using it to get the prosecution dismissed at the outset.

Keep in mind that this isn't about keeping a strategy secret until the last minute; Trump kept saying in non-legal settings that the documents were declassified. So it wasn't a surprise defense he planned to spring upon them. He was simply refusing to say in court what he was saying in public.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Trump thought he declassified them.

[Don Nico]

"(Moreover, Obama certainly had declassification authority while Biden was Vice President. By the Trump standard, how do we know Obama hadn’t done so?)"
1) POTUS is the primary classification authority and the primary holder of declassification authority
2) That does not mean he can wave a magic wand and classification markings disappear. When documents are declassified. Markings should be struck through and a date of declassification (and the authority) identified. Naturally the Orange Clown did not realize that he did not possess the magic powers.

The maybe almost certainly applies to any documents clasified by act of congress rather than by executive orders

[Brett Bellmore]

He's facing the specter of prosecution because he's Donald Trump. And because the Democrats are trapped in a cycle they can't escape.

It's an ugly dynamic: Under a consequentialist approach to ethics, the worse the guy you're going after, typically the worse the things that you can do going after him.

So you decide your political opponent is a bad man. You break a few rules, or maybe just norms, trying to bring him down. But you fail to prove he did anything wrong.

At this point you've got a moral deficit if you admit you were wrong. So, you adjust your evaluation of your opponent down, and do worse to go after him. But again fail. Your moral deficit if you admit you were wrong is deeper.

So you adjust your evaluation down again, and resume the rule/norm breaking on an even higher level.

This is the cycle Democrats are trapped in when it comes to Trump. Every time they fail to bring him down, breaking some norm or rule in the process, they have to escalate, or admit that what they've done was inappropriate. And it's easier to escalate.

Every time they've failed to bring him down, they've escalated rather than reconsider going after them. Investigate, impeach, impeach, raid his home, fail in bringing charges, find other charges to bring, claim there was an insurrection to justify invoking Section 3...

They HAVE to prosecute him. Not doing so is psychologically impossible.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is facing the specter of prosecution because he’s crooked as a dog's hind leg, and some prosecutors are finally showing some spine.

[Don Nico]

ng,
Why do you feel compelled to denigrate our canine companions? Shame!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yep. The laws needs to be adjusted to find Trump guilty, while keeping your own guys innocent or unprosecuted.

[Sarcastr0]

A great example why pop psychology is bad.

[Nige]

This is such an elaborately constructed bit of persecution-complex whining which rests entirely on the laughable assumption that Trump can't possibly have done anything wrong.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, let's assume hypothetically your thesis on political group psychology is correct. Now we are in a negative reinforcing, destructive cycle; constant escalation, retaliation.

What breaks the cycle?

[Brett Bellmore]

Tit for tat, I suppose. There's certainly no breaking the cycle while it's one sided, and cost free.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, but retaliation does not make it cost free, Brett. Your answer implies there is no way to break that cycle. Do I have that right?

[Nige]

The threat of retaliation is supposed to protect people like Trump. They get mad when it doesn't work.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett is rationalizing owning the libs.

That's the standard reactionary goal.

Reactionaries don't bother with breaking cycles, they are creatures of reflex.

Brett does more work than most to justify where he ends up, but he ends up in the same place with the same shallow goals all the same.

[not guilty]

Whenever I hear or read the phrase "tit for tat," I can't help but recall Dennis Miller's joke:

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

[bernard11]

XY,

You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that Trump has done nothing seriously wrong. Now, I know Brett thinks that, because he's deeply entrenched in the cult, but I wish you would look at actual facts, instead of listening to Fox or whatever. Because your assumption is dead wrong.

Here;s the problem with your analysis. Trump is, as not guilty says, crooked as hind leg. So he should absolutely be investigated for all his shenanigans. A less wealthy man would have been in jail by now.

And then the GOP, out of pique, is going to investigate Biden whether there is anything there or not. There is your cycle.

How to break it? Don't launch pointless investigations just to play to your base and rile up the plebes. I don't expect Kevin McCarthy to take that suggestion.

[Commenter_XY]

Bernard11, you missed the part where I wrote....hypothetically. I am not making a determination on whether Brett's supposition is right or not.

If we are in a negative reinforcing, destructive cycle of escalation and retaliation....how do we stop that cycle? That was my question. Heck, you take a swing at it.

If you were benevolent dictator for a day, how do we stop the negative cycle?

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't "benevolent dictator" an oxymoron?

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, it is. But hey, it is my hypothetical. 🙂

What would you do, Mr. Bumble, to break the cycle?

[Mr. Bumble]

Uniformly enforce the law, but unfortunately that would require a benevolent dictator.

[Don Nico]

"Isn’t “benevolent dictator” an oxymoron?"
no, the office was created as a 6-month assignment tp assure sufficient benevolence.

[bernard11]

how do we stop that cycle?

XY,

Don't elect complete assholes. Figure out a way to have elections where candidates are not required to appeal to the more extreme parts of their base.

Don't be like Brett and willfully blind yourself to any defect in your guy.

[bernard11]

Trump Can Do No Wrong.

[Randal]

Oh Brett, my dear man, I recognize this rant as the cry for help it so obviously is. You need a mental reset, like, a long vacation out of the country. Your perspective has become mobius-like... twisted and circular. Take some time to relax and get yourself straightened out. I recommend New Zealand in winter.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Brett is delusional, addled by conspiracy theories.

Brett is disaffected, antisocial, and autistic.

Brett is belligerently ignorant and bigoted (a birther).

Brett is this white, male, conservative, faux libertarian blog's target audience.

The solution to Brett's afflictions will be replacement.

[Moderation4ever]

Right on the point. The fact is that had the former President returned the documents when asked this matter would have never been made public. The NARA is not concerned with the fact the documents were taken but rather that they were not returned when asked for.

[Life of Brian]

The fact is that had the former President returned the documents when asked this matter would have never been made public.

After 6 years of gotta-gotta-gotta-get-Trumpism and endless pontification around here about how just moving the documents from the WH to Mar-a-Lago was a crime, I'd love to hear your basis for such confidence.

[Nige]

I expect it’s because of all the leeway they gave Trump before resorting to legal remedies and the way nobody knew a thing about it until the FBI search.

[Randal]

Also because the documents he did give back aren't part of the case. If he'd given them all back, no case.

[not guilty]

"That having been said, for political reasons I believe they will indeed have to have a special counsel look into this matter with respect to Biden."

That may be true down the road, but I don't think we are there yet. Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel are identified in 28 CFR § 600.1:

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

The threshold determination is that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted. At this stage and based on what has been publicly disclosed, evidence of criminality has yet to be developed.

The alternatives available to the Attorney General are set forth in 28 CFR § 600.2:

When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:

(a) Appoint a Special Counsel;

(b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better inform the decision; or

(c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter, the public interest would not be served by removing the investigation from the normal processes of the Department, and that the appropriate component of the Department should handle the matter. If the Attorney General reaches this conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal of particular officials.

It appears that Merrick Garland has (appropriately, IMO) chosen option (b), designating a (Trump appointed) United States Attorney to do a preliminary investigation.

If the matter ripens into a criminal investigation, appointment of a Special Counsel would be prudent. (Under prevailing DOJ policy, President Biden cannot be prosecuted while in office, but if others are culpable, the Biden Justice Department would have a conflict of interest.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

It appears AG Garland feel differently.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/12/biden-classified-documents-wilmington/

[Bob from Ohio]

Someone not following not guilty's legal advice!

[not guilty]

It appears that Merrick Garland on November 14 selected John R. Lausch Jr., the U.S. attorney in Chicago, to conduct a preliminary assessment of the material to determine whether a special counsel was needed. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/12/us/biden-classified-documents

I didn't know that when I posted earlier, but Garland did exactly what I characterized as appropriate. He designated a (Trump appointed) United States Attorney to do a preliminary investigation in order to better inform the Special Counsel decision. Since then, the matter has ripened into appointment of a Special Counsel.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Evidently there were documents stashed in two different locations."

I'd say, "at least" two different locations. They're still looking, remember.

[TwelveInchPianist]

One of which was his home.

[not guilty]

"One of which was his home."

What is the factual basis for that assertion?

[Brett Bellmore]

Second Set of Documents Were Found at Biden’s Home in Delaware, White House Says

But, I suppose the White House could by lying about it for some reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, more detail: They were in his garage. Well, not all in his garage.

""During the review, the lawyers discovered among personal and political papers a small number of additional Obama-Biden Administration records with classified markings. All but one of these documents were found in storage space in the President’s Wilmington residence garage," he said. "One document consisting of one page was discovered among stored materials in an adjacent room.""

[bevis the lumberjack]

One of which was his fucking garage. He says it's ok because the confidential documents were treated like his Corvette.

You think I'm making that up, but I'm not. It's from a press conference this morning.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Peter Doocy on new batch of classified documents found in Biden's garage: "Classified material next to your Corvette! What were you thinking?"

Biden responds: "My Corvette is in a locked garage, OK? So it's not like they're sitting out on the street"

The garage was locked. QED

[bevis the lumberjack]

And the classified documents in the garage at least were in a location where they could be accessed by Biden’s influence peddling son.

[Sarcastr0]

Kazinski - Biden's people are the ones who noted the documents and handed them back. He is fully cooperating.

Seems a special counsel would be kinda silly in this case, since it's nothing like Trump's obstruction.

Not that you on the right don't burn for revenge as though the consequences of Trump's constant lying and lawbreaking coming back to him is a grand injustice.

[Sarcastr0]

Also, Trump’s lawbreaking is not being handled by a special prosecutor.

But the GOP, fueled by voters like you, has the fever to find something, anything, on Biden. They made it one of their first actions which tells you their priorities. Well, that and a symbolic law to go after an IRS conspiracy theory.

So you got that going for you.

[not guilty]

IIRC, the special counsel entered an appearance in the Eleventh Circuit while the appeal from Judge Loose Cannon's ruling was pending. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23319524-jack-smith-letter-11th-circuit-trump-v-us I surmise that he will head up any prosecution related to the documents found at Mar-a-Lago (or any other unauthorized location).

[Armchair Lawyer]

And yet...Biden clearly still broke the law.

[Sarcastr0]

The facts are not yet in, but right now this looks like an oversight. And by someone, we're not sure who.

So no, it's not clear.

As I've noted on this blog a bunch, when people feel the need to argue from 'clearly' and 'it is clear' it's a sign they're not arguing from facts, but their own feelings.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Looks like an oversight"
Based on what exactly?

Here are the facts.

1. Classified documents were found in Biden's personal office when he wasn't President.

So what exactly was the "oversight"? Did Biden just "not intend" to remove classified documents from government facilities and store then in his personal office?

[Sarcastr0]

Based on Biden's folks self-reporting and cooperating.

You keep narrowing the facts...why is that?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Just keeping to the critical facts here. We don't need extraneous bits abut Chinese funding or so on.

[Sarcastr0]

AL, your 'focus' is because you are in love with a parallel and working furiously to maintain it despite the many many single distinguishing circumstances.

You have loads of people explaining why you are wrong, and you just keep repeating the now well exploded line you came in with.

Your dogged lack of engagement is impressive, but this is not a press conference, and you are not a spokesperson for Trump, no matter how much you might act like one.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Based on Biden’s folks self-reporting and cooperating.”

How does that make it look like an oversite? It’s unlikely that he guy that found them was involved in the original removal of the documents.

[Sarcastr0]

Compare and contrast to Trump.

[Nige]

Uh, yes? That's what an 'oversight' would be?

[Armchair Lawyer]

So...Biden removed highly classified documents from government facilities without intending to?

Really.....

[Nige]

Yes?

[David Nieporent]

So…Biden removed highly classified documents from government facilities without intending to?

Maybe. Whether that's credible depends on the volume of unclassified versus classified documents he had.

Or maybe he removed them with authorization while he was Vice President? Unlike Trump, Biden can read; maybe he was actually doing work with them during his term. In that case, the wrongful act would be retaining them when his term was up, not taking them in the first place. And it's possible that he overlooked a few classified documents when returning them. Who knows? We have no facts here.

Here's what we do know: when they were discovered, he proactively gave them back. He did not refuse to return them. He not claim he could keep them if he wanted. He did not lie about having them. He did not argue that they were declassified in his head. He did not argue someone planted them there.

[not guilty]

“Classified documents were found in Biden’s personal office when he wasn’t President.”

Uh, no. The documents were found while Biden was president, and he caused them to be immediately sent to the National Archives. The information that has become public to this point does not indicate who moved the documents, nor whether any such removal was done knowingly and with the requisite intent to retain them at any undisclosed location.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Apologies. "From" when Biden wasn't President.

All reports I've seen have at least implied that the documents were at this office for the 4 years of the Trump presidency.

[Nige]

Hah, if it had come out then Trump would have prosecuted the *shit* out of Biden without even risking getting re-impeached.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah! Just like he prosecuted Hillary!

[Nige]

He wasn't running against Hilary, though apparently in your mind, they're always running against Hilary.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He is fully cooperating."

So he says.

Trump has some charisma but to belong to a Biden cult is just sad.

[Nige]

That's the difference between 'some' charisma (if you say so) and credibility.

[Kazinski]

And right on cue, after Sarcasr0 claims it would be silly, Garland appoints a special counsel to investigate Biden's classic documents stashed in at least 2 locations:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ag-garland-appoints-special-counsel-investigate-biden-classified-documents

And yes you can discount the FoxNews link as unreliable.

[Sarcastr0]

I still think it's silly.

[David Nieporent]

Come on. You cannot in the real world have a special counsel looking into Trump mishandling classified documents and then simply say "No harm, no foul; no reason to investigate" Biden doing that. I expect that the facts are very different and the investigation will reveal that, but you can't predeclare that without an investigation.

And if you're going to investigate the president, you need a special counsel. You can't have the president's AG conducting that.

[Sarcastr0]

If the President is cooperating, do you need a special counsel? I don't see why you need that independence.

[Commenter_XY]

Should there be a special counsel appointed to investigate Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents 2017-2021 when he was out of office?

Answer: Yes.

[John F. Carr]

A few days of this pseudo-scandal have been entertaining. "Lock him up!" "It's not a crime when our guy does it!" A few years would be too much.

[bernard11]

John,

I'm afraid we are in for two years of pseudo-scandals, courtesy of Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan.

Even if there are real scandals to uncover, Jordan is too stupid to do so. He'll concentrate on the BS instead.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Here it is!

The false-equivalence dipshit crowd is here to cry about Biden's team finding old classified documents, and immediately turning them over to NARA. Pretending all the while that Trump's situation is exactly the same.

Trump deliberately stole the documents.
Trump refused to hand them over.
Trump then lied about handing them all over in response to a subpoena.
Trump then attempted to move some of the documents elsewhere so they wouldn't be found by the inevitable search warrant in response to his lies.

Biden's lawyers found some old documents, and immediately contacted NARA to hand them over as well as the DOJ.
No lies.
No refusal to give back what wasn't his.
No obstruction of a search warrant.

Totally the fucking same to the traditional Trump dipshits around here!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you see what you did there? Trump "stole" documents, that he'd had a legal right to when he obtained them, whereas how Biden happens to have had documents he had no legal right to possess is just left unexamined. It just ... happened.

Also left unexamined is why the National Archives were so aggressive about going after any documents Trump had, and so passive when it came to Biden, to the point where they never went looking for them in 6 years.

Really, the only interesting thing about this is that the first of the documents were found in early November, and this is the first the media bothered reporting on it. Looks like the Dems are planning on dumping Biden, and have revoked his press immunity.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

He 'stole' them, because he took them immediately before leaving office, knowing that he had no authority to keep them.

He 'stole' them, because when they were requested to be returned, he refused.

He 'stole' them, because he went out of his way to lie about returning them, and then attempted to prevent a number of them from being discovered with the search warrant.

Trump would not be in trouble for his document issue had he not also obstructed the retrieval of said documents.

Do you have any evidence that Biden took those documents with the intention of keeping them unlawfully? Nope. It's amazing how, if you ignore all the differences, it's exactly the same to people like you.

[Nige]

'why the National Archives were so aggressive about going after any documents Trump had, and so passive when it came to Biden,'

It's like you can't tell the difference between 'refused to return them' and 'returned them immediately upon discovery.' Also the difference between 'a lot' of documents' and 'some.' Also between 'left lying around in public spaces' and 'buried away where no-one could see them.' Also also, the long media silence around the NA's efforts to retrieve Trump's documents before the FBI search.

[Bob from Ohio]

Keep spinning. I need the enjoyment today.

[Nige]

I'll bet you do.

[Randal]

I think this will end up hurting Trump more than helping him. The difference in behavior between Trump and Biden couldn't be clearer. I think Biden's camp will do well to keep highlighting how badly Trump behaved when faced with a similar situation.

[Randal]

Why do you think Biden had no legal right to possess the documents? That seems unlikely. Vice Presidents get classified briefings.

Also left unexamined is why the National Archives were so aggressive about going after any documents Trump had, and so passive when it came to Biden

Unexamined? What are you talking about? This is getting extremely examined. I suspect it has to do with a) the sheer volume of documents Trump had made them easier to notice and b) there’s scuttlebutt that someone in Trump’s camp alerted the FBI and/or Archives about the documents.

Trump “stole” documents

Trump has a lot of excuses. Sometimes he implies he knew he had them, sometimes he talks about other people having packed the boxes… but I can’t recall a clear claim from him that his possession of the documents was unintentional. Biden has been quite clear.

[David Nieporent]

but I can’t recall a clear claim from him that his possession of the documents was unintentional.

The FBI planted them, so of course his possession was unintentional.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Biden’s lawyers found some old documents"

Yup, just happened to go to an office Biden hasn't used in 2 years. Moving companies do charge a lot. Much better to use lawyers, cheaper.

[Randal]

Even if there hadn't been classified documents, there could be other sensitive stuff. Makes sense for Biden to have someone look it over before handing it all to "movers."

[bernard11]

It's already been done.

[John F. Carr]

I notice the press is careful to write "documents with classification markings" rather than "classified documents" this time.

[AmosArch]

After a planetwide catastrophe you are as far as you know, one of the last two surviving people on Earth. The other is the President (Biden or Trump or whoever you prefer) who may have had something to do with the catastrophe. Also surviving is a police enforcement robot with a perfect technical understanding of US law and programmed to uphold it. All of you are together in the same bunker.

If the President orders you to throw the last known crate of food into a fiery abyss are you, even as one of the last two humans in existence still technically bound to his authority and have to obey him or is their some legal way you can talk the police robot out of this situation?

[AmosArch]

Alternatively if he orders the robot or tries to throw the crate into the abyss himself can you stop him?

[not guilty]

"If the President orders you to throw the last known crate of food into a fiery abyss are you, even as one of the last two humans in existence still technically bound to his authority and have to obey him or is their [sic] some legal way you can talk the police robot out of this situation?"

I don't understand the hypothetical. What authority would a president have to issue such an order to a civilian in the first place?

[AmosArch]

As head of Homeland Security he could deem the food a threat that could spread across state lines for instance. The federal government does seize property and that could include people turning things in. But I thought about it right after and reposted the question as to whether you could stop him from doing it as you can see above you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"a police enforcement robot with a perfect technical understanding of US law"

Cite the law that gives the President this authority.....

[AmosArch]

He's the head of Homeland security, FBI etc.

[not guilty]

When one is challenged to cite the law, that ordinarily entails citing statutes and/or judicial decisions.

[AmosArch]

I think you are misunderstanding the point of my post. The post was a clearly a hypothetical question not an announcement that I know everything about the subject. I’m interested in answers not challenges to prove myself.

Getting back on topic can the President be technically correct if he asserts legal authority over resources etc such as in this situation through his control of the executive branch when for all intents and purposes all the other branches of government are destroyed? He can technically argue that he's not really making new laws he's just acting within the purview he's already been granted. It wouldn't be the first time.

[Sarcastr0]

Who the fuck cares about technically correct in an apocalypse?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And that is my point -- the President only has the power to see that the laws are faithfully executed, not to make them.

[David Nieporent]

Huh? Why on earth do you think you were ever bound to his authority and have to obey him? You know the president is an employee, not a monarch, right?

[AmosArch]

technically but they sure seem to have monarch like powers at times.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe to you.

Not to most folks.

[Krayt]

The design principle of much of the Constitution orients around preventing the king from using his power against political enemies. How kinglike the president gets to be is of grave concern to those who like freedom.

As to the point "he is an employee", that's good, servile rhetoric spouted by those with the will to power. In fact, though paid (and very few at this level even need it, curious that) elected officials are not employees of government. They are the government.

So, again, those who love freedom need to keep an eye on these king-wannabees.

[David Nieporent]

They are the government.

"L'état, c'est moi" is not an American doctrine.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“an employee, not a monarch”

As we discussed yesterday he can basically decree whatever he wants whenever he wants with or without any legal authority and there’s nothing anyone can do to contest it.

What is the difference between that and a monarch?

[Bwaaah]

"he can basically decree whatever he wants whenever he wants with or without any legal authority and there’s nothing anyone can do to contest it [...] What is the difference between that and a monarch?"

The difference is the existence of a judiciary, a culture of policing that upholds the decisions of the judiciary, and in some significant measure, a right to appeal to that judiciary.

The President does not behave like a "monarch." And the U.S. does not behave like an "empire." Partisan rhetoric, however, is boundless.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You might have missed the discussion yesterday as to who had standing to challenge the student loan thing.

[jb]

Sure, but that's the President instructing people that work for him to do something, which is not the same at all a showing up at your house and telling you that you personally have to do something.

[bevis the lumberjack]

If he signed an order that instructed a government employee to come to my house to force me to do something, so you think they'd say no? Would anybody stop it?

We've created a situation where presidents and their EOs are closer to monarchs than elected officials because we've removed the checks and balances using the excuse that Congress is so dysfunctional. The second part is true, but it shouldn't result in the first part.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If he signed an order that instructed a government employee to come to my house to force me to do something, so you think they’d say no? Would anybody stop it?

Well for one thing, that’s precisely the circumstance that would typically create standing to challenge the action in court.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yay! I get screwed but maybe in a decade I get relief in the courts, assuming I get assigned to one that doesn’t give the government brother-in-law decisions and one that isn’t philosophically aligned with the policy in question.

We need to establish a mindset that this shit isn’t allowed, but the people that are politically noisy prefer to cheer when their guy does it and bitch and moan when the other guy does it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"is their some legal way you can talk the police robot out of this situation?"

Sure.

1. Hit Trump/Biden over the head with a big stick, knocking him out
2. Now, claim you are president via the 25th Amendment, via the chain of command, as the President is incapacitated
3. Countermand the Robot.

Alternatively....

1. Hold a snap election for Congress.
2. Elect yourself as the sole and only member of the House and Senate.
3. Impeach the President.
4. Assume Presidential Authority.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Alternately,

Submit a written declaration to the Robot to be transmitted to the Speaker that the President is unable to discharge their duties.

Immediately on reception of this written declaration, you would assume the powers of the Presidency and be able to countermand the robot.

[Moderation4ever]

Question, how many science fiction stories have been written with law enforcement turned over to robots or computers only to have disastrous effects? The robots or computers enforce the law perfectly without understanding the subtilties of the case.

[dwb68]

Regardless of the orders, first I’d disable the robot (or wait for it to run out of power) then subdue or kill the President. After a planet wide catastrophe the only law is the rule of the jungle. The reality is i likely wouldnt have to kill anyone older than me since they wont survive a week without their meds.

[Nige]

Gay-marry the robot, move to a bunker without a fiery abyss in it, appoint the President the janitor since he's a servant of the People, who is me.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd take that deal 'n' crawfish, then drill that ol' Devil in the ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell the president that throwing the food into the abyss is the perfect idea.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The rule of law has broken down in this country -- there really is no law anymore and civil disorder is not only imminent but maybe necessary.

Shakespeare was right -- the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers.

It's not about right and wrong anymore. Sadly.

[David Nieporent]

Shakespeare was right — the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers.

Dr. Ed, of course, is always wrong, because they don't teach literature in janitor training school. Shakespeare wasn't right because he didn't say that. One of his villains did.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Really?!?

Shakespeare's fictitious characters were capable of independent speech? You do realize that believing that is a symptom of Schizophrenia.

[bernard11]

You're an idiot, Ed.

Do you think that Iago say, or Richard III, is speaking for Shakespeare?

[Nige]

I don’t want to defend Ed, but Shakespeare’s famous for writing compelling villains, often giving them plausible and trenchant criticisms of the world and of other people that generate sympathy and fellow-feeling, however grudging. Shylock’s *supposed* to be the villain in Merchant Of Venice, but the supposed good-guys give him ample reason to hate them. ‘Kill all lawyers’ is a bitter throwaway joke – it’s just that it still resonates after all this time.

[Sarcastr0]

civil disorder is not only imminent but maybe necessary.

You've been saying that for about 4 years now. Hasn't happened yet.

You really do seem to be lusting for political violence this week, though.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ed is another big talking internet tough guy who has no comprehension of what an actual civil war would create. If it actually came he’d curl up in a closet and hide.

[Nige]

I doubt Ed would give up the chance to help round up any of his neighbours he deemed dangerous subversives and enemies of the people.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually.......

[Nige]

We know, we know.

[bernard11]

We know, Ed. You went back in time and hid Jews from the Nazis in Poland. Or was it Czechoslovakia? I've forgotten.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, I can think of a dozen to start with...

[Sarcastr0]

Absolutely - cowardice oozes from every one of these posts.

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : "Ed is another big talking internet tough guy"

Nah, he's just our very own Nostradamus Ed, who has spent years in this forum spinning-out cartoon apocalyptic fantasies by the dozen. He seems to derive a near-masturbatory pleasure from this hobby, God alone knows why....

[Ed Grinberg]

Dr. Ed 2: “The rule of law has broken down in this country — there really is no law anymore and civil disorder is not only imminent but maybe necessary.”
Sarcastr0: “You’ve been saying that for about 4 years now. Hasn’t happened yet.”

If Dr. Ed is right re: rule of law having broken down — and, having seen rioters burn down a Minneapolis police station unimpeded, I think he is — there are two possible outcomes:
1. Dr. Ed’s hoped-for massive “civil disorder” materializes, overthrows the current system (that throws the book at some people for trivial offenses, while winking at others who . . . well, burn down police stations, for one thing).
2. The current system persists, gets more & more entrenched with each passing day. Before you know it, we’re USSR, complete with show-trials for dissidents, dissidents being locked up in nuthouses, etc.
The fact that outcome #1 “hasn’t happened” just means we’re further along on the way to outcome #2.

[Commenter_XY]

Is there a third, more positive and hopeful outcome? Your two outcomes don't sound very appealing. 🙁

[apedad]

". . . civil disorder is not only imminent but maybe necessary."

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GOD, let Dr Ed be right.

It'll be fun watching him and his family, friends, groups, etc, being absolutely destroyed.

[Ben_]

"It’ll be fun watching him and his family, friends, groups, etc, being absolutely destroyed."

You must be one of The Good Guys. Typical Democrat.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird you didn't call Ed out for his bloodthirstiness, just the reactions to him.

[Ben_]

Why are you defending terrible people?

[Sarcastr0]

You first, Ben.

No, apedad isn't an awful person. I don't think he's a liberal, btw.
I don't love that comment, but it's not terrible to go off on someone calling for mass murder.

But you still haven't mentioned Dr. Ed, who has no such justification.

Are you okay with his posts? Because it looks like you pick people with less bad posts to nutpick as a typical democrat and ignore a worse person on your own side.

[Ben_]

I don’t think Ed is a real doctor.

[Sarcastr0]

Cute change of tone from your high horse re: Apedad The Democrat.

Pretty lame how if you can't use it to hate Democrats, you will let people say whatever.

[Nige]

You didn't think civil disorder was necessary when people objected to the police, the arm of the state, getting away with literal murders, what makes you think you'll bother when... what? Does anyone know what he's specifically referring to? Drag queen story hour? CRT? Some bun-fight on a campus somewhere?

[dwb68]

Says every generation as they reach middle age.

[santamonica811]

Looking for book recommendations. Google is not helping. Here is what I'm looking for.

I've found that I really enjoy non-fiction books that explore the writers' experiences during their education. The most famous examples I can think of all have to do with law school or med school ("One L," "The Paper Chase," the first part of "Travels."). But I would be very interested in reading any well-written book about someone studying pretty much any subject, I expect. Drama, engineering, psychology, etc etc etc.

As I wrote above; doing a Google search did not help. Calling a few libraries and talking with the reference librarians did not help. Any suggestions on books that fit into this narrow genre?

[santamonica811]

And now that I think about it; I'd also be interested in reading fictional accounts as well. (Harry Potter, natch. The Magicians, natch. Must be in English...I don't read Russian nearly well enough to read the [excellent!!!] Potter rip-off "Tanya Grotter" or its progeny.)

[grb]

I recently read The Magician and (being a Mann fan) enjoyed it. That said, the book focused surprising little attention on Mann as creator. The book of his I really love – Joseph & His Brothers – was barely mentioned. Most of the focus was on his mess of a family, which was fascinating enough. Erika Mann is a character study all by herself.

The Neapolitan Novels by Elena Ferrante had some good education and writer-in-development stuff, particularly in the first two books. (I fell into the second novel on the Kungleden Trail in Sweden. I’d run out of reads and it was the only English book on a stuga shelf).

Also, last night I finished another listen of The Glass Room audiobook by Simon Mawer. It’s a great book even if you’re unfortunate enuff not to be an Architect. It’s built around fifty years of turbulent history - personal & political - all flowing thru the (thinly disguised) Tugendhat House.

Lastly, props for the Bear Comes Home by Rafi Zabor: Any book about a saxophone-playing, Shakespeare-quoting and jazz-ace of a bear can’t be all bad. The heroine gets a bit tedious, and not because she has the same name as my ex-wife. (Full disclosure: If you assumed ursine-human sex would be a simple matter, think again)

[Brett Bellmore]

"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" seems to at least partially meet your criteria, as it starts when he was 11, and continues through his education.

[santamonica811]

Thanks. Just put in a reserve for it at the local library. 🙂

[bernard11]

It's an enjoyable book, but Feynman's ego gets more than a little annoying.

[Sarcastr0]

Loved those Feynman books as a 16-year-old physics enthusiast.

Re-read them a couple of years ago, and they sure did hit different.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sylvia Plath's _Bell Jar_ comes to mind.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B085C6N1PB/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Still not the one I thought of, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Trang_Phuong_Ho

[Ed Grinberg]

Looking for book recommendations.

Considering the situation on our southern border, I suggest this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints

[santamonica811]

Ed
Was yours a serious response???

[BrotherMovesOn]

Dr. Ed 2, the George Santos of the VC, serious?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Bell Jar is a good example of how colleges (i.e Smith College) abandon students on internships.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don’t know if you’ve read Henry Adams’ autobiographical “The Education of Henry Adams,” but I thought it was great. It deals quite a bit with his education, but mostly in how he feels it didn’t prepare him for the changes he encountered in the early 20th century world. He feels the things he taught himself served him better than his 19th century classical education. It is wide-ranging, and quite interesting, IMHO.

[santamonica811]

Thanks. My city's library does not carry it (has it, but only in audio), but I'll try the Los Angeles city system...much larger, so hopefully it will be there in book form.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Okay, good luck! You can also find it at Project Gutenberg, if you have the capability of comfortably reading digital text.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't you have interlibrary loan out there?

[santamonica811]

Only within the same city. I can get a book from any of the Santa Monica libraries. But, not from the libraries from the City of LA. (Well, I could go to one of their libraries and get a second library card, as long as city residency was not a requirement).

[Absaroka]

FWIW, I just checked bookfinder, and a used copy is $4.09, including shipping.

[apedad]

Republicans enter Congress with record number of women after putting up diverse slate of GOP candidates

Republican House and Senate conferences now more diverse after running record number of women, minority candidates

In addition to its 42 women, the Republican conferences in the House and Senate in the 118th Congress will include five Black, 13 Hispanic, two Asian and three Native American members, making up the party's most diverse conferences yet.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republican-enter-congress-with-record-number-women-after-putting-diverse-slate-gop-candidates

****sniffles**** The poor, white, American male. . . . sigh. . . .

[Michael P]

Are you trying to highlight that Republicans care more about the credentials of a candidate than their identity card? Or are you actually some kind of white supremacist male chauvinist?

[Nige]

What's the credential? 'Must have regularly retweeted Qanon conspiracies?'

[Michael P]

Speaking of poor, oppressed people, won't anybody pause a moment to think of the Pakistani-American actors who can't get the gigs they want because Hollywood has a racist mindset about who can be a villain? https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/tv/a42430017/kumail-nanjiani-interview-chippendales/

[apedad]

Alabama woman who joined ISIS hoping to be allowed back in the US

A woman who left Alabama to join the Islamic State in 2014 now says she regrets her actions and is hoping to return to the United States.

(Hoda) Muthana, who was born in New Jersey to Yemeni immigrants and was raised in Alabama, ran away from home at the age of 20 to join ISIS. Raised in a conservative Muslim household, she told her family she was going on a school trip but instead flew to Turkey and crossed into Syria using funds from secretly cashed tuition checks.

Muthana had her citizenship revoked in 2016 by the Obama administration, which argued her birthright citizenship could be canceled because her father was an accredited Yemeni diplomat at the time of her birth. That decision was maintained throughout the Trump administration, which continued to ban her from returning to the United States.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/alabama-woman-who-joined-isis-hoping-allowed-back-us

So what’s says the Conspiracy?

Any “christian” forgiveness and allow her back but still face criminal charges or just fuck her?

[Commenter_XY]

Hoda, you ain't coming back. You made your bed, lie in it (literally).

[Commenter_XY]

apedad...you a sweet potato fan? I have a recipe for you. This is ridiculously simple. Try this recipe, but add 1 teaspoon garam masala to the spice mix.

https://toriavey.com/curry-roasted-sweet-potatoes/

I was impressed. Pro tip: preheat your sheet pan, that matters a lot (it is in the instructions). You need to hear the sizzle for this dish to be done properly. I made this instead of sweet potato casserole for a holiday dinner. Cheap too, which is important now given our current inflation rate.

This is a recipe that is hard to mess up. And it is good. Easily customizable (which I did by adding garam masala). Try it. Let me know how it goes. Hope you find this useful.

[Michael P]

When did children of actively accredited foreign diplomats ever get US citizenship through jus soli? That's one of the three classic cases of people not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth. (The other two are invading armies, and those born under native tribal jurisdictions; the latter have birthright citizenship under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.)

[David Nieporent]

I believe her case was actually discussed on the VC at the time. He wasn't a diplomat at the time she was born. But… there's a paperwork issue as to whether that was official or not. AH yes, here:

https://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/26/denaturalizing-natural-born-citizens/

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/19/d-c-circuit-sadly-affirms-district-court-in-hoda-muthana-case/

[Sarcastr0]

I don't like revoking citizenship like this.

Let her face charges.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you have a legal basis to go along with your dislike, Sarcastr0?

Is your argument: If you are born here, you are automatically a citizen? I was basically taught this in civics classes as a child.

Now, our understanding of birthright citizenship seems to be changing. I don't know if that is good or bad, I merely note that our national consensus seems to be changing on this.

[Michael P]

It's not changing, and it was never actually as simple as (normally) taught in grade schools.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it is that simple. You just wish it weren't.

[Michael P]

I cited the three traditional exceptions to the rule just above. You might not like that the Supreme Court has laid the out, but even the Wong Kim Ark decision (in 1873, perhaps the last of those three exceptions to be identified) says that the Court was just recognizing an exception that is as old as the rule it modifies.

[Sarcastr0]

I do not like revocation of citizenship to be a potential penalty for wrongdoing.
The 'taking a closer look at the provenance of her citizenship' may be legal, but it should not be used instead of criminal prosecution.

Prof. Amanda Frost wrote a book on it: You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers

[Brett Bellmore]

Revocation of citizenship is typically pursued in cases of treason because the procedural bar is lower. Not defending it, I personally think they should go with the treason charge more often.

[Sarcastr0]

If it's for treason, let there be due process for it. Not this fishing expedition BS.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Due Process for Treason:

Step One:
Investigate whether or not she owes allegiance to the US.

[Sarcastr0]

By the mintua of the circumstances of their birth?

Yeah, no.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The denial is strong with you, Sarcastro.

The minutia of the circumstances of her birth is what determines whether or not she's a citizen, and whether or not she can be prosecuted for treason.

[Sarcastr0]

Fucko, you said:
Investigate whether or not she owes allegiance to the US.

Now you're saying no no it's not about allegiance at all, it's about citizenship in fact and that the first step of any treason investigation is to double-check the citizenship.

You just changed your whole thesis.

And this new one suck as well - if this was a carefully papered treason investigation, it did a great job of hiding all signs except for this bit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You just changed your whole thesis."

Lol. No. Allegiance is a component of citizenship. Only people who owe allegience to the US can be prosecuted for treason.

And as the Wong Kim Ark court said, quoting another case, "...a man, born within the jurisdiction of the common law, is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term 'citizenship."

Dumbass.

[Sarcastr0]

Birth has zero to do with allegiance. You are a baby when you are born, you see.

Your willful blindness and apologetics about the purpose of looking into the provenance of her citizenship is getting pretty ridiculous.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Birth has zero to do with allegiance."

Sigh.

"Owing allegiance to the United States" is an element of the crime of treason, and it most certainly can be fulfilled by birthright citizenship.

And SCOTUS has said that "...American citizenship, until lost, carries obligations of allegiance, as well as privileges and benefits...An American citizen owes allegiance to the United States wherever he may reside."

So it would be prosecutorial malpractice to bring a treason prosecution without investigating whether or not she was indeed a citizen of the US.

I mean, come on, Sarcastro. You can't really be this stupid. This is just an act, right?

[TwelveInchPianist]

If she committed treason, let her face charges and give her due process!

But whatever you do, don’t investigate whether she actually met the elements of treason!

[Brett Bellmore]

According to the courts, her citizenship wasn't revoked, because she was never a citizen in the first place. On account of her parents being non-citizens with diplomatic immunity at the time of her birth. And that her US passport had been issued in error.

[Sarcastr0]

Which is trasnparent bullshit, Brett. This is punishment, and your (and the Obama admin’s) formalistic nonsense does not change that.

Hence my discomfort. Pretext.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's so much pretext, as that if she hadn't gone terrorist they probably wouldn't have looked into her citizenship status. She objectively, once they examined her case, didn't qualify for citizenship. It's just that, if you're born in a US hospital, they don't normally look further than that to see if one of the rare exceptions applies.

The cases where somebody commits treason, say by joining a foreign military enemy, and they go with "implied" renunciation of citizenship instead of treason, are genuinely pretext.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think it’s so much pretext, as that if she hadn’t gone terrorist they probably wouldn’t have looked into her citizenship status.

The second proves the first.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No it doesn't. Joining a terrorist organization is going to invite scrutiny for a variety of legitimate reasons. If that scrutiny uncovers things that wouldn't have ordinarily been uncovered, c'est la vie.

Now, maybe it was a pretext, but there's no evidence that it was.

[Sarcastr0]

Your sudden trust in the government is convenient.

Scrutiny of the provenance of your birthright citizenship?! What is the legitimate reason there, other than to see if you can get rid of it?

It's pretext because there is no other legitimate reason other than pretext for punishment via administration not the criminal process.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Scrutiny of the provenance of your birthright citizenship?! What is the legitimate reason there, other than to see if you can get rid of it?"

Seriously? One would hope that US officials would be monitoring the recruiting of US youth by ISIS, and such a successful case would trigger an investigation. And any competent investigation would uncover this discrepancy.

[Sarcastr0]

What is the relevance of investigating the specific legal status of her father when she was born?

You can't even be convincing yourself at this point; just playing games.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You can’t even be convincing yourself at this point; just playing games."

Lol. Right back atcha. It's part of investing her background, Gaslightro.

[Kenneth Almquist]

I believe that the Justice Department was considering bringing criminal charges against her based on her involvement with ISIS. The United States can prosecute crimes that occur within the United States, but most if not all of her involvement with ISIS occurred outside the United States. There are crimes that the United States can prosecute when they are committed by U.S. citizens even if they occur outside the United States, but it turns out that she is not a U.S. citizen. So it seems that she did not violate U.S. law.

The Justice Department is not supposed to indict people unless they believe that the people they are charging are guilty of a crime, and the Justice Department has sufficient evidence to prove this in a court of law. It would therefore be improper for the Justice Department to charge her with a crime without first determining whether she was a U.S. citizen. If it was legitimate to investigate whether she broke U.S. law, it was both legitimate and necessary to investigate whether she was a U.S. citizen.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Pretext" implies that she actually did legally qualify for citizenship, Sarcastr0, and that they're merely pretending she didn't.

I expect that, if she hadn't joined the Taliban, the State Department would never have looked closely enough to discover this. If she'd led an upright life, even if they'd stumbled across it by accident they'll likely have blown it off.

As it is, it falls into the "Don't run lights if you're driving on expired plates" bin.

[Sarcastr0]

No, pretext means there is no other reason to take a look than to see about punishing her.

I don't know if the facts they turned up are legit or not (they are might convenient). The fact of the 'lets look at your citizenship closer because you did bad thing' is the pretext.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, pretext means there is no other reason to take a look than to see about punishing her."

And your claim is that there's no legitimate reason to research the background if someone who leaves the US to join ISIS?

[Sarcastr0]

Oh fuck off. Background is a conveniently general way to sweep this up with other relevant stuff.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Oh fuck off."

The sound of someone losing an argument.

[Michael P]

And it's no coincidence that he always sounds like that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I don’t know if the facts they turned up are legit or not"

Now you've fallen back on "I don't know if two separate court decisions were based on outright lies, but I'm going to assume that anyway"

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Which is trasnparent bullshit,"

How's it bullshit? Even if your evidence-free claim that this was a pretext by the Obama administration were correct, that wouldn't magically make her a citizen. She never was a citizen, regardless of Obama's motives for discovering that fact.

[Sarcastr0]

She was a citizen, now she's not. The connection to her ISIS membership is quite clear to all who are not willfully blind.
Making it retroactive does not make it better.

We actually have a bad history of uncitizening people for hinky reasons.

Criminal justice is just fine for her.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"She was a citizen, now she’s not."

That's just false, Sarcastro.

As Obama and the courts have said, she never was a citizen. Her passport was issued in error.

Do you have an argument that this is incorrect?

[Nige]

Was she, effectively, a victim of grooming?

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought grooming was a fiction or is it only something Muslims do?

[Nige]

No, you don't think that, you're lying. It's something extremists do to young people to get them to join their cause.

[John F. Carr]

If she came back as a U.S. person she could be charged with material support of terrorism. Spain just arrested two women who had been repatriated from ISIS territory.

[Ed Grinberg]

I'm not a Christian, but I'll give you my take.
I am a naturalized U.S. citizen; came here from USSR in my teens.
In my 20s I left the U.S. and moved to Israel, planning to stay there permanently. After a year and a half I changed my mind, came back.
I am glad that U.S. didn't bar me from returning. But then, I hadn't joined an explicitly anti-U.S. (and generally anti-West) terrorist group.
I know this is hard for a "liberal" to grasp, but there are some things that entitle the rest of society to "just [say] fuck her." There are some things a society shouldn't "forgive."

[Bob from Ohio]

“Any “christian” forgiveness”

She can come back, you can go, you bigot.

[Kazinski]

Well according to the Obama Administration, and the courts, her claims to "birthright citizenship" were flawed because her parents had diplomatic immunity and they and she were not "under the jurisdiction thereof".

The law is a bitch sometimes, and she fucked around and found out.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Any “christian” forgiveness and allow her back but still face criminal charges or just fuck her?"

As Brett points out, it turns out that she never was a citizen to begin with, so it seems that neither letting her back in nor fucking her is appropriate.

AFAIK, she's free to apply for a visa, but is probably ineligible.

[Commenter_XY]

Question for the lawyers and law professors....say there is a Federal regulation promulgated by the EPA to prohibit the manufacturing, sale, distribution, or possession of gas stoves. Could they do it?

Would the infamous APA challenge kill that regulation? Major questions doctrine? Both? Neither?

No, I don't think gas stoves are going to be banned in 2023. I am just wondering if the Federal government a) has the power, and b) is stupid enough to actually follow through (I think DC bureaucrats are stupid enough to try it, but that is a question for another day).

[Michael P]

Would that be substantially different from what Obama and Biden have done with incandescent light bulbs?

[Commenter_XY]

Wow...what a great point. I had not even thought of that. But yeah, same kind of thing, I guess. Looks like I got an answer,

[apedad]

You mean the move which, ". . . is the culmination of a decades-long, bipartisan effort to phase out inefficient light bulbs. Energy efficiency standards were included in an energy bill passed under the George W. Bush administration and implemented during the Obama administration?"

[Michael P]

What did the Bush energy bill say about them?

It's pretty tedious how leftists point to some vaguely related law signed by a Republican president and blame it for their leftist policy choices. It happened notably with the FAA renaming NOTAMs (a voluntary add-in when the FAA aligned an order with international standards, pursuant to a law signed by Trump). Are you doing the same thing here?

[apedad]

Not blaming anyone and actually just pointing out this was a bi-partisan effort over a very long time.

[Michael P]

Some people see Demsplaining how a bad idea is bipartisan is trying to spread the blame. And see take avoiding a short question as an admission of doing so.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's even more tedious when partisan clowns such as yourself allude to a situation they know nothing about and then whine about 'leftists' when called out on their own ignorance.

[bernard11]

What did the Bush energy bill say about them?

Per wikipedia

In December 2007, the federal government enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which set maximum power consumption requirements for all general-service light bulbs producing 310–2600 lumens of light. Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions. Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, stage lighting, plant lights, candelabra lights under 60 watts, outdoor post lights less than 100 watts, nightlights and shatter resistant bulbs. The law was to effectively ban most incandescent light bulbs, starting in January 2012. By 2020, a second tier of restrictions would become effective, requiring all general-purpose bulbs to produce at least 45 lumens per watt, similar to a CFL

You're welcome.

Doesn't sound "vaguely related" to me.

[John F. Carr]

It was not executive action that killed incandescent bulbs. Congress passed a law in 2007. More recent regulatory action is adjusting the scope of the ban.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whatever happened to asbestos in clothing, hair dryers, and Christmas decorations?

Probably a bunch of federal bureaucrats decided to impose tyranny on manufacturers who liked to offer asbestos products to real American consumers.

And a bunch of lefty courts let them get away with it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are serious (real) indoor air quality issues raised by unvented gas stoves, which do not always just produce CO2 & H20.

Forget the econazi climate hysteria angle -- this is real. Somehow the flame produces some N02 instead of CO2 and NO2 is bad for humans (particularly children) to breathe. Likewise the small amounts of methane (gas) that escape unburnt every time you light it, and the more significant leaks that purportedly exist in some people's homes. It might also lower O2 levels in the house -- I forget.

Memory is this causes asthma and brain damage -- mostly to small children. And it's an issue now because houses are airtight.

My guess is that it would be dealt with the way lead paint was -- through child safety & child protective -- any rental to children would need to lose the gas stove, having a gas stove would be grounds to lose your child, etc.

This stuff is real -- that doesn't mean that it will be dealt with realistically....

[jb]

Yes, the current discussion in Washington (as opposed to some state restrictions) is based on consumer safety and not on environmental considerations.

[Ben_]

"Real" doesn’t make it a significant effect.

[Mr. Bumble]

The dose makes the poison.

The principle relies on the finding that all chemicals—even water and oxygen—can be toxic if too much is eaten, drunk, or absorbed. "The toxicity of any particular chemical depends on many factors, including the extent to which it enters an individual’s body."[3] This finding also provides the basis for public health standards, which specify maximum acceptable concentrations of various contaminants in food, public drinking water, and the environment.[3] (wiki)
Also, no house is airtight and the number that are tightly sealed is tiny. Why not just mandate air to air heat exchangers that bring in "fresh" outdoor air and expel "polluted" indoor air?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yet again, Dr. Ed delivers with a dumber take than I ever could have guessed.

[Ben_]

The gas stove ban is the latest, clearest example of Democrat policies with the intent to make Americans' lives worse.

It helps when they make it so extremely obvious.

[apedad]

So long Fort Bragg, welcome Fort Liberty: The Pentagon's naming commission recommendations take effect

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/so-long-fort-bragg-welcome-fort-liberty-the-pentagons-naming-commission-recommendations-take-effect

Out with the traitors, in with the winners.

[Kleppe]

I am generally opposed to naming things after Democrats -- especially when they are associated with the military. Hopefully the next Republican administration decides to rename all remaining military assets currently named for Democrats.

[Moderation4ever]

I have in my lifetime seen memorable sports arenas renamed as the naming right are sold. Maybe the Pentagon should do the same with bases. Image Amazon Army base or Kraft Foods naval base.

[Commenter_XY]

That is truly ingenious. I love it. I personally think a light-hearted fun thing for Conspirators would be to suggest you rename of a base. Let me try.

Fort Hood becomes Fort 'Don't Mess With Texas'

(ok, lame on my part, but I tried)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hood Milk Company of Boston gets the naming rights to Fort Hood -- and names it ... Fort Hood -- firing a very large round across the bow of Texas-based Dean Foods, Hood's largest competitor.

[dwb68]

I would have named Fort Meade Fort Liberty, and enjoyed the Orwellian irony.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The only thing this administration is competent at is empty virtue signaling.

We aren’t capable of actually designing an education system in which 50% of black kids can even describe who Braxton Bragg was, so let’s throw them a bone that virtually nobody cares about.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why should an student be familiar with Braxton Bragg?

I do not know anything about Braxton Bragg.

Was he Robert E. Lee's right-hand man? The guy who refused to serve Blacks at a lunch counter? The guy who came up with "separate but equal?"

[Kleppe]

"I do not know anything about Braxton Bragg."

He was a Democrat.

"Was he Robert E. Lee’s right-hand man?"

That was Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, a different Democrat.

"The guy who refused to serve Blacks at a lunch counter?"

You need to be mor specific, but that describes any number of Democrats.

"The guy who came up with “separate but equal?”

Following Reconstruction and the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, the Democratic Party came back to power and began a process of renegotiating the definitions of 'equal rights' in debates over post-Civil War amendments. Democrat legislators in Louisiana proposed the Separate Car Bill which segregated Blacks from Whites in "separate but equal" conditions on train cars.

The law did not go uncontested through the legislature. Among others, Republican legislator Henry Demas from St John the Baptist Parish challenged the bill. Nevertheless, the Separate Car Act passed the Louisiana State Senate by 23 to 6.

[Nige]

Damn, that's exactly the sort of historical overview that's banned in Florida.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

1800's Democrats sound a lot like current Republicans.

Bigoted.

Poorly educated.

Concentrated in desolate backwaters, often toward the south.

Doomed at the marketplace of ideas.

Destined to be losers in an important American war.

[bernard11]

OK Kleppe.

We get it.

For the millionth time, someone points out that Democrats were, at one time, the pro-slavery party and that later, many segregationists were Democrats (except for, you know, William Buckley and a bunch of other segregationist conservative heroes, who definitely were Republicans).

[Kleppe]

C'mon, say "Southern Strategy." Say the line.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, the white supremacists sure seem to have chosen a new party to champion. And they are not being made unwelcome.

Wvery fine people on both sides, doncha know.

[Kleppe]

Of course you swallowed the Fine People Hoax hook, line, and sinker. Of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yup, even with in context quotes regularly thrown in his face, he keeps coming back to it.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, and Kleppe, there is no such thing as a context that makes "fine people on both sides" acceptable when one of those sides is Nazis. Hitler was a dog lover and also very kind to his mother, but that does not make him a fine person. Some evil is so great there is simply no counter-balancing it.

[Brett Bellmore]

The notion that one of the sides was "Nazis", and ONLY Nazis, is nothing but a lie. I mean, unless you're using the Antifa definition of "Nazi": "Anyone we feel like punching".

[David Nieporent]

And you keep lying about it. He was talking about white supremacists because those were the only people there (on the pro-statue side).

There may exist one solitary person somewhere in the United States who is not a white supremacist but thinks we should honor confederate traitors. Doubtful, but maybe. But this was a white supremacist rally, not a pro-statue rally.

[bernard11]

The notion that one of the sides was “Nazis”, and ONLY Nazis,

Yes. Because who the fuck shows up, and hangs around, for a rally organized by neo-Nazis, other than neo-Nazis.

Decent people, who may have been misled into thinking the Confederates weren't traitors, would leave after finding out who was behind the whole thing.

So fuck off. They were Nazis, or would-be Nazis. Every fucking one of them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Because who the fuck shows up, and hangs around, for a rally organized by neo-Nazis

The Volokh Conspirators and their fans

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes they have, Sarcastro. All 177 of them.

[M L]

Correct. And half of those are feds.

Altogether, they do not outnumber the New York Times articles written about them per annum.

[Sarcastr0]

Dems were previously the party of white supremacy. Nowadays it's another party.

Make up numbers and minimize all you like, Kleppe is bringing up irrelevancies.

[Artifex]

Dems were previously the party of white supremacy. Nowadays it’s another party.

That being said, with honest folks like Sarcastro in the mix to whom words like "woman" can readily be redefined as soon as it is politically convenient. It should come as little surprise that terms like "white supremacy" morph and twist according to dishonest political whim as well. Where white supremacy used to mean people in favor of racial largess, racial discrimination and special favors based on the color of ones skin, it now means those who oppose such policies.

Unfortunately for someone like Sarcastro, reality doesn't bend based on rhetoric. The Democrats were the party of racial preferences and remain the party of racial preferences and no amount of relabeling and projecting is going to change that.

[Sarcastr0]

Where white supremacy used to mean people in favor of racial largess, racial discrimination and special favors based on the color of ones skin, it now means those who oppose such policies

White supremacy was never about either of those things.

[M L]

“Dems were previously the party of white supremacy. Nowadays it’s another party.”

Make up falsehoods all you like, but they’re false.

No, Republicans are not “the party of white supremacy” nowadays. No party is. Top Democrats of today honor Robert Byrd and Margaret Sanger, their policies are detrimental to American workers, and there’s probably a racist in West Virginia that votes Democrat. That doesn’t make anyone a “party of white supremacy” any more than there is a “party of internet commenters using the handle Sarcastr0.” We could discuss whether there is a "party of communists," maybe that's a closer question.

Try the party of big spending, big government corporatism while pretending not to be. Not too dissimilar from the other party.

There is also a difficulty with your other statement. “Dems were previously the party of white supremacy.” What were Lincoln’s views about race? Straight up white supremacy. So neither party was “the” party of white supremacy, but they were both perhaps parties of white supremacy.

[not guilty]

Nixon's Southern Strategy was a pander to those who supported George Wallace in the 1968 election. It was remarkably successful in that regard. It is ironic that Governor Wallace, historically a Democrat, is the godfather of the post-Nixon Republican Party.

(Governor Wallace, to his credit, later repented of his racism.)

[bernard11]

No need. You're aware.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Kleppe:
"“I do not know anything about Braxton Bragg.”

He was a Democrat."

Just out of idle curiosity, how do you know this? After your first comment, I did about 5 minutes of internet searching, and the only relevant bit of info I could find was that the US Senator who recommended him for West Point was actually a Whig.

[David Nieporent]

He was a Democrat.

What is your basis for that claim?

[Frank Drackman]

Sounds like a certain Rev.olting Rev got a pretty shitty edjewmacation, probably why he's ashamed to say where he went to Law School

[Sarcastr0]

Virtue signaling is a thing, but this is some legit symbolism.

People do care about this. Military naming honors are kind of a big deal.

[Bob from Ohio]

"this is some legit symbolism"

Then do it right, not some DEI checklist.

Re-name the bases for Union soldiers. We are defeating the traitors once again!

George Thomas [sadly forgotten] was the "Rock Of Chickamaga" and was the key in defeating the CSA army led by Braxton Bragg. It would have been perfect.

[Frank Drackman]

Describe who he was? 90% wouldn't be able to tell you why his name should be removed without saying "Nome Sane?" every 3 words

Frank "Nome Sane?" Drackman

[John F. Carr]

Pick some foreign leaders the U.S. has allied itself with over the centuries:
Fort Churchill.
Fort de Gaulle.
Fort Zelensky.
Fort Netanyahu.
Fort Stalin.

[Kleppe]

There are plenty of dead American heroes to name things after before we start honoring foreign despots.

[Sarcastr0]

I guess you didn't read to the end of that list, and thus missed the point.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It was not necessary to reach the end . . .

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-erasure-the-right-technique-for-u-s-history-11592588991
Here's my comment:
After the Civil War, a conscious decision was made to bring the South back into the fold. The military occupation of the South was quickly ended, they were given full political participation rights, their Civil War dead were treated with equal honors to those of the Northern dead. This wasn't all that odd, and certainly not "atrocious." It allowed the South to rejoin the nation on equal footing, with their dignity intact.
Less than a century earlier, in France, the Revolutionary government, also concerned about ending "inequality and injustice," took a different approach. After they defeated the insurrection in the Vendée, they killed all the rebels, including the ones that surrendered. They then proceeded to wipe out the entire population of the Vendée -- men, women, and children. How's that for "atrocious"...

[bernard11]

Big difference between letting people back into the fold and honoring their leaders, who definitely were traitors.

Even bigger difference between letting them back in and telling a lot of lies about how noble and heroic they were, and it wasn't all that bad, and not about slavery, bullshit, bullshit...

Of course some people want to continue telling the lies, and hate it when some history teacher tells the truth.

[M L]

Of course, reasonable minds might disagree, and back then many thought the idea of secession being illegal, much less traitorous, was plainly ludicrous in light of the founding generation’s views on the issue. That is why after the war, the Union assiduously avoided ever bringing any such case or issue to any court. On the other hand, Lincoln’s actions in calling up an army to invade the South were viewed by many as traitorous or otherwise objectionable, and it was this action that caused a cascade of additional states to secede who had previously declined. Of course many in the North were vehemently opposed as well, and Lincoln jailed thousands of such critics. Similarly, Lincoln’s own cabinet entirely disagreed with his actions in starting a war against the South.

I don’t have a dog in the fight over renaming Fort Bragg. But naturally the issue prompts people to consider why and what this means after 160 years. Genuine good hearted people believe that this action promotes inclusivity and healing from moral ills of centuries ago. Some misguidedly think that there is an ill intent and meaning in the existing name. Then, as others have pointed out, there is also empty virtue signaling. There is also a lot of petty spite and malice raging out there, which has ramped up in recent years, with people trying to get some perceived little revenge on some perceived party they think needs to be stepped on. But looming behind it all, a fundamental meaning here is the unending aggrandizement of a centralized state, and the necessary corollary of that which is not just stamping out dissent and the rebel spirit with ruthless violence, but denying the basic principles of decentralization, political separation, independence and self-government.

[not guilty]

Uh, it wasn't Lincoln who fired on Fort Sumter.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), which settled the invalidity of purported secession, was indeed not brought by the Union. It was brought by the Reconstruction government of Texas.

[M L]

That case of course involved treasury bonds, and the opinion was written by Lincoln's wartime Treasury Secretary.

If you'll permit some potential thoughtcrimes or wrong ideas, this article may be at least somewhat interesting: Is Secession Treason? By H.V. Traywick, Jr. June 3, 2021

"The US Supreme Court, in Texas vs. White, ruled that secession from the Union was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, in 1869, wrote the majority “opinion of the court.” His opinion was not that of Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, in which he had written:

Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security… (2)

Nor was it the opinion of the Virginia Convention that ratified the Constitution, in stating the condition upon which Virginia was joining the Union:

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia … Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression… (3)

Nor was it the opinion of the New York Convention that ratified the Constitution, in stating the condition upon which New York was joining the Union:

We the Delegates of the People of the State of New York … Do declare and make known … That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security… That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary… (4)

Nor was it the opinion of the New England States in their Hartford Convention in 1814, when they threatened secession over the War of 1812. Nor was it the opinion of the Northern States that, at one time or another, threatened secession over the Fugitive Slave Law, the Mexican War, and the admission of Texas. Nor was it the opinion of the Radical Abolitionists who loudly clamored for “No Union with slaveholders!” (5) Nor was it the opinion of the States of the Southern Confederacy that did in fact secede. Nor was it the opinion of the many Northern newspaper editors who were thrown into prison for expressing it, and who had their presses destroyed when Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus while waging his unconstitutional war (all in violation of Art. I, sec. 8 and 9; Article III, section 3; and the First Amendment to the Constitution...)......"

I suggest reading the whole thing.

[David Nieporent]

Or, read someone who isn't a neoconfederate propagandist. Jefferson in no way argued that secession was legal. The DoI was about the natural right of revolution, not a legal right to secede. Nor did either Virginia or New York claim that they could secede at will.

[M L]

Right, so the founders recognized a natural inalienable right, and then turned right around and outlawed that right. If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklynn to sell you.

But sure, go ahead and provide us some "expert" transparent sophistry about what the word "perpetual" means.

[apedad]

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to ATTEMPT TO throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. . . ."

I fixed that for ol' Tommy.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

M L: "...That is why after the war, the Union assiduously avoided ever bringing any such case or issue to any court. On the other hand, Lincoln’s actions in calling up an army to invade the South were viewed by many as traitorous or otherwise objectionable..."

I would suggest that the impediment to bringing "such cases" to any court was the 1868 Presidential Pardon issued by President Johnson, as well as the terms of the surrender given at Appomattox and other similar documents. As for Lincoln's invasion of the south, don't forget about the huge theft of federal property, both military and otherwise, that happened as states seceded and the confederacy was formed. As one small example, confederate forces took over and disabled lighthouses on the North Carolina coast, even before North Carolina had officially seceded. All those facilities were owned and operated by the federal government.

[David Nieporent]

The problem with this argument — aside from the fact that it's the fallacy of the excluded middle (there's a large gap between honoring and mass murdering) — is that it's based on lies. The bases were not named after southern traitors in the aftermath of the civil war in an attempt at reconciliation. They were named after southern traitors in the 20th century in an attempt to erase history. Fort Bragg — to pick the one we're talking about — was not established until 1918.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"After the Civil War, a conscious decision was made to bring the South back into the fold."

I think a better example is what happened in Europe 55 years later -- had Germany been brought back into the fold, there wouldn't have been a second World War.

Conversely, had the south been punished, there'd have been another war...

[not me]

Never understood how Braxton Bragg got anything named after him in the first place ... unless it was on the grounds of being the Union's best double agent. In which case Fort Bragg should not be renamed.

But if he really was just what he appeared to be: a very bad Confederate general who couldn't get along with anybody on his own side, just about any change is an improvement.

[dwb68]

.

[Mr. Bumble]

Best comment so far.

[Krychek_2]

I was reflecting the other day on just how much of our economy depends on people behaving badly. Imagine we woke up tomorrow to find that everyone perfectly obeyed the Golden Rule and didn't do anything to injure their fellow man. The following classes of people would immediately be unemployed:

Much of law enforcement
Anyone who works for prisons or jails, and probably half the people who work at the courthouse
Much of the legal profession
Several government agencies, including the TSA
People who work in private security, including people who manufacture, install and maintain home and office building security cameras

There are probably others I've overlooked.

So, the immediate impact of men becoming angels would be all the people out of work.

[bernard11]

Of course, eventually all those people would find other jobs, and we would be much better off.

Remember, we wouldn't have to pay all those people, and the money would be redirected to other uses, which would generate their own jobs.

[bevis the lumberjack]

They could emulate all of the people who long ago would have worked in manufacturing and become YouTube influencers!!

[bernard11]

You know, the whole idea of a youtube "influencer" is utterly bizarre to me.

What do people do, build an audience - how? - and then start pushing products. It seems like a retired athlete, say, making Budweiser commercials, except the influencer doesn't seem to have any actual earlier accomplishments.

Is that it? And companies pay them? Or am I too old to understand the modern world?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It seems to involve one group of mediocre people recording themselves doing things -- putting on makeup, visiting Korean street food stands, talking about how to be a man, hawking cryptocurrencies and other sketchy investments, overeating at Vegas buffets, listening to '70s songs, consuming very spicy items, auditioning for Ridiculousness -- and hoping another group of shambling people devote remarkably large quantities of time to watching those recordings.

I thank goodness my children and grandchildren get to compete economically with both groups.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don't understand it either. In part because a lot of the influencers I see on TV interviews are people that I wouldn't listen to if we were standing in a burning building and they suggested I should go outside. Like you said, I think it's an age thing.

[jb]

Imagine being an actor or the star of a show on Food Network or a home improvement show.

But rather than having some company make content that features you, you do it yourself. And rather than rely on that company to get product placement deals you do it yourself.

That’s all it is. These people get the attention of people that in a previous generation might have been on TV or a magazine or whatever and they get companies to pay them to promote their products to that audience. The process is just a lot less centralized than in the past.

[bernard11]

Yeah, but how do they get attention to build an audience in the first place?

I mean, it sounds like anyone could do this. I suppose I could get a friend and start going to restaurants, say, and we could post videos about them. But who would watch?

[Mr. Bumble]

In your case, no one.

[bernard11]

Neither one of us, I'd say.

[jb]

Some combination of happenstance (somehow something you created gets its 15 minutes of fame and people discover the rest of your content is good too), self-promotion and the platforms' recommendation algorithms deciding that your content is compelling enough that people keep watching it once they start.

Anyone can certainly try to do this. At a minimum, you need to create compelling content so that people will want to watch it when they discover it, but yes finding an audience is something you'd need to do as well.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like Beto getting his teeth cleaned?

[jb]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not an influencer; I have no idea how to do it.

That did get a lot of non-Instagram coverage so maybe it was a smart way to attract new viewers (although at the risk of turning off some existing followers).

[gormadoc]

You make “content,” the nature which depends on your platform. IG is full of travel/glamor/lifestyle stuff, Youtube tends towards games and entertainment or political/cultural commentary as well as information channels, and Twitch started with only games and now there’s tons of stuff that’s essentially radio you can watch. I can’t say much about other platforms because I really don’t care that much, but I see larger figures give smaller figures they like exposure to help them grow.

They don’t have to push products, though many obviously do. Some are supported by ads more like TV ads, some sponsorships to give companies exposure or presence, some from subscription models, and some get partnerships so that they don’t leave a platform and take their audience away from the ads.

You don’t start making money though (unless you’re another influencer’s eye-candy). It sounds pretty tough to make an audience at all and very easy to lose it. I followed a guy many years ago on Youtube because he had some helpful tutorials. He suddenly switched over to cultural commentary and explicitly gave up his earlier line of work. It’s been almost ten years and he still gets only 300 views on his newest videos (none of which I’ve watched). No way he’s making much money there. Which I suppose is also interesting: many influencers don't actually make real money and treat it as a fun hobby.

[Ben_]

Rationalizing your life choices?

It’s not too late to switch to something that helps people out instead of whatever you do.

[OtisAH]

When did January 12th become “Jackasses Make Jackass Hypotheticals Day”? Got a few going this morning already.

[Michael P]

As S_0 would say, you've got to love the hypothetical hypotheticals. Were you thinking of the question about whether the Biden administration has legal authority to do one of the things it actually-not-hypothetically threatened to do?

[OtisAH]

No, dummy.

[bevis the lumberjack]

This little mini kerfuffle over gas cooktops demonstrates once again how vapid the whole climate thing is. Let’s take away something that makes people happy and comfortable (ultimately makes no sense to do cooktops and leave gas water heaters and furnaces) and is massively less expensive just to DO SOMETHING!! even though any impact is minimal at best.

And let’s find a study with poorly handled statistics to justify it. The reason doesn’t matter because we’re Doing Good.

[Nige]

Take away something that's poisoning them and giving their kids asthma? Neither of which have anything to do with climate change?

[bevis the lumberjack]

You miss the point. It isn’t. The study on which this is based is garbage. There are larger more actually scientific studies that demonstrate zero harm from gas cooktops.

But let’s do it anyway for the children!!! Their parents having to spend 25%+ more for energy won’t hurt the children at all!!!

And if you don’t think this is climate change driven you’re mistaken.

[Nige]

Is it, though? Concerns about the health effects of emissions from gas stoves have been growing over the last few years. Sometimes it is, in fact, ok to do things for the children.

[Brett Bellmore]

Interest in using alleged health effects as an excuse to ban gas appliances have been growing over the last few years. Hardly the same thing.

[Nige]

You say 'alleged,' but then you would.

[Brett Bellmore]

The concerns only exist if you don't use a range hood. And if you don't use a range hood, even an electric stove has health threats.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- range hood won't do any good without replacement air.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, if you live in a hermetically sealed house. Otherwise replacement air is unavoidable. Or maybe you meant those recirculating range hoods?

Never used one, they suck. Or, rather, don't.

[bernard11]

A good range hood is very nice, especially if you live in a condo building, as I do, and don't want the smoke alarms going off whenever you generate a little smoke on the stove.

I used to have a pathetic fan built into an over-the-stove microwave. I dumped all that for a legitimate hood, and discovered that the builder hadn't properly vented the whole thing to begin with.

Getting that taken care of cost way more than the new hood.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bernard11, you'd be amazed at how often a bathroom exhaust fan is installed upside-down....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett — you’d be surprised about replacement air — it’s a BIG issue with gas furnaces.

And sniffers don't lie -- and some of the readings are concerning.

[Nige]

The concerns only exist where there are no range hoods, poor ventilation, and range hoods that don't do a very good job, of which there are many. So apart from that.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know the science Brett, but neither do you.

Maybe don't go off with your telepathic bullshit till you check in with reality a bit.

Not that you'll believe the papers at this point. It's densely packed leftist bad faith for all the things you disagree with.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Or maybe it’s you that won’t believe the papers

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24429203/#:~:text=In%20both%20age%20groups%2C%20we,asthma%20symptoms%20or%20asthma%20diagnosis.

The concerns don’t exist at all outside of groups that have a political agenda.

[Sarcastr0]

That's actually where I currently come down, bevis. Don't put thoughts in my head.

But if there is a rulemaking, I'll look at their evidence.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have hesitated to disclose this, for fear it would be considered doxxing, but I have found this example of Brett Bellmore in action.

It is now a bit easier to understand the birtherism and QAnonyness.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you don’t know the science on this, it’s because you haven’t been looking.

Brett is a paranoid crackpot, but that doesn’t mean that the occasional person isn’t actually out to get him.

[Sarcastr0]

I haven't been looking - why would I?

If the EPA wants to make a rule, they'll have to back it up. I'll see what that looks like if it happens.

[Frank Drackman]

Fuck the children, want to "Do something" for them? Stop killing them before they're born. Or cutting off boy'speni/testicles after they're born (and Foreskins too) if they make one comment that's not 100% masculine, same with the Split tails,
OK, I like children (in theory) but this whole "for the children" bullshit has got to go

Frank (2 grown daughters, no children (thank god)

[Bwaaah]

Just out of my own interest, how long ago did you start having concerns about the health effects of emissions from gas stoves, Nige?

[Nige]

I saw articles about it around the time the pandemic started, I think.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I think."
Fact not in evidence.

[Nige]

Since when did you need facts or evidence?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I’ve known about it (and aroma candles) for 20 years.

As to aroma candles, and your Christmas tree, the nice smells are Volatile Organic Hydrocarbons -- VOCs. And the yellow flame -- that's fine carbon particulate.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I posted a link to a comprehensive NIH study. Go read it then come back and tell me why we should increase people’s energy cost by 25% to 100% over this.

This is climate panic bullshit using BUT THE CHILDREN!!! as a cover. Our own NIH says so.

[Nige]

There are other studies that show a link, though it often comes down to ventilation. Gas isn't clean, but it's cleaner than oil, so, again, not sure the climate change angle is all you're making it out to be.

[bevis the lumberjack]

My study was the NIH.

The “other study” that they were quoting yesterday day was directed by the head of the Carbon Free buildings initiative, who was quoted as saying that gas cooktops were as bad as second hand smoke, which is ridiculous on its face. If that were true it would mean that having a gas furnace is like living in a coal plant.

Which study is more likely to be biased?

[Ben_]

"as bad as second hand smoke"

Today’s bogeyman is just as dangerous as yesterday’s bogeyman? No way! We barely escaped yesterday!

[Nige]

Which of yesterday's bogeymen? Asbestos? Lead?

[Nige]

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/6/1724/737113?login=false

'This meta-analysis provides quantitative evidence that, in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma and indoor NO2 increases the risk of current wheeze.'

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bevis -- it's more how well maintained the appliances are. One laundry room had so many leaks I sent the fire dept in and it was getting close to ignitable. It's also what you often don't have for ventilation.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's so funny to watch the bootlickers line up behind whatever new pogrom the elites want to push upon us.

All of a sudden gas stoves are the biggest health threat of the generation and it's always been that way!

[Nige]

'All of a sudden gas stoves are the biggest health threat of the generation'

It's funny seeing you come up with new straw men.

[Nige]

I'm obliged to concede on the climate change angle - after looking into it a bit more, there is, in fact, a strong climate change connection. More gas pipes and pipelines lock in dependancy on greenhouse gas-emitting fuels. Electrification leaves the way open for sustainable power generation. Apologies, you were correct on that score.

[Mr. Bumble]

No need for gas stoves and ovens when you'll be eating insects.

[Nige]

Optimistic of you to assume insects will suvive the biodiversity die-off.

[Ben_]

Making you switch to a different furnace someday doesn’t make your life worse in the same, very obvious way as taking away your gas stove.

[SRG]

Why the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals should be impeached if not actually beaten up.

Escobar v Texas, 21-1601

Escobar is convicted of murder almost entirely due to DNA evidence. Texas’s brief to SCOTUS:https://t.co/WtKMJItSiN

In this death penalty case, the State initially opposed petitioner’s state habeas application. Yet after a lengthy factfinding process, the District Court found in Petitioner’s favor, entering over 400 findings of fact and conclusions of law and determining that Petitioner’s conviction was secured in violation of his right to due process. Faced with the District Court’s exhaustive and persuasive findings, in the interest of justice, the District Attorney undertook a comprehensive reexamination of the forensic evidence and claims raised in Petitioner’s case. As a result of that review, the State filed a document contesting some aspects of the findings, but ultimately agreeing that Petitioner was entitled to a new trial. The State’s attorneys found that new evidence before the habeas court showed that the State had offered flawed and misleading forensic evidence at Petitioner’s trial and this evidence was material to the outcome of his case in violation of clearly established federal due process law.

Despite the State’s concession of error, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals entered an unpublished per curiam order denying or dismissing all of Petitioner’s claims without acknowledging the State’s position. Even after the State filed a motion clarifying its position and requesting that the CCA reconsider its ruling, the CCA declined without explanation.

Escobar appeals to SCOTUS and Texas supports his appeal – and think how innocent you have to be for a Texas DA to support you in a DP case! – and this week SCOTUS found in their favour.

The CCA utterly ignored the evidence in the report, and repeated incorrect facts in dismissing the appeal. You have to wonder what their motives were – justice clearly not being one of them.

[John F. Carr]

Texas judges are elected. You can sponsor an opposition candidate.

[SRG]

Doesn't mean they can't be impeached (see Art. 15 S2 of the Texas Constitution - which section I knew about as long as three minutes ago). And if they place votes ahead of justice, they certainly deserve to be impeached - or being beaten up.

Are you defending them, btw?

[ducksalad]

Impeached by the Texas Legislature? Yeah, good luck with that.

As far as John F. Carr’s idea of running an opposition candidate, that’s actually feasible. The candidate would need to have a nice sounding common name and run in the Republican primary. Because by the time voters get down to the CCA races, they are voting strictly on name recognition in the primary, and on the party label in general.

I doubt one primary voter in fifty could tell you which candidate is more or less pro-death penalty.

And that's why it would actually be possible to sneak in a candidate with more moderate views, if they didn't talk too much about it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"or being beaten up."

Advocating criminal assault on judges. Tsk tsk.

[SRG]

Not quite. But so what? They have blood on their hands from other cases and in this one they will probably pay no penalty at all for their misconduct. Which is the graver moral offence?

[Bob from Ohio]

They issued opinions you disagree with! Beat them up.

Sounds moral.

[SRG]

If you read about the instant case, you might be inclined to change what passes for your mind.

[M L]

Others use the same logic when learning about the slaughter of millions of innocent babies. For example seeing a video of a fetus physically trying to escape a forceps, even appearing to open its mouth in pain as its limbs are torn apart.

[bevis the lumberjack]

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/and-justice-for-some/

Here you go Bob. Here’s a case where an innocent guy was convicted of murder and when DNA cleared him judge “Killer” Keller of the Texas CCA made up an accomplice out of thin air with zero evidence to justify denying a reversal/acquittal. And got enough of her fellow judges to go along with it.

This phantom accomplice was the famous unindicted co-ejaculator.

[M L]

Sometimes you have to resort to violence against the government, according to SRG.

[SRG]

Oh, almost everyone here thinks that. Where people differ is on the rationales. Duh,

[bevis the lumberjack]

The Texas CCA is awful. Probably the most prosecution-friendly appeals court in the country.

But in their zeal to keep a guy on death row that had been proven innocent by DNA they did make a ruling that ended up with the phrase “unindicted co-ejaculator” entering into the lexicon, so at least they provide comedic value. I didn't look at the case you refer to but that could actually be another unindicted co-ejaculator ruling.

John, nobody cares enough to pay attention to those elections.

[Frank Drackman]

Got a really great Hypothetical,
Assume Senescent Joe wasn't demented,
does training You-Crane Armor Crews make any sense at all? If he (right, G. Soros) wants to fight a war with Roosh-a, do it the old fashioned way, with Congress declaring Wah.

Frank "DemoKKKrats are not healthy for children and other living thangs"

[apedad]

Did you know that Forbes magazine is owned by a Chinese company (Integrated Whale Media)?

In November 2013, Forbes Media, which publishes Forbes magazine, was put up for sale. This was encouraged by minority shareholders Elevation Partners. Sale documents prepared by Deutsche Bank revealed that the publisher’s 2012 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization was US$15 million. Forbes reportedly sought a price of US$400 million. In July 2014, the Forbes family bought out Elevation and then Hong Kong-based investment group Integrated Whale Media Investments purchased a 51 percent majority of the company.

Isaac Stone Fish wrote in The Washington Post, “Since that purchase, there have been several instances of editorial meddling on stories involving China that raise questions about Forbes magazine’s commitment to editorial independence.” (wiki)

Chinese is the #1 economic threat (and therefore national threat), to the US.

Their overt actions (above), coupled with their vast economic espionage and thefts, have allowed them to grow deep roots in our economic, business, and financial systems.

[Sarcastr0]

Reading more Truman. Just after his first midterms, where he got wrecked. But was sorta stoked he didn't need to worry as much about all those nettering legislators in his party.

The book takes the narrative that he's handling the decision making well, but the people in his admin less well.
Keeping on old New Dealers with ideas in variance with his own re: Russia and labor. And of his own people making uninspiring, croney-ish picks of people who are more dedicated and loyal than smart.
But it mostly blames the press as blaming Truman for all the churn cause by demobilization and Russia/China.

He does seem miserable after those first 4 months though. Better after the walloping he took in the midterms.

[SRG]

The Trumpsuckers are going crazy about the Biden docs - for obvious reasons.

In one case, they find classified documents, inform the appropriate authorities and hand them over immediately and then go looking in case there are more, so that they can be handed over.

In the other, they retain the documents, hand some over with reluctance, discuss negotiating with the government over handing them over, get a lawyer to sign a document saying that all documents have been handed over when they hadn't, lie in public about declassifying them, etc.

Yet the Trumpsuckers seem to think there is little if any difference. Truly, Trumpsucking leads to significant cognitive impairment.

[M L]

Just a whoopsie, I had classified documents in my office for 10 years or whatever. Nothing to see here, honest mistake.

[Michael P]

Storing classified in his office, garage, adjacent room, what's the big deal? Oh, yeah, also just ignore the cabin on the same property that was rented out to third parties during that time.

[M L]

Did not see this story before.

NYT Reporter: ‘There Were a Ton of FBI Informants’ at the Capitol on January 6

A Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter allegedly claimed, “There were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people” at the Capitol on January 6, according to a video released by Project Veritas.

Matthew Rosenberg is the New York Times’s national security correspondent and co-author of “The Next Big Lies: Jan. 6 Was No Big Deal, or a Left-Wing Plot.” In that article, New York Times reporters wrote that conservative outlets’ suggestions that “the F.B.I. planted agents to stir up the crowd” is a “false flag,” “instant rewriting of history,” and a “reimagining” of January 6.

However, Rosenberg contradicted his reporting when speaking to an undercover Project Veritas reporter. Rosenberg reportedly said the New York Times “went and uncovered the fact that like, there were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”

He went on to explain how the Times is allegedly circumventing intelligence agencies’ ban on officers speaking with reporters by reaching out and speaking with “people who have recently left who are still talking to people on the inside [CIA / NSA] because people on the inside [CIA / NSA] cannot talk.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/03/10/nyt-reporter-there-were-ton-fbi-informants-capitol-january-6/

[M L]

Portions of the video released by Project Veritas reportedly show Rosenberg explaining how he got “sucked into” writing an article for the January 6 anniversary by his managing editor at the Times. . .

Rosenberg reportedly went on to explain how he believes the left overreacted to the January 6 Capitol Riot, an event he said was “fun.”

“The left’s overreaction, the left’s reaction to it [Jan. 6], in some places, was so over the top. It was like, me and two other colleagues who were there [Jan 6th], who were outside and we were just having fun,” Rosenberg said. “Dude, come on, like, you [NYT staff] were not in any danger [on Jan 6],” he added.

The Project Veritas reporter questioned Rosenberg about his characterization of the day as “fun,” asking him, “Are you allowed to have that much fun on January 6th? Aren’t you supposed to be mourning?” In response, Rosenberg called out the New York Times’s younger reporters for presenting a false sense of danger and milking their trauma from being in the Capitol that day.

“I know, I know, I’m supposed to be traumatized. But like all these colleagues who were in the [Capitol] building, and they’re young and are like, ‘Oh my God it was so scary!’ I’m like, ‘Fuck off,’” he said.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey C'mon (Man!) it's not like Senescent Joe left classified documents in his Delaware garage,

Frank

[M L]

Supreme Court Justice Scalia was 'basically' a member of Ku Klux Klan, Emory law professor claims

https://www.foxnews.com/media/emory-law-professor-claims-late-supreme-court-justice-scalia-basically-member-ku-klux-klan

[M L]

If true then an assassination would have been warranted, perhaps?

[Frank Drackman]

and then Barry Hussein could go to his funeral, like with Robert KKK Bird.

[jb]

Looks like his Tweets are private now, so hard to see the context.

That seems like a take that not very many people would agree with.

[Frank Drackman]

Saying "Basically" shows that one is basically an idiot.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't know if there is any other word in the English language that does more work than "Basically."

[not guilty]

Justice Scalia was a result oriented scold (on Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war), but claiming he was a Klansman is over the top.

That having been said, one former member of the Klan went on to have a distinguished career on SCOTUS (Korematsu v. United States notwithstanding). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black Hugo Black, Jr. reportedly said that his father, as a young man, put on white robes and scared hell out of black people, while as an older man, he put on black robes and scared hell out of white people.

[bernard11]

I doubt Scalia was a KKK member.

OTOH, I don't doubt that he was a right-wing ideologue, and not nearly the wonderful jurist his admirers claim.

[M L]

Is this a real or fake quote?

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, CIA Director (1981)

https://naacp.org/articles/spread-disinformation-and-how-we-respond

[John F. Carr]

Only Bob Woodward knows for sure.

[Bob from Ohio]

What US official said this yesterday:

"This gives us a really important data point at a really important moment to understand what we're going to need moving forward."

[Michael P]

I thought that Kamala "Word Salad" Harris was more likely than Karine "Bicarmel" Jean-Pierre, only because Joe "trunalimunumaprzure" Biden couldn't be even halfway coherent for that long. Wow, what a distinguished administration we have.

[Bob from Ohio]

All good guesses but wrong.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like Mayor Pete.

[Bob from Ohio]

Bingo.

Classic McKinsey speak.

[Brett Bellmore]

I sometimes wonder if left wing legal academics just live in a bubble, or are literally delusional. This essay over at Balkinization prompted that thought. (I'd have commented there, but Balkin got tired of people disagreeing with him in the comments, and disabled them.)

How to Choose a Theory of Constitutional Interpretation

Set aside the lame argument for outcome oriented interpretation of the Constitution. This is the gem that really surprised me:

"In 1990, it would have been pretty radical, if not preposterous, to say that the Constitution creates an individual right to possess guns. As of this writing, that right is entrenched in constitutional understandings."

1990 was, sure, the year retired Justice Burger claimed that in an essay published in Parade magazine. It was also the year United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez was decided, so his 'preposterous' view of the 2nd amendment was actually the majority opinion on the Court. Burger wasn't stating majority opinion, he was trying to change it.

I'm in my 60's today, but I was around in 1990, so was Sunstein. He knows better, or ought to, anyway.

[jb]

1990 was, sure, the year retired Justice Burger claimed that in an essay published in Parade magazine. It was also the year United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez was decided, so his ‘preposterous’ view of the 2nd amendment was actually the majority opinion on the Court.

I'm very confused by all this. Burger was writing to say that indeed there is no such individual right. The fact he is making that argument doesn't lend credence to the notion that the opposite belief was mainstream. If I find an article by an astronomer saying that the Earth is round, that doesn't demonstrate that most people think the Earth is flat.

And then we have United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez which does mention the 2nd Amendment, but only to quote it to demonstrate who the 4th Amendment might apply to. There's certainly no indication as to whether it's an individual right or not.

[Brett Bellmore]

"While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

In Sunstein's view, how are the people protected? They're not, and certainly not in any sense related to the 1st or 4th amendments.

But I only picked United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez because it happened to be decided in 1990. There are plenty of other cases, such as Miller, demonstrating that the Court viewed it as protecting an individual right. (Even if they hadn't yet come around to granting incorporation.)

But, really, set even the Court aside. How can anyone who was around and paying attention in 1990 think that 2nd amendment rights for individuals were a radical and preposterous notion? Levinson wrote The Embarrassing Second Amendment in '89. He didn't do it because the 2nd amendment was some obscure topic. He did it because he noticed a severe disconnect between the views of legal academia and the general public.

"The Second Amendment, though, is radically different from these other pieces of constitutional text just mentioned, which all share the attribute of being basically irrelevant to any ongoing political struggles. To grasp the difference, one might simply begin by noting that it is not at all unusual for the Second Amendment to show up in letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines. That judges and academic lawyers, including the ones that write casebooks, ignore it is most certainly not evidence for the proposition that no one else cares about it. The National Rifle Association, to name the most obvious example, cares deeply about the Amendment, and an apparently serious Senator of the United States averred that the right to keep and bear arms is the "right most valued by free men." Campaigns for Congress in both political parties, and even presidential campaigns, may turn on the apparent commitment of the candidates to a particular view of the Second Amendment. This reality of the political process reflects the fact that millions of Americans, even if (or perhaps especially if) they are not academics, can quote the Amendment and would disdain any presentation of the Bill of Rights that did not give it a place of pride.

I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even "winning," interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation. Thus the title of this essay — The Embarrassing Second Amendment — for I want to suggest that the Amendment may be profoundly embarrassing to many who both support such regulation and view themselves as committed to zealous adherence to the Bill of Rights (such as most members of the ACLU). Indeed, one sometimes discovers members of the NRA who are equally committed members of the ACLU, differing with the latter only on the issue of the Second Amendment but otherwise genuinely sharing the libertarian viewpoint of the ACLU."

Sunstein at best was in such a bubble that he didn't notice that the general public didn't share his disdain for the 2nd amendment, and that practically nobody outside academia would have interpreted it the way he did.

[jb]

Literally all that Verdugo-Urquidez does is quote the 2nd Amendment. You don't need a Supreme Court decision to make the case that the 2nd Amendment has something to do with "the people" since those words are right in the amendment itself. But that doesn't mean that it implies an individual right.

As for Miller, I always find it weird that gun advocates think that case says anything other than that it was cool for the federal government to regulate the transport of shotguns. There's nothing in the holding that gives any indication that there's an individual right, and in fact the case explicitly conditions the protections of the 2nd Amendment on the relationship between the firearm and the well regulated militia.

If anything, The Embarrassing Second Amendment makes Sunstein's point: basically no one in the legal establishment thought that there was an individual right, but sure a lot of individuals in the country didn't like that fact.

I admit to not really being that fluent in the history in this space, but so far this discussion is making me think Sunstein was more right than wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But that doesn’t mean that it implies an individual right."

The phrase, "right of the People", occurs 3 times in the bill of Rights.

"the right of the People peaceably to assemble"

"the right of the People to keep and bear Arms"

"the right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"

Verdugo-Urquidez states that the term "the People" means the same thing in all three instances: Individuals who are members of the US polity. Thus "the right of the People" must mean the same thing in all three instances as well: A right of individuals who are members of the People. Because "the People" are not a collective whose rights can only be vindicated by collective exercise, they are all individuals who happen to be members of the polity.

"There’s nothing in the holding [of Miller] that gives any indication that there’s an individual right, and in fact the case explicitly conditions the protections of the 2nd Amendment on the relationship between the firearm and the well regulated militia."

But, of course there is: It explicitly conditions the protections of the 2nd amendment on the relationship between the firearm and the well regulated militia, NOT the relationship between the person and the well regulated militia.

If Miller had not been among the People whose right to keep and bear arms was protected, if the right had not been a right to keep and bear arms while not in a militia context, there would have been no need to analyze whether a sawn off shotgun was an "arm", because it was uncontroversial that he was NOT a member of the militia bearing it in militia duty.

"If anything, The Embarrassing Second Amendment makes Sunstein’s point: basically no one in the legal establishment thought that there was an individual right, but sure a lot of individuals in the country didn’t like that fact."

Riiight. Burger thought it necessary to attack an idea that had no purchase among academics at all.

The fact is, we're talking here about an academic fad that took hold in the academic legal community for a few decades during the latter half of the 20th century, when federal gun control started to look like a real prospect, and they had to somehow rationalize that it would be constitutional. It never got any real purchase outside that community, and only the most bubbled up academics wouldn't have been aware that they were dismissing a widely held view.

[gallinalg85]

It was bad faith then, and it's bad faith now.

[jb]

Seems like we're just back to individually interpreting the 2nd Amendment now, so we're obviously not going to agree. I think it's pretty clear that the Supreme Court didn't recognize an individual right to bear arms until Heller, certainly not as the holding of a decision as opposed to dicta. You are looking for penumbras and emanations of words in other cases that don't actually make this holding and using it to claim that this was the widespread understanding of the Constitution up until this time.

And with the Burger/Levinson line of argument, if all the evidence that you've got that people believed something is that there are people wrote down that something is not true, well that's not a lot of evidence. In fact, Levinson makes it clear that mainstream legal thinking did not give much credence to this line of thought:

That judges and academic lawyers, including the ones that write casebooks, ignore it is most certainly not evidence for the proposition that no one else cares about it.

(emphasis mine) So sure, some people thought the 2nd Amendment was important, but as of 1989, judges didn't seem to care about it, so it seems to exactly validate Sunstein's argument.

[bernard11]

Balkin got tired of people disagreeing with him in the comments,

No. That's not why. He got tired of endless repetitive BS.

[Mr. Bumble]

Attention all VC commentators.
Amazon is running a special on hip waders so you can navigate the flood of bullshit on this thread.
Hurry, supplies are limited.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its the "gaslighting" on gas stoves that is the best!

[Randal]

I'm so overjoyed by the fact that you and yours experience these dialogues as gaslighting. It confirms everything I long suspected about the right.

[Bored Lawyer]

Well you can't distinguish sarcasm from sincerity. Which confirms what I have always thought about the left.

[Randal]

The hundreds of whines about us gaslighting y'all have all been sarcastic? Impressive message discipline.

Anyhoo, glad to know that deep down, you've known we were right all along!

[Kazinski]

After last weeks thread about routinely calling the police when seeing someone peacefully going about their business while armed, I thought this would be topical showing how cocooned you'd have to be thinking armed citizens are anything but extremely common place:

"Not one, but three armed citizens were able to disarm a robbery suspect attempting to hold up a gas station at gunpoint in North Georgia.

When a customer saw 39-year-old Shawn Sutton pull a gun on the clerk at the Ideal Mart in Ellijay, he pulled his own weapon. A second customer then retrieved his gun from his vehicle to assist, and both were able to disarm Sutton. When he tried to escape, a third customer pumping gas came inside with his gun and all three were able to hold him until police arrived.

Ellijay Police Chief Edward Lacey says an East Ellijay Police officer and one of his own officers arrived within six minutes.

“Six minutes can be forever, and these citizens that we have here are self-reliant and decided they’re not going to be victims. And fortunately, they were able to assist us and help us in a way that didn’t put anybody in danger,” he tells WSB’s Sandra Parrish."

[jb]

None of those people were open carrying four pistols, a semiautomatic rifle and a shotgun while wearing body armor, though. Wasn't the discussion last week more about scenarios where people are carrying small arsenals, not a single concealed handgun?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Firstly, if it's a concealed gun, nobody will be calling the police.

To answer your original question, it depends on which ridiculous hypothetical you are asking about. At least one poster claimed he'd call the police on someone with a single firearm.

[jb]

Well yes, this is my whole point. The scenario Kazinski raised didn't really relate to last week's discussion since it seems like none of the guns were open carried.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who here thinks Chris Wrays butt buddy is going to do a fair job on these stolen nuke codes by Biden?

[not guilty]

Stolen nuke codes?

Where do you get that? From that noted authority, Otto Yourazz?

[Randal]

And another thing! Unlike Trump, when Biden's classified shit hit the fan, he actually did have the power to declassify everything.

It cracks me up that Trump is lying about having done something so stupid that Biden, who could actually have done it, didn't. What's next? Trump's going to claim that actually, he forged all those documents?

[bevis the lumberjack]

No way Biden has Trump’s Jedi Mind Power to bend space/time and declassify those documents with his mind back in 2020.

Besides which, Biden wasn’t president most of the time he’s had them and hasn’t declassified them, so your observation while accurate is not pertinent to this.

Y’all of the left aren’t going to like this, but I think the most likely outcome here is that the Biden revelation is going to force Garland’s hand and end up letting Trump off. Not saying that’s right, not saying it’s wrong, just saying that is the outcome that politics will force.

[Randal]

I don't think Trump was going to get indicted over the documents anyway. It's too hard to prove the underlying crime, and obstruction with no underlying crime is a heavy lift.

[Brett Bellmore]

For the Democrats' purposes, a well timed indictment might be enough, even without a conviction.

And, of course, if they can arrange for a jury trial in DC, the odds of a conviction aren't terrible regardless of the evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

Zero evidence DC juries act like that. Your telepathy strikes again!

[David Nieporent]

"DC jury" just means "black people."

[Brett Bellmore]

An interesting point about Biden's posession of the documents has come up.

The first bunch of documents were found in a closet in an office Biden used as part of a think tank after his time in the Obama administration.

The second bunch found were in his garage.

He's claimed that both were inadvertent, he was unaware of the documents.

But, here's the thing: The think tank in question didn't open its doors until February of 2018, at least a year after Biden stopped being VP. So it's probably NOT a case of him accidentally bringing the documents 'home' while working in the Obama administration.

No, more likely the documents in that closet had been selected from the cache in his garage, and brought to the think tank after he was a private citizen again.

It's not dead certain, Biden might have had that office while VP, and the think tank was just created around him. But it's worth checking.

[Sarcastr0]

more likely the documents in that closet had been selected from the cache in his garage, and brought to the think tank after he was a private citizen again.

You know, you can wait till all the facts are in, and don't need to write fan fiction.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can die of old age, too. Probably happen before all the facts are in on what Biden's been up to.

Garland picked out an independent counsel: Robert Hur. Name sound familiar? He's the guy who vetted Steele, and was neck deep in the Russiagate fraud.

His job as independent counsel will be to protest that the investigation will be interfered with every time House Republicans issue subpoenas. And nothing more.

They could have picked somebody both sides might have trusted. They deliberately went for this hack, instead.

[Voize]

Hur was the Republican whom Trump appointed US Attorney for the District of Maryland after his stint as aide to Rod Rosenstein.

In Baltimore he went after corruption, scoring convictions of ex-mayor Catherine Pugh, state Delegate Cheryl Glenn, and Delegate Tawanna Gaines. Brett from the mirror universe is absolutely certain those prosecutions were politically motivated since the targets were all Democrats.

[David Nieporent]

I responded to Brett's post, but it somehow vanished and I don't feel like trying to recreate the whole thing.

They could have picked somebody both sides might have trusted. They deliberately went for this hack, instead.

They did pick somebody both sides might¹ have trusted. If you don't trust him, that says you're the hack.

¹Emphasis on the might. In the real world, there is literally nobody that Brett/MAGA would trust other than maybe Sydney Powell or Jenna Ellis. And probably not even them; if they came out unhelpful to Trump (that is, exonerating Biden) Brett would just argue that the Deep State or some mysterious They had gotten to the lawyers.

After all, lifelong Republican Robert Mueller? Nope. Lifelong Republican James Comey? Nope. Rod Rosenstein? Bill Barr? Jeff Sessions? Nope. Nope. Nope. Trustworthy to your ilk is defined by the outcome, not the people.

[bernard11]

Ah. Republicans.

The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.

The changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”

The state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed. Missouri Democrats tore into Republicans for pushing the new restrictions on what women in the chamber could wear.

Comments, anyone?

[bevis the lumberjack]

They elect the noisiest and nosiest guys in their side. Unfortunately a pretty good proportion of them are Neanderthals.

If I were a female state legislator there I’d defy the new code and dare them to do something about it. A Shame Test - do they have any at all?

[ducksalad]

I fine with calling it an intrusive waste of time.

Before calling it sexist or discriminatory I’d need to hear what the restrictions on male legislators are. If they’re required to wear a tie, I’d say that’s way more uncomfortable than long sleeves and men are the victims here. If both men and women need covered arms then, sounds like equality.

[bernard11]

Apparently the legislation included no restrictions whatsoever on what male members may wear.

[Michael P]

That's exactly the kind of dishonest assertion we have come to expect from you. At least the first time, you quoted a statement that the bill left the men's dress code untouched.

[Brett Bellmore]

No NEW restrictions, Bernard. You know that quite well, why change the story?

The rule change might be indefensible, might not, but don’t misrepresent the situation.

From your very own link:

"Men also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”"

All they did was bring the women to parity with the men.

[bernard11]

WTF are you and Michael P talking about?

Can you read?

The article says:

The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.

I said,

the legislation included no restrictions whatsoever on what male members may wear.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, and you know as well as anyone what it means to "imply" something. All they were doing was bringing the rules for the women into parity with the rules for the men.

[Ben_]

"Before calling it sexist or discriminatory…"

You know that's what Dems think life is about, right? If they can’t point fingers at someone and call them racist or whatever every day then their lives have no meaning.

[Sarcastr0]

You're getting worse.

[Ben_]

I’m fine.

Do you have any comment on Democrats' inability to get through a day without grievance-pushing to divide people? Is that what life is about? Because most Democrats seem to think that’s the only thing that matters: grievance pushing, identity grievance accusations, and getting revenge on American bystanders for past (often imagination-based) grievances.

[Sarcastr0]

You've moved well beyond confirmation bias into a realm of pure feeling.
Your understanding of what Dems think about has nothing to do with the real world. It comes from you and the giant chip on your shoulder that you are working so hard to grow.

I worry about you a bit. I know it's just the Internet, but you're in this cycle of dehumanizing Dems more and more and just seething about it. I don't know where that spiraling ends, but seems to me nowhere good.

[Ben_]

Remember when liberals used to talk about helping people? Sure it was always with others' money, but the stated goal was helping people.

Now all the (former, no longer) liberals talk about is getting even with Trump, getting even with Americans, getting even with rich people or anyone with any resources, and identity politics grievances.

You can look at 700+ messages here. The subject is What’s on your mind? Is there a single post from any Dem about helping anyone? I did a search for "help" and mine was the only mention of helping people.

How can anyone judge Dems' thoughts except using what they say and what they don’t say?

[Randal]

What do you think the infrastructure package was about? Helping people. Student loans? Helping people. Immigration reform? Helping people. It's all about helping people. What are you even talking about?

This is a right-wing blog. We don't spend a lot of time talking about Democratic policies. The left-wingers are here to keep y'all honest, that's it. The divisive grievances I see on here are all coming from the right. Oh woe, I'm not allowed to be racist at work. Oh woe, they're making me wear a mask to save lives. Oh woe, the Democrats are magically cheating at elections. Oh woe, the immigrants are raping me. Oh woe, the media hates me. Oh woe, Biden's coming for my stove. It's up to us to call you on your pathetic whining.

This is you: https://media.makeameme.org/created/help-help-im.jpg

Now, I suppose you could argue that we should spend less time teasing you and more time articulating an alternative, but where's the fun in that? Go read Slate if you want to know what Dems think. There's a great article on Hamline, for example. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/01/hamline-university-what-to-think-firing.html

[Ben_]

It’s obvious from the content of your post what you care about and what you merely think you need to mention to justify yourself.

You care about getting even with Americans. It’s so important to you that you’re willing to briefly mention something else to justify yourself.

[Randal]

Well, you're projecting and wrong. I don't know what that even means, "getting even with Americans." That seems to be something you're fixated on. I don't believe anything is zero-sum, so there's no "getting even."

[Ben_]

^ Nothing about helping anyone

[jb]

"The only thing you care about is X, and the proof of it is that you're talking about Y."

[Ben_]

Dems care about how much they hate Trump. Dems talk about how they’re going to figure out a way to put Trump in jail. X is X

Dems care about identity group grievance-pushing. Dems push identity group grievance narratives about … [checks notes] … dress codes for legislators in Missouri … (wow, WTF Dems?). X is X

[Ben_]

Dems don’t care about helping people, don’t post a single message out of about 800 that talks about helping people.

[Randal]

I don’t think you’ve ever talked to a Democrat. You’ve got some fantasy that we all have horns or something.

The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators

This was a Republican stunt. You’re nuts. Democrats aren’t pushing shit here, this is 100% Republican posturing.

She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”

That doesn’t seem like grievance-stoking to me. That’s calling out ridiculous virtue-signaling for the waste of time that it is. We want to spend time helping people, not passing dress codes as a publicity stunt.

[Nige]

'don’t post a single message out of about 800 that talks about helping people.'

Conservatives didn't post a single message here about M&Ms but we don't go casting aspersions that it isn't a consuming interest of yours.

[Ben_]

Are you really still talking about the Missouri thing? It's the world's most irrelevant topic.

You must really, really, really love identity group grievance-pushing to still be talking about something so incredibly irrelevant to the daily life of everyone in the world except about 20 people (and not actually even a problem for those 20).

[Randal]

Ben: dress codes for legislators in Missouri

Ben: Are you really still talking about the Missouri thing?

I'm sorry you find yourself so irritating. That must suck.

[gallinalg85]

Women don't belong in the legislature or the voting booths period, regardless of what they wear.

[David Nieporent]

Obvious troll is obvious.

[gallinalg85]

How long is SCOTUS going to give the Second Circuit in the New York gun case? The order yesterday was a smackdown.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Tweeted by Biden today:

“ For the sixth month in a row, yearly inflation is down.

It might be rising in economies around the world, but it's coming down here. And gas prices, food, and more are following.”

Sol is it a global phenomenon, or not?

[Nige]

Cearly it's a global phenomenon, but Biden seems to be dealing with it effectively.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. Sure. When it goes up, it's not Biden's fault, but when it goes down, Biden gets the credit.

[Nige]

You'd argue the inverse, I'm sure.

[Bored Lawyer]

So you are both disingenuous. And you think that speaks well of you.

[Nige]

You could always try to assess which claim is closer to the truth. Or not. You do you.

[Randal]

No. It's very easy. When it goes up in tandem with the rest of the world, it's a global phenomenon. When it goes down only in the US, go Biden.

[TwelveInchPianist]

lol. I see. And when the supply of various currencies goes up in tandem, does that mean that money creation is a global phenomenon, or is it just different central banks doing similar things at the same time?

[Randal]

Different central banks doing the same thing at the same time is a global phenomenon. They do things for reasons, not just random coincidences.

[jb]

Geez, I wonder if anything in the world could have more than one simple explanation?

In any case, the President doesn't have much to do with what is going on with inflation. It was pretty dumb to blame Biden before and would be pretty dumb to ascribe most of the credit now.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Geez, I wonder if anything in the world could have more than one simple explanation?"

Well, inflation has two. Reduced supply of goods, increased supply of currency.

One we control, one we don't.

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

What was all this fuss about the motion to vacate the chair about?
From 1789 to 2019 the House rule in its current version was in place — that is a single member can bring the motion forward in privileged form: it must immediately be voted on. This purportedly enormous, House crashing “threat” was “dangling over the head” of each and every Speaker for 230 years. Yet, only once, in 1910, the motion was brought forward against then Speaker Joe Cannon — and voted down. Mind you, Mark Meadows, in 2015 offered a non-privileged resolution that never was voted on but scared John Boehner out of office. In 2019, after reconquering the majority, Nancy Pelosi thought it wise to add a qualification that it required the Democratic caucus or the Republican conference to suggest the motion.
The US legislative process is so cumbersome that its arcane rules seem to invite obstruction by the few what with unending amendment votes or the motion to vacate in the House or the cloture rule and holds in the Senate. Instead of tyrranny of the majority there seems to be the tyrranny of the minority, at times of the minority of one. Compromise would be the basis of getting anything done, yet compromise has become a dirty word, it has been compromised, so to speak.
The question then arises how come it worked for two centuries but now seems to have broken down? What is so hard to understand that in order to find compromise you need to delegate negotiations to a rather small group of people? It is impossible to find compromise among 535 negotiators. And I am sorry to say, the island of the blissful few does not hold a complex society of 330 million citizens. I am afraid too many people in the US have drifted into a dreamworld where rugged Barry G is clearing the woods, tilling the land and hunting the boor while homey and obedient Peggy is raising the kids, feeding the pigs, milking the cows, cleaning the log cabin and preparing the meals for her beloved hubby.
Nice dream, but a dream, nevertheless.

[Michael P]

Twitter Files part 14 landed, confirming that Democrats lied about Russiagate in yet another way, and collided with media to falsely reject movements like #ReleaseTheMemo as Russia-driven. The lying Democrats and media hacks pushed a lot of the same talking points we saw here. Too bad that those stooges won’t apologize or show any shame.

(Not meant to be a reply to IAdmitIAmCrazy.)

[Ben_]

BlueAnon all the way. All those hack Dem senators and news media liars completely bought into baseless conspiracy theories.

[Nige]

'#ReleaseTheMemo'

That was a very dumb shitshow, I'd nearly let Russia take the hit for it.

[Randal]

You're trying to convince me that although Twitter Files 1 thru 13 were duds, they saved all the bombshells for Twitter Files 14? "Absurd on its face," as Sarah Sanders would say.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The question then arises how come it worked for two centuries but now seems to have broken down?"

It's inexplicable: You have a rule in place, call it Rule A, for 230 years, and things work. You replace it with Rule B, and things break down.

Why isn't Rule A working anymore? What has changed? Whatever, it's obvious that Rule A was no longer workable, things breaking down after it was removed prove that! [/sarc]

[Bored Lawyer]

Young Arab Doctor Becomes Youngest Medical Professor in Israel

At the mere age of 35, Dr. Abdulla Watad from the Arab village of Jatt, a senior rheumatologist specializing in autoimmune diseases, has gotten a title that most people receive at a much later age and stage in life.
Watad has become the youngest Israeli physician to receive a full professorship in the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Medicine after co-authoring about 200 scientific publications.
Watad has been working in Sheba Medical Center since 2013 after graduating medical school in Italy. He is a senior rheumatologist and deputy director of the Internal Medicine B in Sheba.

https://vinnews.com/2023/01/12/the-huge-success-of-abdulla-watad-at-just-35-years-old/

Those stupid Jews, they don't even know how to run an "apartheid" country.

[Ben_]

But everything isn’t perfect for every Arab in Israel.

So forget all the good things (that are better for Arabs in Israel than Arabs in surrounding Arab-governed countries) and believe only propaganda instead.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I do...which is why I wrote: Can there not be a face-saving formulation that addresses both situations the same, and results in nothing more than an admonishment to be more careful with classified documents?

[Moderation4ever]

I cannot help but see this as a failure of the primary system. The idea of the primary system was to allow the people to choose candidates rather than the party doing it behind closed doors. What we are seeing is that for a party to be successful, there needs to be a limited number of candidates. This can mean that the party then steps in pressuring other candidates to stay out or withdraw. This happened in 2020 with Democrats quickly falling in behind Joe Biden. It has happened earlier in 2000 with Republicans uniting behind George Bush.

Donald Trump could win a plurality in a multicandidate primary, but he cannot with the election. The Republican party will likely be forced to limit the primary to Trump and a single challenger.

[Brett Bellmore]

Essentially this just means that, at this point, Trump has a firm level of support among Republicans in the 40's. So he wins by a plurality if the opposition is divided. But Trump is dropping, DeSantis is rising, and the actual primaries wouldn't be until next year.

I think the GOP establishment is going to look at this, and decide to back DeSantis. They can't actually prevent anyone from running, but they can sure discourage it like nobody's business.

[Noscitur a sociis]

DeSantis hasn’t even declared that he’s running, much less started campaigning in earnest.

[Commenter_XY]

I'd personally say it applies in Clinton's case as well. Perhaps for different reasoning. That whole affair was just a mess, right from the start. A lot of people completely messed up, QA. Some wounds were self-inflicted (just like POTUS' Trump and Biden). I would personally try to apply the same face-saving measure for her as well; if nothing, for the good of the country.

The whole classification thing needs a big re-examine, IMHO. Too much stuff is classified, and classified for the wrong reasons (to hide malfeasance, incompetence, or just making mistakes).

[Moderation4ever]

Agree here. Too bad DE2 wasn't around in the 1960's with the civil rights movement and the antiwar movement. He would have seen some real civil disorder. Disorder that the country made it through.

[Commenter_XY]

Make cigar smokE filled rooms Great Again. [MEGA!] 🙂

FWIW, I tend to agree. I actually think party leaders are incented to make good candidate choices. If they lose because they pick a terrible candidate, they're out quite a lot of money.

[dwb68]

Generally I agree the primary system encourages extreme candidates. The answer is probably a jungle primary where everyone runs and the top two finishers run in the general.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You're saying Biden didn't intend to remove classified documents? That's going to be your argument?

[Brett Bellmore]

"There’s all kinds of mens rea stuff going on, for starters."

I'd thought you'd have learned from discussions of the laws around classified documents that, no, there aren't all kinds of mens rea suff going on. In fact, being careless with classified documents is a strict liability offense, you have an affirmative obligation to be careful. Actually have to sign a document acknowledging that you know that.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I get it. That whole Clinton thing was a mess. Does anyone seriously think that other SoS, VPs, former FBI/CIA/NSA Directors, POTUS' do not have at least ONE secret document in their personal possession? They all do. Look, it isn't all just nefarious, by definition. People make mistakes. I get that. The people in DC obviously don't, they are more interested in lawfare. Can we just declare a damned amnesty, every turns in their secret shit, and we move on?

I am a huge fan of transparency, QA. To me, it starts there. We need much more sunshine. Hell, we need a damned spotlight shining on the shit they do in DC.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Clinton was worse -- she had a SERVER that got hacked.
Trump has archival docs -- Hillary's were current.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Wow...

So Biden moved them to a non-government facility. But didn't intend to keep them there? Really...that's what you're going with?

[Commenter_XY]

1 is easier. And we can move on. My mother would just tell me to 'fess up, and get on with your life. And she said: if you have to take castor oil, do it all at once. 🙂

2 is probably what DC types will opt to do. That will have a bad outcome.

[David Nieporent]

I dunno how to resolve it, but it starts with those who called for Clinton’s head for so long to either 1. Admit it was a partisan motivated mistake or 2. Apply the same vehement effort to Trump.

You resolve it exactly the way Comey did with respect to Clinton: you note the longstanding policy that nobody gets prosecuted merely for carelessness with classified documents. They may be fired and/or lose their clearance, but not prosecuted. People only get prosecuted if there's something above and beyond — typically lying/obstruction of justice.

[Artifex]

you note the longstanding policy that nobody gets prosecuted merely for carelessness with classified documents

... and the narrative you are trying to push is that it was merely "carelessness" which is the base lie.

Carelessness is accidentally walking into a restricted area with a cell phone or forgetting to put the disk drive back in the safe. Willfully defeating security standards such as setting up your own server or removing classified headers from documents is not carelessness. It is willfully criminal. Feel free to tell Jessica Quintana that she shouldn't have been prosecuted for taking restricted materials from a scif so she could work on them from home.

[David Nieporent]

"Setting up your own server" is not even a crime.

[Artifex]

“Setting up your own server” is not even a crime.

No Einstein, it is not a crime. Mishandling secure information is the crime. The FBI established she had documents which were previously classified on a private server which is criminal and not allowed.

The narrative argument is that this should be overlooked because it is "mere carelessness". The point you are tap dancing around in your clown shoes is one does not say: "Ooops I accidentally set up a server. I didn't mean to. Please give me leniency". The existence of a server, while not criminal, demonstrates the intent component to go along the actual criminal charge of mishandling classified information.

I suppose you are the type of guy who would argue at a criminal kidnapping trial that purchasing zip ties and a hand gun is not illegal so the defendant should be set free.

[David Nieporent]

The narrative argument is that this should be overlooked because it is “mere carelessness”. The point you are tap dancing around in your clown shoes is one does not say: “Ooops I accidentally set up a server. I didn’t mean to. Please give me leniency”. The existence of a server, while not criminal, demonstrates the intent component to go along the actual criminal charge of mishandling classified information.

Of course it demonstrates intent. But intent to do what? Not to mishandle classified information. If she had used her official state department email account instead of setting up her own server, the issue would be exactly the same: nobody was supposed to be sending classified information to either. There is an entirely separate network for classified information.

[Artifex]

Of course it demonstrates intent. But intent to do what?

Nice. Fewer strawmen. That being said it is a trick question of sorts. What I am being set up for is the need to know Hillary's exact motives. I am not going to play the shell and pea game. I don't know Hillary's exact motives, and I don't need to know Hillary's exact intent.

What I need to know is "was there a conscious effort to avoid standard security protocol and regulations or was it an accident ?" If it is an accident, we fire and revoke clearance and if it was done consciously, we prosecute. Dipshit narratives aside, one does not accidentally set up a server. It is a slamdunk that it was done consciously.

Highlighting your prior falsehood, Jessica Quintana's intent was take the material home and catch up on some work. In fact they found absolutely no evidence that she was planning on allowing anyone else access which is why she was spared the spying charge. Not only was she convicted, but this cost the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration his job.

[David Nieporent]

What I need to know is “was there a conscious effort to avoid standard security protocol and regulations or was it an accident ?” If it is an accident, we fire and revoke clearance and if it was done consciously, we prosecute. Dipshit narratives aside, one does not accidentally set up a server. It is a slamdunk that it was done consciously.

Sigh. Of course it was done consciously. But it was perfectly legal to do that. No, setting up her own server was not about "avoid[ing] standard security protocol and regulations." It had nothing to do with classified information at all!

I'm sure the outside of her home in Chappaqua has a mailbox. I'm sure that mailbox was put in "consciously." But that doesn't mean it was done to consciously avoid security protocols. If someone decided to drop classified documents in that mailbox, that doesn't mean she did something wrong by setting up that mailbox. That person did, by mailing the documents to her at her home address instead of using secure interoffice messengers at the State Department.

[Absaroka]

" No, setting up her own server was not about “avoid[ing] standard security protocol and regulations.” It had nothing to do with classified information at all! "

My recollection was the justification was "As SecState, I needed to be able to talk to various world leaders from a FOIA free account". And then, IIRC, Colin Powell piped up and said "Yup, I did the same thing for the same reason".

Which says to me:
1)I get that SecState needs to talk back channel to various people, and
2)Making them set up low security private email accounts to do that seems unwise - we need a FOIA exemption so they can keep that not-for-public-eyes traffic secure, and archived, until the NN year period runs out.

I'm open to correction, of course.

[David Nieporent]

My recollection was the justification was “As SecState, I needed to be able to talk to various world leaders from a FOIA free account”. And then, IIRC, Colin Powell piped up and said “Yup, I did the same thing for the same reason”.

No; her claimed justification was that she didn't feel like carrying two devices, a personal one and a work one, which she'd have had to do if she were using a personal server for personal email and the State Department's unclassified server for unclassified work email. I suspect FOIA avoidance was part of the real reason, but I don't believe she (or Powell, for that matter) ever said that.

(Note that as a matter of law it does not evade FOIA to use a personal server, account, or device, though as a practical matter it might.)

[Absaroka]

"Powell went on to offer Clinton a friendly warning first reported last week when the FBI released notes of its now closed investigation into her handling of sensitive information. “However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it [sic] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law … Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.”"

"Powell has previously admitted using a laptop on a private line and sending notes to ambassadors and foreign ministers via personal email, according to a report by the state department’s inspector general."

The Guardian

(his not understanding the risks of taking personal devices into secure spaces ...oy vey)

[David Nieporent]

I stand corrected with respect to Powell — though like I said, as a matter of law the documents are subject to FOIA (to whatever extent an exemption doesn't apply) whether they're done on a personal device/account or a government one; the only issue is that people may not know enough to ask/look — but I don't think Hillary said that. Like I said, I think she used the "two devices" excuse.

(But like I also said, I always assumed that evading FOIA was a key reason for her.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

So it was an "oversight" that classified documents were moved to his personal non-government office?

But of course Trump DID intend to move classified documents to a non-government location and keep them there? So, he's a bad person.

That about right?

And that's before we get to 18 U.S. Code § 798...

[Armchair Lawyer]

And of course 18 U.S. Code § 793....

[bernard11]

Well, A.L., I don't know whether Trump intended to move them opr not.

But when they showed up, he sure acted like someone who really wanted to keep them, which Biden has not done.

[Nige]

'But of course Trump DID intend to move classified documents to a non-government location and keep them there?'

I mean, yes?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I see...

Laws must be so easy and beneficial when you can determine people's intent based on their political views and/or skin color and/or religion or any other aspect not related to the law in question.

[not guilty]

Armchair Lawyer, what facts do you claim evince the culpable mental state required by 18 U.S.C. § 793 on the part of Joe Biden or anyone acting at his behest? Have you even read the statute?

[Nige]

'when you can determine people’s intent based on their'

words and actions.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bernard that’s true. But it’s mitigation as to punishment. Doesn’t erase the underlying crime.

Not guilty, you’ve been a true hardass all along as to mishandling documents. Where did your commitment go as to the most recent case?

[Sarcastr0]

Bernard that’s true. But it’s mitigation as to punishment. Doesn’t erase the underlying crime.

Lack of intent does erase the underlying crime, absent specific language to the contrary.

Mens rea was kind of weird to me when I first learned about it as well.

[bevis the lumberjack]

sarcastro, you're assuming that Trump had intent and Biden didn't. That assumption is understandable given your political lean, but there's no evidence in the public realm that tells us anything about either one. All we know is that they had the documents.

My personal suspicion is that both were accidental, but I don't know.

Regardless, with what we know it's impossible to say that one committed a crime and the other didn't. Yes, the reaction when discovered was different and the magnitude may have been different but that goes to punishment, not guilt or innocence.

[Nige]

'That assumption is understandable given'

the completely different ways they acted.

[not guilty]

"My personal suspicion is that both were accidental, but I don’t know."

Donald Trump's stiffing the National Archives multiple requests, refusing to comply with a grand jury subpoena and fraudulently certifying that all documents responsive to the subpoena being produced were far from accidental.

[not guilty]

"Not guilty, you’ve been a true hardass all along as to mishandling documents. Where did your commitment go as to the most recent case?"

My advocacy of prosecuting Donald Trump has always been based on law and evidence, which I have been careful to identify in my commentary. I am reserving judgment as to Joe Biden, whose conduct has been materially different from Trump's. I haven't seen evidence of criminality here, but I agree that further investigation is warranted.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don't think either intentionally took confidential papers home. Most likely explanation was sloppy, inattentive staff.

Trump's reaction was Trump being Trump. He's a confrontational psychotic asshole when challenged about anything. It's in his fucking DNA or something. Means nothing as to guild or no guilt.

[bernard11]

Bevis,

How can you possibly believe that Trump's failure to turn over the documents when asked, and even subpoenaed, was "accidental?"

However they got there, he plainly intended to keep them, even getting one of his idiot judges to go along, briefly.

And if he didn't intend to take them, why wouldn't he just turn them over when asked politely? You know, sometimes one side is right.

[Bob from Ohio]

"My advocacy of prosecuting Donald Trump has always been based on law and evidence"

My advocacy of chasing the Great White Whale ...

[David Nieporent]

sarcastro, you’re assuming that Trump had intent and Biden didn’t. That assumption is understandable given your political lean, but there’s no evidence in the public realm that tells us anything about either one. All we know is that they had the documents.

Is this thing on? (Taps microphone.) Hello? Hello? Testing 1, 2 3.

We don't have enough evidence to know whether Trump had intent to take them in the first place. (Same for Biden.) There is a ton of evidence in the public realm that Trump had the intent to retain them. As in, he refused to return them when asked, and lied about it!

And gave numerous shifting defenses: someone else packed the boxes, the FBI planted the documents, they're actually his, he could have declassified them in his mind…

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bernard, I’m not saying his resistance to returning them was accidental, i’m saying his having them in his possession in the first place was. Just like the flip flippers are saying about Biden (and I agree).

His response to returning them was typical Trump “start a nasty fight first, figure it out later” which seems like a reflex with him. Probably aggravated by the fact that the same people that are defending Biden right now immediately started screaming that Trump’s possessions of the files was a crime. Which pushed a hopelessly defensive guy to be even more defensive.

But I don’t know. Maybe they’re both crooked motherfuckers. There’s evidence floating around to suggest that could be true. Beats me.

[Randal]

"I don’t think either intentionally took confidential papers home. Most likely explanation was sloppy, inattentive staff."

Sure... but that wasn't the illegal part. The illegal part was Trump knowingly keeping them and lying about it. Biden hasn't done that.

(Also, Trump's claim to have declassified them in order to bring them home sort of undermines his claim that he didn't know he brought them home, but it's all lies with Trump, so inconsistencies don't mean much.)

[bernard11]

His response to returning them was typical Trump “start a nasty fight first, figure it out later” which seems like a reflex with him.

Maybe.

But if you commit a crime as an instinctive response to some situation you've still committed a crime.

If I falsify my tax return just because I get pissed off at having to pay, I've still falsified the return.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, actually.

[Armchair Lawyer]

He could "say" that....

But he did direct his lawyers to clear out his office, didn't he?

[Armchair Lawyer]

LOL....

Where was this argument with regards to Mar-a-Lago....

[Nige]

It was too ridiculous a defence even for Trump defenders in the light of what actually happened.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" It’s common for people who work with a great deal of paperwork to find they brought some home they didn’t intend to. They were part of a pile, you meant to take them to some other ok place but something came up, etc."

Top Secret Documents? I think you're supposed to have a different pile for those.

[Nige]

In fairness, QA, having classified documents lying around like that has to be investigated - and it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, while I don’t personally handle top secret documents, I know people who do. They NEVER take ANYTHING home. Period, end of story. Of course, they're not 'important' people; The laws applying to them actually get enforced.

And if Biden had taken secret documents home during the period he was authorized to have them they’d have been here, right? Not in the closet of some think tank he worked at after he wasn’t VP anymore, or his personal home.

Let’s be clear: Presidents and Vice Presidents have long had a casual way with secret documents, including after they leave office. All that happened with Trump is that Biden decided to go after him for something he himself was as guilty of, enforce laws that normally would be left unenforced.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, Biden didn't decide to go after Trump, for fuck's sake.

And what Trump had already done by the time the raid occurred was well beyond what has happened here.

Plenty of facts still out, but yet you still manage to say stuff that has been established as untrue.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's refusal to comply with a grand jury subpoena, coupled with the fraudulent June 3, 2022 certification by his "custodian" of records that all documents responsive to the subpoena had been produced, is evidence strong as horseradish of his guilt. Do you wonder why no one in the Trump cult deigns to address those facts?

[Nige]

'All that happened'

This is not what happened. Demonstrably.

[bernard11]

All that happened with Trump is that Biden decided to go after him for something he himself was as guilty of, enforce laws that normally would be left unenforced.

This is psychotic. You are so deep in the cult you've lost all touch with reality.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, "qualified" here just means that he said they wouldn't be going around confiscating gas stoves people already owned, it would only be a ban on future manufacture of them.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, after they got called on their bullshit, they petulantly backed down (for now) while calling their opponents science-denying morons.

Why you think this is point in their favor is unclear to me.

[Bob from Ohio]

"White House explicitly said there would be no ban"

She also said that the CPSC was an independent agency. So when the rue is promulgated, it will be "we are unable to interfere".

You are extremely gullible.

[Mr. Bumble]

...subject to change without notice.

[Nige]

That makes much more sense.

[apedad]

Do you think DeSantis has enough national exposure to win the general election?

One, Trump (with his enormous everything), didn't win - even as an incumbent.

And two, not only would DeSantis be concentrating on the general election, you can be damn-sure he'll be fighting Trump's expected 'DeSantis-stole-the-primary' accusations.

[Frank Drackman]

Be careful using that J-word in todays Woke Environment, alot of N-words take umbrage (better nail your umbrage down or they'll steal it)

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. He's got national exposure among Republicans, who are a significant fraction of the population, and the campaign will give him more. I think he crosses that threshold easily.

Trump had massive negatives, some of which were even genuine, such as the economy tanking on his watch, even if due to state level actions. DeSantis will, of course, be the new Hitler as soon as he gets the nomination, but that's a constant. His advantage is that Democrats will have to retool against him.

But a big difference is that in 2020 and 2022 the GOP was still fighting to return election rules to normal. They're largely giving up on that, and plan to adapt to the new rules, such as continually hectoring their voting base to vote early.

And it's highly unlikely the 2024 Democratic nominee, probably NOT Biden, will be able to hide in their basement and refuse interviews. And Twitter, at least, will not be censoring any negative stories about them.

OTOH, the rest of the media will probably be even worse in terms of censorship than they were in 2020. And the Republicans have yet to wake to the need to have their own media platforms, instead of expecting fair treatment from ones controlled by Democrats.

Outcome by no means certain, but I think he's got a shot.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, why would they take the PR hit of raiding people's houses, when they can just prevent people from replacing them? It never made sense to think they were going to "ban" gas stoves in the sense of rendering existing ones contraband.

So, this isn't backing down from the actual proposal, it's throwing out a strawman proposal and pretending to be backing down by not adopting it.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, you do realize that most Electric Stoves get their energy from Gas/Oil/Coal being burned, Plutonium Atoms being Split, and even the Hydroelectric Plants/Solar are run by peoples driving Internal Combustion Engine Cars to get there.?
Guess not, how about getting Senescent Joe to get rid of his Diesel burning Jet, ever been close to one? not great for the Asthma, think of the Children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Last DemoKKKrat POTUS candidate who didn't go through the Primary was Hubert Humpty Hump Humphrey, doesn't make a great argument.

[Kleppe]

Just trying to prevent Dems from hiding their shameful legacy.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you’re writing a political thriller that has no relationship to actual politics again…

No, every example of being sane is not a cover for the actual secret righteous-but-evil agenda of the Dems. You really gotta get off that demonization train.

[Nige]

Yes, exactly, this is a more measured response.

[Krychek_2]

And of course neither party has changed in the past hundred years. It's really telling that you have to go back decades, if not a full century, to find stuff to pin on the Democrats.

[Krychek_2]

More to the point, though, the difference between the two parties is that today, in 2023, the Democrats have pretty thoroughly renounced and repented of their racist past, whereas the Republicans embrace their racist present. That's a fairly significant difference.

[Nige]

If it's shameful, why honor them?

[not guilty]

Kleppe, I am proud of how my political party repudiated the racist elements of its history. Are you proud of how eagerly your party stepped into the breach?

[Mr. Bumble]

So they're the modern equivalent of the cool kids in high school?

[apedad]

FYI, this was published this morning.

DeSantis fields growing criticism from fellow 2024 Republicans

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3809213-desantis-fields-growing-criticism-from-fellow-2024-republicans/

One thing's for sure; it'll be fun to watch.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're going to fiscally prevent the IRS from having it's job expanded in ways the administration has proposed, by only giving them enough funding to do their actual job.

[M L]

The problem is the tax code should be nuked and replaced with a simpler system. But it won't because special interests. I.e., we have a corrupt government.

I agree with the general idea of laws being enforced including taxes. But it doesn't matter how many agents the IRS hire to lazily collect a government check: they focus on going after poor people, not billionaires. And they especially won't go after billionaires who make sure to have the right politics and donations.

https://reason.com/2023/01/06/in-2022-the-irs-went-after-the-very-poorest-taxpayers/

[Brett Bellmore]

What "secret" agenda are we talking about? Democrats are actually pretty open about attacking the use of natural gas appliances.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Candidates criticize their opponent, news at 11!"

[Nige]

Don't tell me, tell whoever thinks this is about climate change.

[Nige]

Which is focusing on low-income people, and that entire process dragged out due to staffing shortages, and letting rich people get away with tax evasion.

[bernard11]

Bullshit, Brett. Why do you repeat this crap?

Their job is collecting taxes legally owed, and they haven't had the money to do it properly for years. Of course the GOP doesn't want them to do that, because big donors might get audited and have to pay up.

If you don't want taxes collected stop yelping about the deficit.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Notably, the IRS does not have enough people or funding to do its 'actual job.'

You are lying through your teeth.

[Mr. Bumble]

Everything is about "climate change".

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you make excuses for the people at the IRS? The Democrats at the IRS preying on poor people because they were easy cases and avoiding rich people isn't the fault of the Republicans.

[Bored Lawyer]

That's the fault of the IRS, not Congress. When you have a limited budget, you go after the big fish, first.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you say they don't have enough money to do it properly?

[Bob from Ohio]

"big donors might get audited"

That's the spin, the reality is they are going after people on e-bay.

"As a result of changes in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Congress lowered the threshold for businesses to send the form from $20,000 to $600 this year (see story). That could trigger a wave of the information-reporting forms going out to taxpayers who never before received a 1099-K from payment services such as Venmo, PayPal and Apple Cash and online merchants like eBay, Etsy, Facebook Marketplace and Amazon Marketplace." accountingtoday November 22, 2022, 5:00 p.m. EST

[Nige]

He's their new Hitler!

[Nige]

Everything is and will be *affected* by climate change, not quite the same thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would I bother yet again producing evidence that I know you'll blow off? You're living in a parallel world by now where somehow none of it actually happened.

But, here: FBI Possesses Significant, Impactful, Voluminous Evidence of Potential Criminality in Biden Family Business Arrangements

And, in fact, we have testimony from Hunter's business partners that Joe, often referred to as "the big guy", was getting a cut.

[Nige]

It is literally the fault of the Republicans.

[Brett Bellmore]

He claims he declassified them outside his mind, too. But apparently the people in charge of actually carrying out the command blew it off because they knew he'd be gone soon.

[Sarcastr0]

It was pointed out: "Even the head of the agency qualified and backed off. Maybe they won’t keep their word but at this point that’s their line."

Your response was that all that is lies.

Because you love your thriller plotlines.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the difference between proving that something happened, and proving in a trial that it happened. You can do the former even without a prosecution.

[Sarcastr0]

Personally, I like a government that backs down based on public pressure and doesn't double down on their bullshit.

[Mr. Bumble]

So why and by whom were so many military installations named for Confederates and located in the South?

[Frank Drackman]

Here's an elementary German one,
"Leck mich"

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"Democrats have pretty thoroughly renounced and repented of their racist past"

No, they just switched the targets.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's perfectly rational that they don't so much go after billionaires, in the sense of actually catching them at anything. Who's more likely to screw up their return, a guy with an army of accountants and lawyers, or some random Joe filling out the forms himself?

The odds are much better of finding that a random guy without much income screwed up, and owes (relatively) big time.

I mean, they do go after the billionaires, in the sense of auditing them. They just don't catch them at much.

[Sarcastr0]

There it is.

Defund the IRS because taxes are bad and so is the government.

Billionaires are bad but also should lets never collect their taxes, and maybe cut them.

[M L]

That might be alright. We have a government that doubles, triples, quadruples down and more, though.

[M L]

Every agency likes to say they are an "independent agency."

Why does nobody ever point out that is per se unconstitutional?

[Nige]

Yes, they're against racists.

[Bob from Ohio]

"how do you manage to walk with that massive chip on your shoulder?"

IDK, how do you manage to walk with that blindfold on your eyes?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and I pointed out that he only "backed off" in the sense of denying an over the top plan that he'd never had. Not otherwise.

[M L]

"Portions of the video released..." You should read better.

Can you point to a single time that a Veritas video was misleading? Genuinely interested.

It takes a lot to surprise me but I remember the depths of dishonesty and brazenness of lying about the Planned Parenthood videos was astounding. There was nothing misleading or "deceptively edited" and they released all of the footage to boot. That wasn't Veritas though, it was the Center for Medical Progress.

[Brett Bellmore]

Democrats have literally called every Republican presidential nominee since Wendell Willkie “Hitler”. I’m sure they would have started sooner, except that people wouldn’t have known who Hitler was.

So that they'll call DeSantis "Hitler" is absurdly easy to predict.

[Sarcastr0]

'Well maybe this was okay, but other things are still bad!!'

[bernard11]

Brett,

It's a press release from Grassley.

And it talks about "the Biden Family," mentioning Hunter and James, not Joe, except for some nasty innuendo.

And I don't see the testimony you are talking about. If it's Tony Bobulinski you are referring to you surely know that he accused Hunter of defrauding him of millions. Hardly the guy you'd expect totally credible testimony from where the Bidens are concerned.

[bernard11]

I'm sure we can count on Jim Jordan to get to the bottom of this, even if there is no bottom.

[David Nieporent]

Although that link does indeed contain the words “Hunter” “Biden” and “pay to play,” it does not contain any evidence of any “pay to play” “scheme” of “Hunter’s.” It contains (references to) evidence that Hunter Biden was involved in some business transactions at various points in time, which is rather unremarkable and not “potentially criminal” other than in the sense that everything on the planet is “potentially” criminal.

[M L]

I don't know anything about this episode.

Just commenting on "a government that backs down based on public pressure and doesn’t double down on their bullshit."

[bernard11]

Democrats have literally called every Republican presidential nominee since Wendell Willkie “Hitler”.

Some Democrat somewhere has literally called every Republican presidential nominee since Wendell Willkie “Hitler”. Enough for Brett.

[Nige]

He is a nasty little fascist, in fairness.

[M L]

Today's outlandish trial balloon is tomorrow's edict.

[Bob from Ohio]

"that is not being proposed"

CPSC Commissioner Trumka proposed it.

Crayfishing later doesn't change that.

[bernard11]

He's certainly been campaigning for the nomination, with all his "anti-woke" BS.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Explain your reasoning.

[David Nieporent]

He claims he declassified them outside his mind, too.

No, he doesn't. He has never made that claim.

[bernard11]

"He claims."

Yeah.

[Michael P]

What's sad is that the legal exposure of the low-income workers is due almost entirely to the convolutions of the Internal Revenue Code. If they didn't owe much tax in the first place, and messed it up, they wouldn't be far off. But because the nominal rate is higher than the target rate, they have to get a bunch of details right to legally get the target rate.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"It’s perfectly rational that they don’t so much go after billionaires, in the sense of actually catching them at anything. Who’s more likely to screw up their return, a guy with an army of accountants and lawyers, or some random Joe filling out the forms himself?"

Man, you were close to the right answer!

Care to try again?

[Bob from Ohio]

Spin. Spin. Spin.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, your comment is 'naw' and then handwaiving.

We get it - you still hate the Admin. Well done, very strong.

[Sarcastr0]

Big could you got there, chief.

[bernard11]

So money earned on eBay should be tax-exempt?

[Bob from Ohio]

From e-bays site:

"Here’s what you need to know

Starting on January 1, 2022, eBay and other marketplaces are required by the IRS to issue a Form 1099-K for all sellers whose sales exceed $600.
The new tax reporting requirement will impact your 2022 sales, which you file in 2023 for tax year 2022—it will not apply to your 2021 sales and taxes that you filed in 2022.
If you haven’t already given us your Social Security number (SSN) or Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN), we’ll ask you to provide it once you reach $600 in sales.
No need to worry—you only pay taxes on profits. You won’t owe any taxes on something you sell for less than what you paid for it. For example, if you bought a bike for $1,000 last year and then sold it on eBay today for $700, that $700 you sold the bike for would not be subject to income tax."

No need to worry though, you just need to have proof of your basis for everything you sell. As one does.

You are such a government a** sucker

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : “Clinton was worse — she had a SERVER that got hacked”

As Queen almathea points out, there was never any evidence Clinton’s server was hacked. It’s pretty certain it wasn’t hacked by the Russians, as they would have leaked the result to support Trump. If you recall, Russian Intelligence did hack Clinton friend John Podesta’s email, and then sat on the messages over five months. And when did they start releasing them? Per Mueller’s Report, less than one hour after the Access Hollywood story broke, rocking the Trump campaign back on its heels. Their boy was in trouble so they rushed to help. If they had anything from Clinton’s server, it would have been leaked as well. Trump-wise, Russia was all in.

As for Clinton, other problems for Ed:

(1) The server-thing is a red herring. Private email for public business wasn’t illegal, and there’s no distinction between Clinton’s server, Colin Powell’s AOL account, or standard State Department .gov email. All are not approved for classified traffic.

(2) Of course the issue was messages thought to be unclassified by the sender, then later upgraded to classified on review. Nobody is prosecuted for this mistake, which I bet is widespread & common.

(3) But it doesn’t end there. Of the messages later upgraded, 99.99% were sent to Clinton, not sent by her. The mistake wasn’t even hers. If it was a “nefarious liberal plot” she wasn’t charged, then likewise for the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who sent or were copied on any of these messages.

There was no chance Clinton faced criminal penalties because no one else has for anything similar. Comey’s big production was solely for political ends. The same is true for his election-eve October Surprise, which put Trump in the White House. It was a clear political farce.

[bernard11]

But grb.

Brett has told us he knows of people sent to prison for what Clinton did.

He couldn't be wrong, could he?

[Sarcastr0]

No, but I am unsurprised. Truman is established as not being afraid to lie, especially when it comes to a bit of mythmaking.

And he did leverage that down-home background. Which was legit (and to a fault), at least up until the Presidency.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, Asians and non-Dem whites.

[Krychek_2]

Bob, how do you manage to walk with that massive chip on your shoulder?

[Sarcastr0]

Your thesis is that the IRS is now going after e-bay buyers/sellers.

You've established nothing like that.

[apedad]

Bob, you spelled "Fact. Fact. Fact." wrong.

[Life of Brian]

He has never made that claim.

Since that's clearly and demonstrably false, what additional words did you mutter at the end of that sentence (but not share with us) to feel like you weren't just shamelessly lying?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and who wanted to do that?

[Life of Brian]

Well, let's look at a bit more of the language than your cutesy little 2-3 word snippets:

In that interview, Mr. Bobulinski stated that the arrangement Hunter Biden and James Biden created with foreign nationals connected to the communist Chinese government included assisting them with potential business deals and investments while Joe Biden was Vice President; however, that work remained intentionally uncompensated while Joe Biden was Vice President. After Joe Biden left the Vice Presidency, the summary makes clear that Hunter Biden and James Biden worked with CEFC and affiliated individuals to compensate them for that past work and the benefits they procured for CEFC.
* * *
Based on allegations provided to my office, the information provided by Mr. Bobulinski formed a sufficient basis to open a full field investigation on pay-to-play grounds

Please do share with the class what sort of mental gymnastics you have to perform to claim it doesn't say Hunter was involved in the pay-for-play.

[Brett Bellmore]

Raw video revealed that Veratas edited video just like everybody else in the news media, (And much more ethically than such revered shows as 60 Minutes.) but also released raw video, just like everybody else in the news media doesn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

Democrats and the Nazi Card

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree. He's basically done everything but announce.

[Bob from Ohio]

No other reason to reduce the reporting trigger to $600.

Do you think billionaires are selling on e-bay?

[bevis the lumberjack]

The IRS has announced the $600 reporting requirement. After an uproar they suspended it for 2023 but have left it in place thereafter.

We told y’all the $400k thing was bullshit but you were more interested in bitching about obstructionism than you were in thinking about math. There’s more aggregate money in the lower income ranges because there’s a lot more people there.

Not willing to admit you were wrong I suppose

[Commenter_XY]

Wait....what the hell is crayfishing? That is a new one.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its the correct spelling of crawfish.

crawfish
verb
crawfished; crawfishing; crawfishes
intransitive verb
: to retreat from a position : back out
I crawfished as fast as I could—
Mark Twain

[John F. Carr]

I was thinking of "The Purloined Letter".

[Randal]

What? That article doesn't say what you think it says. He's claiming he declassified them with his mind there.

I do think he claimed at one point to have issued a "standing order" that everything he took out of the oval was "automatically declassified" but I'm not sure if he ever claimed to have written it down or told anyone, or if that was also only in his mind. Anyway a) no one has backed up the claim and b) such as standing order would actually have been worse judgement than just taking the (classified) documents to Mar-a-lago was.

[David Nieporent]

Since that’s clearly and demonstrably false, what additional words did you mutter at the end of that sentence (but not share with us) to feel like you weren’t just shamelessly lying?

Where in that link does he say that he declassified them outside his mind?

[santamonica811]

I think Bumble is pretty accurate. The big difference is that, now, these people have a way to monetize their "coolness."

[Randal]

That's not what Comey says, nor is it the typical practice.

[David Nieporent]

Keep in mind that what sparked the attack on the police station was people working for an arm of the government murdering a citizen in cold blood in public, and lying about it. But that didn't bother Dr. Ed for some reason.

[Armchair Lawyer]

1. If he was actively working off those papers from 2017 to 2020 (for example to help himself write a book), then he intended for them to be there.
2. It seems reasonable to assume he would know if his lawyers had top secret clearance or not.
3. It would also seem reasonable to assume that he would expect people who were asked to clean out his office to find all objects and papers there.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It actually doesn't matter...

If Trump "thought" they were declassified, then there was no actual intent to store classified information. As we're continually reminded about here, it's the mens rea that matters.

And if Trump didn't think the documents were actually classified, then there's no mens reas...

[Randal]

Negligence and recklessness are sufficient to satisfy mens rea. Mentally declassifying documents and then stealing them is both.

You might say Biden was negligent, and maybe so. But not the sort of off-the-charts negligence of someone who knowingly purloins documents marked classified, thinking that maybe they aren't actually.

[Sarcastr0]

It actually doesn’t matter…

Sure, AL.

[Nige]

'If Trump “thought” they were declassified,'

Good luck proving that, if it ever comes up.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Billionaires not paying their taxes” is a lot more of a meme than a fact. They have high dollar accountants that minimize their taxes and enough money to pay what’s due and less incentive to cheat because a million here or there isn’t going to affect their lifestyle.

More cheating is done in the middle class/upper middle class because the spare dollars matter. Biden and the IRS know that as well which is why they’re sticking with the $600 thing.

[bernard11]

That’s the fault of the IRS, not Congress. When you have a limited budget, you go after the big fish, first.

Not necessarily. What you do is go after the fish, big or small, who get you the biggest return for resources used.

Big fish have lawyers, accountants, etc. who can fight tooth and nail over every item, so the return may not be as great.

[David Nieporent]

Because most people don't feel confident about overruling the Supreme Court.

[David Nieporent]

What’s sad is that the legal exposure of the low-income workers is due almost entirely to the convolutions of the Internal Revenue Code.

Nonsense. If you're a low-income earner, with just wages/1099 income and maybe a few pennies of interest from a savings account, there are no convolutions. You aren't itemizing and you're doing a 1099-EZ.

Unless they're working off the books and not reporting cash earnings, there's no issue there. And if they are, then their exposure is not the fault of the tax code.

[bernard11]

Low income workers, and many in the middle class, have extremely simple tax returns, easily done manually or using TurboTax or the like.

You have a W-2, maybe one or two 1099's. If you own your home you can possibly itemize, but that's unlikely if you rent.

The people who have opportunities to cheat are business owners, and people with complex returns - lots of partnerships, LLC's, etc.

The latter group tend to be wealthy, and their accountants rely on information the clients give them. The CPA doesn't actually do an audit.

You don't think rich people lie on their taxes? Really? Who are you parroting? What idiot site did you get that from?

[David Nieporent]

I don't really care about relitigating any of these issues, but I seem to recall that they were caught deceptively editing their anti-ACORN videos.

[David Nieporent]

You are very very very very bad at reading.

I did not say that "it doesn’t say Hunter was involved in the pay-for-play." (I expressly said that it did say that Hunter was involved in some business transactions.) What I actually said was that it doesn't say that there was any "pay for play."

[Sarcastr0]

Nice proovin.

[Sarcastr0]

You're also pointing to no IRS action, just...I guess motions that make you sad?

There’s more aggregate money in the lower income ranges because there’s a lot more people there.
Aggregate tax evasion (which is what the IRS is going after)? Questionable.
And even then, it's all spread around and in little, bits here and there.

[Sarcastr0]

“Billionaires not paying their taxes” is a lot more of a meme than a fact. They have high dollar accountants that minimize their taxes and enough money to pay what’s due and less incentive to cheat because a million here or there isn’t going to affect their lifestyle.

We don't know, because the IRS never checks those accountant tricks.

Do you have any source for your take here?

[bernard11]

You have evidence for this, Beavis?

[Absaroka]

That's an interesting question. FWIW, here is a Brookings Institute study.

You'd think rich people would play it safe - I'm not rich and I'm really careful to not do anything even remotely sketchy because I don't find interacting with the IRS to be very much fun. But there are surely well off people who got caught cheating - Wesley Snipes is one example, and a modest search will find a lot more.

I expect that doing an accurate accounting is hard, because by definition you only know about the ones you catch. People's ability to not pay taxes varies yugely with the nature of their income. For one example, when I was a teen working as a dishwasher, my chance of avoiding taxes was nil, because my princely wage of $1.60 an hour came via a paycheck, so there wasn't any opportunity for dodging. But the bulk of the waitresses' income was cash tips and my sense was a lot of that went unreported - not only because people don't like to pay taxes, but doing the daily record keeping to accurately pay taxes would be a PITA.

A salaried doctor pulling in a $300K paycheck doesn't have much room to dodge, while someone running a construction business might have more opportunities. I know I have had quotes for projects that were '$1500 cash or $2000 if you want paperwork'. Going through Acme Drywalling Inc's books carefully enough to catch that kind of thing would be a pretty intensive audit. You could theoretically find out his supplier sold him 1000 sheets of drywall, but he only has paperwork on jobs totaling 800 sheets, but that's a lot of work. And the stuff he bought at Home Depot for cash isn't going to show up at all.

[Life of Brian]

Nice try, but you expressly said there was none such "of Hunter's." It's right there for all to read, and too late to edit it now -- which I imagine is why you cut and pasted "very" so many times to try to distract.

[Commenter_XY]

Ah......I will look into this one more. Mark Twain?

Thx for the answer. The definition perfectly mimes the behavior of crawfish (backing out pronto!).

[bernard11]

Another common dodge is the "company" car, and in general the use of business assets and employees for personal purposes. The latter is particularly easy for contractors, or retailers - "I'll just grab a new pair of jeans off the rack."

The former is what got Leona Helmsley in trouble. Not sure if she was a billionaire or not, but certainly plenty rich, so maybe some of those megarich folks are really not 100% honest on their taxes.

[Absaroka]

FWIW, I think I'd codify some kind of de minimus exception that's well above $600.

Hypothetically speaking, let's imagine I bought snow tires for my truck - we're talking 4 tires @ $250 each, plus 4 rims @ $100 each, so $1400 total. A season later the truck gets totaled.

I sell them on ebay/craigslist/facebook for $1000. The book answer is I need to figure out the right depreciation schedule for tires and (separately, because they are older) rims. There is probably some accounting rule for the mounting fees, etc. Then I can tell whether I have a capital gain or not, what taxes are owed, and so on. In practice, the number of people who do that rounds to zero percent.

With the new reporting rule, I sold more than $600 of stuff, so the IRS gets the form. Even if I am sure I lost money on the tires, I have to go through the exercise of declaring them, finding my purchase receipts, etc, etc, etc.

That's not going to make people well disposed to kindly Uncle Sam.

(The dude running an ebay empire selling $100K a year of stuff is another thing, of course)

[Sarcastr0]

Agree with you, but I also think the implementation may do that regardless.

I am skeptical of the idea that this is a slam dunk ebay people will be prosecuted and persecuted.

But always good to button up the formalities to set expectations.

[Absaroka]

"The people who have opportunities to cheat are business owners...

The latter group tend to be wealthy, ..."

I think you may be overlooking that a lot of the lower income economy is a cash economy. The drywallers who offered me a substantial cash discount were business owners in the sense they were willing to take greenbacks and supply a drywalled garage, but they sure as heck didn't look very wealthy.

(FWIW, I didn't take the discount. My sense from their reaction was that skipping the discount was fairly uncommon)

[Absaroka]

My experience is that if income gets reported to the IRS, you'd darn well better report it, even if it won't effect your taxes paid[1]. To my knowledge, they don't have a 'whatever, close enough' exception.

[1]it's too long of a saga to type in, but once upon a time our income was in the tax tables, which are in $100??? intervals, and I got zinged for failing to report like $10 in income, even though it didn't push us up into the next higher interval, and so didn't affect taxes owed.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree, but I can tell you that there is plenty of folks (lawyers even!) who don't bother to report their side-hustle, even when told of the risk they're taking.

My tax headache story was a jurisdiction thinking I still lived there, assessing a tax, not contacting me, and then added penalties for years and years until they said I owed 15K till I showed I'd lived and filed elsewhere.
Then, not telling me they'd resolved it, and not responding to my calls and letters, until I schlepped over to them and asked.

[SRG]

Good reference 🙂 Though I never did believe it, because it implied too much intelligence on behalf of the police.

[Nige]

Less money, fewer agents - rich people too difficult to go after, poor people easy.

[Absaroka]

"I can tell you that there is plenty of folks (lawyers even!) who don’t bother to report their side-hustle"

Well, sure. But that's point here - they are getting away with not reporting it because whoever is paying them isn't reporting it (and the IRS is trying to get more 1099's issued across the board, to stop that).

But the $600 ebay thing seems especially irritating because most people who gross $600 on ebay aren't going to owe any taxes at all, because they can probably show their $600 in old junk was sold at a loss. But going through the exercise to prove you sold the $600 of junk at a loss can be nontrivial, and so I think it will likely result in a lot of work and pissed off taxpayers for very little revenue collected.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that makes sense. Time and trouble for taxpayers for little functional benefit. People like to obey the law, and fear the IRS if they don't, so the rule alone is bad.

I remain skeptical that the IRS will affirmatively be going after ebay users for the same reason though. But just because it's going to make hardly anyone go to jail that doesn't mean it's not pretty bad policy. I do wonder the process in making that decision.

[Absaroka]

"I remain skeptical that the IRS will affirmatively be going after ebay users..."

Define 'going after'? Forming a special ebay task force? Not likely. But if you sell your tires and the IRS gets the 1099K - which ebay is going to send - then you better have some lines on your tax forms explaining that $600. You can declare it all as income and pay taxes (even if it was actually a loss), or you can give an accounting of how it was a loss. But it's not the IRS making a decision to 'go after you' - it's the IRS computer being programmed to look for (potential) income reported on 1099's and not reported on your return. I don't think there is any human judgement or eyes involved before you get the nastygram.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what victory you think you are declaring here. That's right; I did say that there was nothing about a pay-to-play scheme of Hunter's. And I continue to say that.