Thursday Open Thread

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Welcome to Groundhog Day Thursday.
Same ol' shit over and over again.

Are you better off today than you were two years ago?
Is the country?

[santamonica811]

I am much much better off. I sold one of my houses earlier last year, and did extremely well with that investment. (Yeah, I’ve also lost a ton in the stock market in my various IRAs, but that will come back, as it always does, and I have 15-20 years before I’ll be touching it, at the earliest, I hope.)

My Obamacare covered all my (significant but not life-threatening) unknown maladies, which has greatly improved my physical health. While my monthly payments are higher than I wish, at least I can shop for and purchase different insurance, should I desire–which was impossible before Obamacare came to be.

My Dodgers won a World Series. My Rams won a Super Bowl. My Lakers won a world championship. My Kings are doing great this year.

My friends, generally-speaking, are fairly healthy and happy in their lives. In my circle of closer friends, I know 33 couples who got married over the past several decades. With only one exception, they are all still married. (And, based on what I hear during various games nights; they remain pretty happy.) No deaths from Covid in my friendship groups (although some of them lost more distant family or friends). No long-Covid in those groups.

As the world went to shit all around me (Trump, Ukraine, Supreme Court), my life and the lives of those I love…remain pretty damn good. So, it’s been, overall, a bloody nice 2 years for me.

[Commenter_XY]

You have much to be thankful for, SM811. Glad the last two years have been kind to you. Give thanks for that.

(PS - you're right about stocks, they'll come back) 🙂
(PPSS - I recommend you combine your IRAs for simplicity)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You couldn't shop for insurance before Obamacare? Did Obamacare invent google or something?

[JasonT20]

I would have hoped that you'd know one of the basic features of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare to many). Guaranteed issue. Pre-Obamacare, people that didn't get insurance from their employers weren't already part of a large group of people that could get affordable insurance by spreading out the risk to the insurance company. Thus, people with preexisting conditions looking for an individual plan were often out of luck when looking for something they could afford.

As designed, the individual mandate was supposed to be the trade off for insurance companies in order to get otherwise young and healthy people paying into the system, as long as they could afford it. (young people with lower income would qualify for subsidies) Various challenges to that and other parts of the ACA were made, with the most recent being a result of Republicans repealing the "tax" on being uninsured that was the enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate in 2017. A bunch of states then sued saying that without the "tax", the whole ACA had to fall, since the SCOTUS ruling upholding it in 2012 said that everything relied on Congress's tax authority, not the Commerce Clause. No tax, no federal power, was the claim. SCOTUS rejected that argument 7-2 in June 2021.

[Life of Brian]

Guaranteed issue.

Given that the only thing that SM811 said was that it "covered all my (significant but not life-threatening) unknown maladies" (i.e., acted as a health insurance policy), there's no reason to think that guaranteed issue came into play.

As designed, the individual mandate

Forced young people to buy into the new system of hyperinflated, risk-leveled premiums who a) often didn't need comprehensive (i.e., non-catastrophic) health coverage, and b) could get it for next to nothing if they chose to (I had a very nice individual policy for about $200/month in my 20s)

(young people with lower income would qualify for subsidies)

Subsidies which come from... the magic money tree? If [nearly] the entire population is covered, the [nearly] entire population's taxes and premiums are paying for the entire policy base, and overall cost has gone up -- way up. Shifting dollars around like a pea under shells doesn't make anything more "affordable."

So, at bottom, barring the preexisting condition boogeyman that probably wasn't at issue anyway, SM811 (and the rest of us collectively) paid more for the same services. The only world where that would constitute "better off" is down the rabbit hole.

[Randal]

Well, now that they're known maladies, guaranteed issue might come into play. I took it to mean she can still shop for insurance.

If [nearly] the entire population is covered, the [nearly] entire population’s taxes and premiums are paying for the entire policy base, and overall cost has gone up — way up.

This is true only if prior to Obamacare, people with preexisting conditions (or who were otherwise uninsured) just died when they got sick, without consuming any healthcare. That's not what happened. They were on the "emergency room" policy -- the most cost-inefficient policy known to mankind. Wait till you get real sick, go to the emergency room, and don't pay. Pre-Obamacare, the rest of us were paying taxes for that! Much better to pay less taxes to give those people free health insurance, so they can avoid getting sick in the first place.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That' ER bit s a meme not a fact.

But that aside, when speaking of insurance generally, what should your premiums be based upon?

a.) Your risk to the pool.

b.) Your income.

c.) The cost of you and your neighbors spread amongst the community.

Which do you think the most sense for things like your car and your health?

[Brett Bellmore]

I would say A; The price of the insurance is supposed to reflect the actual cost of insuring you, including overhead and profits, as near as the individualized information available about you can peg it.

[Randal]

I think we should just have single-payer. Obamacare was a compromise in order to keep health care theoretically private. I agree with you that it's a misuse of "insurance."

The answer isn't to go back to free-market. We already know that doesn't work in the context of healthcare. The answer is to stop pretending that it's insurance.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Have you heard of story of Lasik?

Lasix is the model of what can happen when a healthcare market isn't manipulated by politicians or insurance games.

There has been innovation and efficiencies that have made the cost of it accessible to most people.

Further, when you look at the inefficiencies of government programs, why would you want our healthcare to become some waste filled, inefficient and stagnat sector? Why wouldn't you want efficient allocation of resources, innovation, and accessibility?

[Nelson]

Lasik is amazing. I got it 20 years ago. It was colossally expensive. Today it's relatively inexpensive. It's also not necessary. It's convenient and often the eyesight version of a facelift: people think it makes them look younger if they don't wear glasses.

You are trying to compare an elective procedure that took decades to become affordable to life-changing or life-threatening diseases like cancer, diabetes, ALS, Parkinson's, etc.

All of these have been subject to the same market forces that Lasik has but, while there have been many "innovation and efficiencies" in treatments for them, their cost isn't "accessible to most people" by any stretch of the imagination.

The problem isn't Obamacare vs. the free market. The problem is our employer-based system. It distorts the free market and allowed insurers to ignore and overcharge those in the individual market, which notably includes small business owners and self-employed people. Obamacare changed that by making the entire individual market into a single pool.

Imagine being a healthy 25-year-old starting a business. Without enough employees (at the time you needed at least 10 to qualify for an employer policy), you would have to shop the individual market. The best rate possible for a 25-year-old with no pre-existing conditions and ideal test results? $1,500 per month. What does that do to someone's ability to keep a business afloat? What does it do to their ability to attract quality employees?

The best part of Obamacare, and the one that made the biggest difference to people on the individual market (for example, anyone in the gig economy), was having a single pool of non-employer insurees. There are good and bad things about Obamacare, but the benefits to people who couldn't access the employer system is immeasurable.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Nelson,

Lasik never even had insurance coverage like your other examples. They aren't comparable.

Further, pre-ACA a healthy young single adult's policy was definitely not $1500/mo. Currently for a healthy 25 year old in a moderately low cost of living area is $350/mo with an $8k annual deductible.

I had coverage for a family of four with a $10k deductible for not much more than half that.

There is no way a single healthy young adult was paying what you claim.

[Randal]

Nelson, if you haven't noticed, BCD is totally ignorable. Feel free to do so.

I completely agree that the most urgent health care problem to solve is to take employers out of the equation. It's a relic of a bygone era when most people were the functional equivalent of indentured servants to their workplace for their whole lives.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" It’s a relic of a bygone era when most people were the functional equivalent of indentured servants"

NO.

It was a way of raising wages during WW-II when wages were frozen.

[Randal]

Yeah, frozen as in indentured servants. That's what I said.

[Life of Brian]

They were on the “emergency room” policy — the most cost-inefficient policy known to mankind. Wait till you get real sick, go to the emergency room, and don’t pay. Pre-Obamacare, the rest of us were paying taxes for that!

And we still are. If you haven't been to an "emergency room" lately, you should visit one -- particularly in a larger city. They're still used as free nonemergency care by a large contingent, which is less than surprising since after ~10 years of ACA there are still ~30MM uninsured out there. It wasn't a panacea in the least -- particularly as compared to its cost and additional administrative burden.

[Randal]

Panacea, no. Improvement, yes.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It wasn't an improvement for me.

I had a catastrophic plan with a $10k deductible that cost my family of four about $200/mo.

Now I have to buy insurance with stupid stuff I don't need like insurance for an annual physical (who on Earth would by that???), insurance for family planning, insurance for PrEP and various other things I am not at risk for.

And my plan is nearly $1600 a month and a not that improved deductible.

I don't have $1400 x 12 in healthcare expenses each year.

[Life of Brian]

If Congress passed a law that forced you to give me half your income and burn another 10% in a bonfire, that program indisputably "improved" my income. But I strongly suspect you'd disagree that there was a net improvement in your income, or even in our collective income.

ACA proponents focus only on the additional enrollments/headline benefits, and handwave away the increased premium costs (the actual ones, net of shell-game "subsidies"), poorer-quality plans/provider networks, and increased delays in obtaining care. That's no more a net "improvement" than my example.

[Randal]

The "collective" improvement is what we were talking about: reducing "emergency room" healthcare recipients. There is less net healthcare costs when appropriate, preventative care is provided to people who would otherwise utilize the emergency room.

The other collective benefit is the safety net. Just like social security, Obamacare realizes that taking $200 from a millionaire and giving $100 of it to a zeroaire is a net quality-of-life gain... yes, even if the other $100 is burned in a bonfire.

In that sense, it is like insurance. Just like with gambling, the house / insurance company always wins. You're paying in more than the statistical average payout. But it's worth a little inefficiency in order to guarantee that nobody -- yourself included -- can ever fall below a certain baseline.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Obamacare had nothing to do with cost. If they wanted to lower costs for young and healthy people to buy insurance they wouldn't banned risk-rated insurance pools.

Instead they dropped young ans healthy people into community rated pools forcing then to pick up insurance costs of others that do not share similar risk but instead share a similar zip code.

[Kazinski]

I actually did ok in the stock market last year, only down 2%, and I think I'm positioned for a big rebound since my biggest position and loser is a fixed income yielding 6%. My biggest winner last year were energy stocks like CVX, although I sold it a little early when oil prices hit 120 per bbl, since I knew they couldn't stay there long. I went long on energy stocks when Biden got elected, then shifted to inflation adjusted bonds, and commodity stocks (mainly copper) as the energy sector topped out. But I held onto some of my ETFs that have a decent yield so I'd participate in a rebound when it came.

And I just bought a house last month on the outskirts of Phoenix, and finished building my summer home over the summer (I built it myself), although I have to put in an EPA complient wood stove in the spring to pass final inspection.

[John F. Carr]

I am in a similar position. I got a raise to match inflation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I got a raise a bit short of inflation, but my employer swallowed a huge increase in the cost of our health insurance, I didn't see any of it on my paycheck, so I guess my net compensation went up.

[Mr. Bumble]

That makes you better off? Sounds like treading water.

[John F. Carr]

I meant I am in a similar position to two years ago. Financially secure. Not able to retire to a life of luxury. No crazy stalkers coming after me.

[bernard11]

Depends on his individual situation.

A big factor would be having a fixed rate mortgage. The monthly payment won't increase with inflation, so that would be a benefit.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Generally speaking, yes.

January 2021 was still the heart of COVID, lockdowns, masking, and more. That thankfully has mostly passed us by.

[Mr. Bumble]

Glad for you individually but maybe this was the wrong forum to ask the question, since most commentators are professionals. No on so far has seen fit to answer the second question: “Is the country” (better off)?

Also, you seem to be saying you're OK not necessarily better off.

[Sarcastr0]

Not getting the answer you wanted, seems like.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, not getting the answer to the questions I asked and speculating as to why.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Is the country better off?

Yes, honestly. COVID was causing mass closures, school shutdowns or "virtual learning"...that has gone away. Religious rights were being trampled in 2021. That reversed itself. Other court decisions came out reasonably.

If you're politically minded, we have a divided government now. That tends to be far better to reverse government abuses, or at least restrain them.

Early 2021 was not a good time. Early 2023 is much better.

[Brett Bellmore]

Better off in some ways, worse off in others. We were more energy secure a few years ago, for instance.

[Mr. Bumble]

Better off in that Wuflu has seemed to run its course (but not the effects from the response). Other than that I'm not seeing much that is better.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I wouldn't say there's a huge difference. Remember in 2021 at this time, Biden had already passed / dictated his new energy rules.

[DaveM]

The country is immeasurably better off now that Twitter’s internal censorship has been exposed by Musk. It’s not so much about Twitter itself, as it is about the whole public private partnership that has grown up to control, censor, direct, and deflect public opinion. On the government side, we now know that it involves thousands and thousands of employees and contractors. On the private side, we only know the details of one company, but are reliably informed that the same is happening right across the board at all of them.

It is not an easy thing to admit that our own government is working against us. But we really need to be honest with ourselves. At the moment, we still are able to speak through the cracks and around the corners. But we certainly know where this all leads.

So, to the extent that a painful truth is at last being exposed, things are “better off”.

Which is much like saying my head feels better now that I’ve stopped banging it against the brick wall.

[Sarcastr0]

The twitter files claim much, prove little.

The government is not working against you.

Your dramatic twitter obsession aside, twitter policy has not actually effected your life materially.

[Kleppe]

"The government is not working against you."

Is this the same government that just redesignated* millions (if not tens of millions) of brace-equipped pistols as SBR's, turning lawful conduct into felonious conduct? Is that the one?

*Technically the ATF is now claiming that these weapons have "always" been SBRs, so according to the government it isn't a redesignation.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the only reason why the government changes their regulation of firearms is to oppress you, personally.

Yeah, why not pivot from twitter to this other thing?

The key is for everyone to have their own hobby horse single issue that makes them decide the government is against them. Normal stuff!

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the reason they did it was to oppress a freaking lot of people, who possibly just happened to include Kleppe.

Oh, wait, it's not oppression if the boot heel isn't on YOUR face. Almost forgot that.

[Sarcastr0]

Your telepathy as to the secret bad faith tyrannical desires of those you disagree with is as accurate as ever.

[Brett Bellmore]

You continue to regularly treat any imposition as not oppressive, so long as it lands on somebody not you, particularly somebody you don't like. This has been constant over the years.

We have here a direct expression of tyranny: Without any vote, the rights of gun owners have been reduced, we are threatened with serious legal penalties if we don't knuckle under, don't submit. And with no sensible motivation except hostility towards the right.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know enough to judge this one.

That's all.

It may seem strange to you not to post about something you don't know about, but that's what I'm doing.

I do know overblown drama when I see it, background knowledge or no.

I also see twitter has been left well in the dust from the OP.

[Randal]

Is that like how the Supreme Court decided to oppress all women in Dobbs?

I think you're right, the government is against us!

[Sarcastr0]

it’s not oppression if the boot heel isn’t on YOUR face.

No, Brett. I'm capable of thinking about harms to people other than myself. You're the one whose definition of liberty is basically tailored for themselves and includes no other perspectives.

I don't know enough to say if this policy is good or bad. Not my bag.

I do know that saying it is pure oppression and means the government is against it's citizens is melodramatic twaddle.

[Randal]

aka whining

[Nige]

'it’s not oppression if the boot heel isn’t on YOUR face'

It's not oppression if it didn't happen.

[Krayt]

During the First Gulf War, in the early days, Saddam Hussein gathered over 2000 foreign nationals, and packed them around power plants and so on, as human shields. He released a precious video of himself sitting there, pawing a little blond boy on the head, one of his “guests”, the kid terrified.

The Democrats in 2016, in one of their presidential debates, discussed how to best hurt the Internet giants. Most wanted to wreck section 230, which would have caused hundreds of billions in stock loss as their business model became hobbled (similar to the way the rest of the world was forced to operate.)

You’re Saddam Hussein, pawing the head of the Internet companies, facetiously saying, “no foul here!”

Hundreds of billions in losses, unless they censor harrassment, starting with "harrassing" tweets of their political opponents, right before an election?

Give me a break, pawer.

And the Republicans started same later, but it was two evils, fighting fire with fire.

The winner? Not those who love freedom, free speech, or the Constitution.

[Randal]

This is an amazingly psychedelic political hallucination you've got going on. I'm almost jealous.

[David Nieporent]

So, you're saying that Democrats threatened Internet companies, and the Internet companies responding by… trying to help Democrats get elected? 'Cause it seems to me that if Democrats threatened to inflict losses on Internet companies the rational thing to do would've been to help elect Republicans.

(In the real world rather than Krayt's fantasy world, it's only Republicans who have been passing laws attacking Internet companies.)

[Randal]

It cracks me up that you guys don’t mind at all that Musk has consolidated all that power to “control, censor, direct, and deflect public opinion” for himself.

You prefer the whims of a strongman to a broad, relatively transparent and accountable commission.

Typical. Once again, you see freedom in authoritarianism. It’s the thing I understand least about the right.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd prefer it if he were a bit more principled about free speech. A good deal of the current Twitter censorship is being forced upon him by legal threats, but certainly not all.

He can be a breath of fresh air compared to the previous management, without being very liberal at all, though.

[Randal]

That’s exactly right. Conservatives: I sure would like a breath of fresh authoritarian air after all this stifling, oppressive, demanding, confusing democracy. As long as the dictator talks simply and says what I want to hear, please, take all the power. It doesn't even really matter if you do what you promise, I just like the sound of your sweet, right-wing promises.

[Nige]

Apparently prominent right-wing edgelords who sucked up to Musk are now complaining that the algorithm is rendering them invisible. It kind of is, but it's a symptom of the shittification of all of Twitter. Once again, they're the targeted victims if you pretend this stuff isn't happening to other people too.

[Moderation4ever]

Yes

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you better off today than you were two years ago?
Is the country?

Yes.
Yes.

Good questions. Thank you for asking.

[Randal]

An interesting postmortem from University of Michigan showing that their heavy-handed DEI efforts mostly backfired.

http://www.michiganreview.com/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-dei-1-0/

An increasingly common conclusion, and an outcome that was predicted by some. Not me, just, I remember it being predicted. It was in the context of an observation that hiring DEI administrators (such as a Directory of Diversity) is likely to make the community at large less inclusive, both because individuals won't feel personally responsible for it ("we have a Directory of Diversity for that") and because the DEI bureaucracy will be perceived as unwelcome external enforcers ("defund the DEI!"). That seems to be what happened in Michigan.

I support DEI (well, the D and the I, also the E but way less). But the answer is not to centralize it into an institutional bureau of diversity investigations. Fire your diversicrats and instead make DEI a simple community value, along the lines of academic freedom and mutual respect.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody likes the political officer, and that's what DIE is.

[Commenter_XY]

Agreed Brett. In some instances, it is hard to tell the difference between a DIE official here in the US and the typical Polkovoy Komissar of the USSR (or Yale Law these days, heh heh). Both are branches of the same poisoned tree.

[Sarcastr0]

Actually, our schools are not much like the USSR.

[Ed Grinberg]

Actually, they are.
You know that old joke:

An American says (to someone from USSR): I can go to Washington D.C., stand in front of the White House, and yell: "President Reagan is an idiot!" And no one will do anything to me.
The Soviet citizen replies: Well, I can go to Moscow, stand in the middle of Red Square, and yell: "President Reagan is an idiot!" And no one will do anything to me.

At "our schools," you can say whatever you like . . . as long as it's "politically correct." If you say something "politically incorrect," you'll face discipline / dismissal / expulsion, and, possibly, physical violence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Back in the '80s, I had the opportunity to take several grad-level courses on Soviet Government & Politics, along with a couple International Relations ones -- all taught from an "Evil Empire" perspective.

I have long said that those courses helped me understand UMass Amherst -- and what was happening 30 years ago at UMass Amherst has now infected much of American higher education.

For example, one could never criticize Communism -- but one could criticize bureaucrats for not being loyal to it, and people often did. Isn't that what we are now seeing in higher ed?

[John F. Carr]

The methodology appears similar to what a local high school used. The people designing the high school survey don't know how to get meaningful results. On a scale of 1 to 5, do you know anybody from a cultural background? On a scale of 1 to 5, do you know anybody of a different sex or sexual orientation? The data crunchers are happy to spin this garbage into a report that makes people feel good or bad, as the mission requires.

[Randal]

I don't understand your point quite. Assuming a goal of diversity efforts is to expose students to diverse groups of people, what's wrong with a survey to measure that goal? I agree that a single survey isn't of much use, but they did multiple over time and saw the trend go in the opposite direction from what they wanted. Why isn't that a valid analysis?

[Michael P]

They did two surveys, which makes it hard to understand any real trends. The surveys were five years apart, so the overlap is very small. It's hard to tell how much of the difference in most of the questions is due to what they want to measure, versus how people interpret the questions. (Is engaging "in a meaningful way" less frequent, are standards for calling that higher now, or [I doubt this is it] are people less conscious of the identity groups?) Many of the questions can support a predetermined conclusion regardless of the trend direction: If the change went the desired way, great, we need to keep doing what we did and maybe ramp it up; if the change went the wrong way, we must redouble our efforts.

[John F. Carr]

The school survey was total garbage because it insisted on answers to questions that the responder didn't have an answer to. Because it asked vague or badly worded questions that tested how the responder interpreted the question.

How would I respond on a scale of 1-5 if I know somebody from a cultural background? (Maybe it was "culture" instead of "cultural background".) Don't we all have one? There was an implied "non-WASP" in there, but it was only implied. Or an implied "different", but how different?

Do I know somebody of a different sex or sexual orientation? I know some women, so definite yes on that one. I think they meant, "if you are straight do you know any alphabet people?" The survey I saw circulated was the adult version which was modified from the student version. Students may have been asked if they had an opposite-sex friend, which does make a little sense in high school. Clearly nobody put any thought into the survey, because even a little thought would have figured out that the question being asked would not get useful data.

All questions had to be answered. If you know nothing about the local sports program, how do you know if it treats people equitably on a scale of 1-5. And what does equitable mean? I asked a student how she answered the equitable questions. She thought as long as everybody ignored her she was being treated equitably. Because "equitable" is kind of like "equal" and they all treat her the same.

The school survey was based on a state survey, so this is a broader DEI thing and not just one batch of clueless administrators looking to make themselves feed good.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're saying it isn't any worse than about 90% of the polling out there?

[Krayt]

Forced answer questions are a thing in surveys. The idea is the answers tend to be more accurate than not, and are thus useful even if the person isn't super up on the question.

This itself has been tested.

[Don Nico]

Yup, I am from a cultural background myself; I listened to myself sing in the shower.
Yup, I also know someone of a different sex. She's a great lady.
As for equitable, I get the same shitty pay as the next pay.

Super survey

[Drbusybody]

Why has there never been an arrest in the murder of Anne Barber Dunlap? There is an obvious prime suspect. Some information that had been sealed as a result of litigation over her insurance was made public 2 years ago and as a result, there is even more reason to believe her husband Brad Dunlap is the killer.

The FBI reviewed the case and its report stated that Anne's body being put in the trunk of her own car and left at a nearby Kmart suggested that whoever did the murder was tied to the crime scene and therefore had to take the risky step of moving the body.

It's gotten to the point that I hesitate to call this an unsolved crime. I think everyone knows who did it. He just has never been charged.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts, the press was thrilled yesterday after police took heed of their intense press coverage and arrested the man all the reporters were certain was responsible for the latest missing white woman. It was like the crime of the century that somebody we've never heard of disappeared. Day after day of reporters hinting "the husband did it!" without crossing the libel line. This morning my news feed finally included an acknowledgement that there were other less white, less attractive missing women in Massachusetts.

[OtisAH]

The Anne Walshe case. Since the 3rd local news has been all over it. They must’ve gotten calls because by Thursday of last week they started tacking on nereid mentions of a Hispanic woman who’d been missing since November 24th to the end of the Walsh coverage. But by Monday, a white woman named Brittany Tee disappeared. Between Walsh and Tee there was no more room to mention the Hispanic woman.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There actually are a surprising number of women who go missing -- and I often wonder how often alcohol was involved. I'm thinking of one specific case in Boston where the cops fortunately found her, alive -- but the MBTA video showed a clearly blotto young lady who probably wouldn't have been kidnapped & raped for three (?) days had she been a bit more sober.

Blaming the victim? Maybe, but still....

[Nelson]

Yes, it is blaming the victim. Decent people blame the kidnappers and rapists for kidnapping and raping prople. You, on the other hand ...

[OtisAH]

For the 99% of us who have no idea who Anne Barber Dunlap was, I looked her up. The last news of her case, per Google, was Feb. 2020:

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/investigations/kare-11-investigates-new-details-revealed-in-dunlap-murder-mystery/89-70f6dc98-9660-4687-a2b4-0458532bccfc

If tldr, Ms. Dunlap was last seen alive Dec. 30, 1995. Her body was found in the trunk of her maroon Toyota, parked in a k-mart parking lot, on New Year’s Day 1996. And the “obvious suspect” — to people who are familiar with the story and anyone who’s ever watched a tv crime drama — is the husband, Brad Dunlap. The new news in 2020 had to do with unsealed court records pertaining to a life insurance company who refused to pay out on the million dollar policy Brad took out on Anne. The case was settled but no details are available.

So, to answer the question why nobody has been arrested: My guess is it’s because there isn’t enough evidence to charge anyone. “Obvious” and “provable” are not synonyms.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"My guess is it’s because there isn’t enough evidence to charge anyone."

There's no statute of limitations on murder, is there? But double jeopardy means that they only get one try at convicting him.

My guess is that they are waiting for the husband (if they suspect him) to slip up and do something stupid. Why hurry -- wait for the pressure to cause him to make a mistake.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I the only one who thinks we are on the brink of another Depression?

[Brett Bellmore]

It certainly seems possible, especially if Xi is stupid enough to attack Taiwan.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I would not be surprised to see a civil war of some sort in China.

The system is so corrupt, and I don't think even they know how much of an economic mess they have, particularly in real estate.

[John F. Carr]

Or the eve of destruction?

[apedad]

Nice!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_38SWIIKITE

[Armchair Lawyer]

Depression, no.

There may be some interesting retrenching going on, and potentially a recession. China has some long term structural issues that are going to make it increasingly unaffordable and uncompetitive. It has some shorter term political issues that will be an issue.

[Brett Bellmore]

The thing is, there are some systematic problems that effect the whole of Western civilization, pretty much. The birth dearth distorting population profiles, which looks good economically until your last born productive cohort hit retirement age. Just too late inventory systems. Insane energy policies.

We'll get past them, eventually, but for now they're piling on.

[dwb68]

There is no evidence of an economic slowdown similar to the 2008 financial crisis, or worse. To see one, we would need to see banks in bad shape. US banks are well capitalized and have plenty of lending capacity. The bad news, I see "high" inflation 4%+ here to stay for a while, precisely because the Fed is unwilling to risk a severe downturn. The good news, we are soon crossing the threshold where monetary and fiscal policy will curtail inflation. To curtail inflation, generally "real" rates (The Fed rate - inflation) must be positive. We aren't there yet, with nominal rates ~4.5% but core inflation ~5.5%. Rates will have to go up, while inflation will have to come down. Probably rates will go up to 5.25% while inflation declines to 5% this year.

Recession... maybe. If we have one it will arrive in time for the 2024 election. It will probably be more of a stagflation, with inflation stubbornly above 3% plus 6%+ unemployment.

Not a depression though. The Fed is reacting too slowly to cause a depression.

[Nelson]

We won't have stagflation. Unemployment will remain low. It is well past the point where the "people aren't working because the government is paying them" claim has any validity. The job market is strong.

[Moderation4ever]

Yes

[Sarcastr0]

What, Civil War 2 and a trucker's strike not quite doing it for you, so economic collapse is your next catastrophe you're totally not hoping for but predicting?

[Kleppe]

"Civil War 2"

When are you imagining that occurred?

[Noscitur a sociis]

your next catastrophe you’re totally not hoping for but predicting?

[Commenter_XY]

No, you are not = Am I the only one who thinks we are on the brink of another Depression?

Objective Reality: No one knows whether we are on the brink of another Great Depression. Our crystal balls are cloudy, at best.

In the meantime, live your life and be happy. You have no control over whether we will have a depression or not. It is a waste of mental and emotional energy to obsess about it (note: I am not saying you are obsessing about it Dr. Ed 2, but I know that there are people who do obsess about it).

[bernard11]

Things could get bad if the GOP forces the Treasury to default. Even then a long-term depression is wildly unlikely.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's funny how "not spending money you don't have" is just assumed to not be on the table. It's either borrow ever increasing amounts, or cheat your creditors. Never, "Stop borrowing more".

There's scarcely been a time in the last half century when we could not have achieved a balanced budget by merely reducing spending to the per capita, inflation adjusted level of a decade or so earlier. But even proposing to do such a thing is treated as proposing murderous austerity.

[bernard11]

Brett,

As I've said repeatedly, the way to address the deficit is through the normal appropriations/budget process, not by deciding not to meet your financial obligations. Let the House work on that, instead of playing with financial fire and planning more Benghazi investigations.

But you consistently refuse to understand, or maybe just to admit, what an idiotic and dangerous ploy this whole debt ceiling business is.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I just said that I wasn't proposing to not meet our financial obligations, (Though I think we are rapidly approaching the point where it will be impossible.) I was explicitly complaining about the tendency to treat proposing to spend a bit less as tantamount to defaulting on the debt.

And what's your response? To do exactly that, yet again.

[bernard11]

I was explicitly complaining about the tendency to treat proposing to spend a bit less as tantamount to defaulting on the debt.

No one treats those two as the same. McCarthy&Co. are quite welcome to propose cutting spending. I'd like to see them make a specific proposal.

My point is that refusing to raise the debt ceiling is in fact refusing to meet our financial obligations, whether you think so or not. Further, it will do severe damage to the economy, both ours and much of the rest of the world, and actually make the deficit worse by driving up interest rates in the long run.

So what do you think about the debt ceiling, Brett? is McCarthy just being an asshole?

And by the way, do taxes ever enter into your thinking?

[Don Nico]

Guys, this is all THEATER!
Of course the debt ceiling will be raised, because there is not ant other choice. The debt is now $31 T and growing at roughly $2T per year. By 2024 the debt will be twice the US GDP and the ceiling will get raised again next year.

[Nelson]

Look at the election of the Speaker. Don't assume that rationality and responsibility will prevail in the Republocan caucus.

[bernard11]

Guys, this is all THEATER!

It's all fun and games until someone's eye gets put out.

The problem is that if you dance on the edge of a cliff there's a chance you'll fall off, even if you never intended to jump.

There is always the risk that political momentum and general idiocy will get in the way of rationality. Do you trust the crowd that McCarthy is kowtowing to to do anything sensible?

[Don Nico]

I don't trust any of them. But I have confidence that the resisters will cave.

[JasonT20]

And what’s your response? To do exactly that, yet again.

No, his response was not to say that reducing spending through the ordinary budget and appropriations process is the same as defaulting on the debt. His response is to say that using the debt ceiling as a "I'll drive off this cliff if you don't give me what I want" tactic is stupid and dangerous. I completely agree with that. If members of Congress and the President can't find a normal way to manage the federal budget better, then it is up to us to push them to do that or find people that will. Of course, to do that, we have to do better as voters and stop letting them distract us with the latest outrage du jour while they continue to serve special interests instead of us. Populism doesn't lead to a more rational and responsible government.

[David Nieporent]

And I just said that I wasn’t proposing to not meet our financial obligations, (Though I think we are rapidly approaching the point where it will be impossible.)

Since the debts are owed in dollars, it literally can't be impossible.

I am not saying that promiscuous printing of dollars is a good idea — it's not — but there is no mechanism by which it can be "impossible" for the U.S. to pay its debts.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the debts can nominally be paid off in inflated currency, that's true. "Here's $1B, which nominally covers what we owe you, and which nobody else will take off your hands because our currency is worthless now. Have a nice day!"

But then nobody loans you anything again, and the point of the clause was that our credit actually be good, not that it just be good nominally, with nobody actually being willing to loan to us.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “It’s funny how “not spending money you don’t have” is just assumed to not be on the table”

Two Points :

1. It’s bizarre another pointless government shutdown is on the table. They never accomplish anything and are always a massive political loser for the GOP. But today’s Right is in the entertainment business; actual policies and productive actions were abandoned long ago. They just aren’t very fun or exciting. These days, your typical Right-type is only into pro-wrestling-style thrills.

2, The responsible thing to do would be to go back and find Brett’s reaction to the last budget-busting GOP tax cut, but it’s safe not to bother. Everyone knows the Right’s situational pieties on deficits are a total joke – hypocrisy on a truly galactic scale.

[bernard11]

Everyone knows the Right’s situational pieties on deficits are a total joke – hypocrisy on a truly galactic scale.

Right. Didn't they control both Houses during the first half of Trump's term? Seems like they actively worked to increase the deficit then.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it was bipartisan, but, yes.

I'm not claiming the GOP as a whole is serious about this. Maybe 20 members in all of Congress, and that's about it.

Milton Friedman famously said, “I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”

That's where we are right now: Anybody who tries to do the right thing in terms of the federal debt will shortly be out of office, because they'll be outbid with the voters by somebody willing to borrow recklessly.

It's a known failure mechanism for democracy: Once politicians can get away with borrowing money to buy votes, borrowing just keeps expanding until it stops because nobody will lend them anymore money. There's no feedback mechanism to stop it short of that.

I actually blame the GOP for the crash to come: The one time in my life when there was a chance to terminate the spiral was in '95, when the Republicans introduced as promised a balanced budget amendment. And they cynically saw to it that it failed.

[Nelson]

Never, “Stop borrowing more”.

That is about a balanced budget. As long as Rs believe in supply-side economics and gear their tax cuts to businesses and the top quintile, we will continue to have deficits.

However, that is completely unrelated to the debt limit. The debt limit is for money we have already spent. It is literally completely unrelated to the budget process.

I agree that we need to have balanced budgets. That's one of my strongest beliefs. The deficit is a cancer. But we can't do anything about money we've already spent. We can't default, period. The repercussions would be catastrophic for the country.

Pretending that there's some other way to avoid default without raising the debt ceiling is irrational. We can balance the budget and prevent the need to raise it *again*, but the chance to prevent the need to raise it *now* is long past.

[arch1]

"No one knows whether we are on the brink of another Great Depression. Our crystal balls are cloudy, at best."

There are decent arguments* that a good prediction market would be the best way to answer this question. Polymarket doesn't have this as one of its current predictions, alas (though there is a related market re: the February Fed mtng outcome). Metaculus may have such a prediction, though I haven't checked; Metaculus alas uses funny money so participants have only reputational/ego stake which is presumably not as good as real money at eliciting the best wisdom out there.

Still, each of these is worth taking a look at and prediction markets generally are a good thing to keep in mind, especially once U.S. regulators (their Puritan/Luddite antigambling instincts notwithstanding) realize that getting a better handle on the future might be both possible and of significant societal value.

*https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/prediction-market-faq

[Kazinski]

Well a recession is in the works, but I don't see a depression.

The supply shocks are ironing themselves out, so many people have taken themselves out of the labor market that jobs are still available for those who want to work.

The fed is doing a decent job tamping down inflation, and thankfully (hopefully?) Congress is gridlocked for the next 2 years so they can't do anything stupid to gear it up again.

The housing market is taking a breather, but I don't see a 2008 style collapse because housing stocks are still low, and their aren't very many homeowners underwater. Plus a lot of housing speculators have taken a bath which is good for the long term health of the market, but the rental market is robust enough to keep them occupied.

[OtisAH]

I think you’ve been clinically depressed for a very long time already. But yes, if the vandals in the House succeed in the US defaulting on our debt, the likelihood of a worldwide depression probably becomes elevated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What bothers me is the speculation on real estate combined with the fact that at least 1/4 of the population is living paycheck to paycheck. We've been without inflation long enough for few to remember it, let alone plan for it.

Fixed interest rates will remain fixed but variable ones, ranging from credit cards to everything else, are/will go up and how many have budgeted for that? If both stocks and real estate are overpriced and both decline significantly at the same time, well...

Remember that only 2% of the population was invested in stocks in 1929 -- it was the 1930 run on the banks that really caused the problems.

[Ben_]

Who told you that both stocks and real estate were still overvalued? By how much? If it’s a little, then it’s a small problem at most.

[Ben_]

You should stop trying to predict extreme outlier events. Rare events are too rare. Predictions of the future are difficult even when it’s 50/50 and you’re predicting 1/100. It makes you sound like just another fabulist or crank. Why do it?

Someday there will be another Depression. Predict it every day for 50 years and you’ll eventually be right once. Wrong 18000+ times.

[Nelson]

Depression? Yes. Deep recession? You're still pretty lonely. A shallow recession? That's where most people are, especially given the pace that inflation is dropping.

[Michael P]

There are now 17 high schools in northern Virginia that have confirmed they did not timely inform National Merit Commended Students of their achievement. It really makes the Fairfax County superintendent of schools’ two-weeks-ago message sound like gaslighting:

Our current understanding is that the delay at TJHSST this fall was a unique situation due to human error, but we will leave it to our investigative review to draw any final conclusions.

Even when that went out, news coverage had reported that other schools did the same thing (so not “unique”), that the person responsible at TJ announced why they were doing it (so not “human error”), and it extended back more than one semester (so not “this fall”).

This is what DIE looks like in practice.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What I didn't understand was not notifying those who weren't going on to college -- why?

[Brett Bellmore]

They might have changed their minds?

[DaveM]

So non awardees wouldn't feel bad, apparently.

[Michael P]

Telling somebody else that they did well neither breaks my arm nor picks my pocket, to coin a phrase.

[Kazinski]

How many national merit scholar winners, whether they were notified or not do you think skipped college?

I wouldn't think there were that many.

[Longtobefree]

A better question is how many did not get their first choice where knowledge of the award could have tipped the process, or where the award could increase scholarships to allow attending a higher rated school?
This seems ripe for a lawsuit against the schools and administrators for loss of scholarship funds and loss of future income.

Disclosure: I am a mean old man and would think this would qualify for RICO against the school system.

[Dr. Ed 2]

46 usc 1983?

[Noscitur a sociis]

There is no 46 U.S.C. § 1983.

Assuming you mean 42, what do you see as the source of the putative constitutional right to be told about your National Merit Scholarship test results?

[ducksalad]

Apparently the line Virginia’s investigators are taking is that the information was withheld because the school districts were upset that too many Asian-Americans were winning.

Maybe a bit of a stretch. IANAL but wouldn’t they need to find some overt evidence (like phone calls or memos) that animus against Asian-American students was the motivation, and also an absence of any legitimate purpose?

But if they could prove both...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do they have to prove intent?

I'm thinking Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) and disparate impact -- I don't believe that Duke Power was ever found to have *intentionally* excluded Blacks from management positions, it only was a case of disparate impact.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, they have to prove intent. Title VII is not a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes -- due process and the "life, liberty, & property" clause.
My thoughts are that students have a "property" interest in their NMS scores, either in terms of the actual cash value of the scholarship or in the advantage which it would give them in gaining entry into a desired IHE. Maybe also receiving IHE scholarship $$$ as well.

And then anything racially based tends to violate the equal protection clause....

[not guilty]

Property interests are not created by the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law -- rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 709 (1976). Liberty and property interests attain constitutional status by virtue of the fact that they have been initially recognized and protected by state law. Id., at 710.

What provision(s) of Virginia law create a “property” interest in students' NMS scores?

[Kazinski]

I can't see a constitutional right, but if would see a court finding that school officials have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their students.

Making a conscious decision that hurts a student while providing no cognizable benefit to any other student or the district seems to violate any reasonable person's expectations of a school officials obligations to their students.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I am a mean old man and would think this would qualify for RICO against the school system.

Can you elaborate?

[Longtobefree]

The education system, union and administrator, is a corrupt organization, acting to abuse tax funding.

(no need to elaborate on the mean old man part)

[not guilty]

What are the predicate felonies for any RICO action, whether criminal or civil?

[YepThatGuy]

Use of mail/wires is easy. Fradulent scheme/enterprise are tougher, but the way civil RICO get thrown around these days, it would be easy here. No "felonies" required, btw.

[not guilty]

Who is injured in his business or property by reason of the school system's conduct, per 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)?

And under § 1961(5) a “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, as defined at § 1961(1). Perhaps I am missing something, but does subsection (1) list any misdemeanor(s)?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fraud?

I am not sure if there is Federal money involved or not, but it definitely is interstate so there is wire fraud and probably some funky power-of-law ED regs if you dug deeply enough.

Not to mention whatever VA law has to say.

[Dan Lo Pan 2]

It's almost never RICO

[David Nieporent]

Disclosure: I am a mean old man and would think this would qualify for RICO against the school system.

IT'S NOT RICO, DAMMIT .

[Ed Grinberg]

It's Ricci v. DeStefano all over again. We're gonna keep some people down because they're "of the wrong color." Sick.

[Ben_]

Also entirely within the mainstream of leftist priorities.

[bernard11]

Insanity, incompetence, anti-Asian bigotry? Some combination, most likely.

[Ben_]

It’s just another example of Dems intentionally trying to make life worse. And an example of government not even trying to serve the public.

How many examples should we need before we connect the dots and see America's enemy in the picture?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Potentially interesting issue at the NCAA -- outgoing Mass Governor Baker to head it.

Well, four years ago, his son AJ Baker was pulled off a Jet Blue flight for allegedly groping a passenger. https://www.foxnews.com/travel/son-of-massachusetts-governor-accused-of-groping-woman-on-jetblue-flight

Nothing came of it -- wonder if that will become an issue.

[bernard11]

Let me assure you it won't become an issue.

[Commenter_XY]

Question for the lawyers: Does intent matter legally if you merely possess classified documents and you're not supposed to have them?

Yes, I am alluding to 'DocuDrama' (like As The World Turns on TV, this sorry ass saga seemingly never ends) but my question is legal. Does intent actually matter, or is mere possession enough.

What I have read right here at VC is possession is what matters, intent is irrelevant.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What I have read right here at VC is possession is what matters, intent is irrelevant.

Where have you read that?

Edit: I mean, I realize you said you read it here. I'm more asking for specifics about exactly what was said.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is that relevant to the question? This subject has been spoken of quite a bit for the past several years.

[Commenter_XY]

Nas....I had the Espionage Act in mind (cited ad nauseum over the years), but Michael P below provided a nice cite = 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - that seems very much on point here, given present circumstances.

So let me ask you (I read your comments regularly): Is mere possession of classified documents you're not supposed to have enough for illegality?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is mere possession of classified documents you’re not supposed to have enough for illegality?

No, of course it isn't. For instance, § 1924 expressly requires proof that the person "knowingly remove[d]" the classified material and acted "with the intentto retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location".

As far as I know there is no statute that purports to impose strict liability on unauthorized possession of classified material wiht no culpable mental state, which is why I was curious who (you think?) told you that.

[Don Nico]

If you have a security clearance, unauthorized possession is an offense. As you know better (and sign a document that you do), it is hard to claim that you had no culpable mental state.

[not guilty]

"If you have a security clearance, unauthorized possession is an offense."

Per what federal statute(s)? Please cite by title and section number.

[Don Nico]

ng,
I said it is an offense. I did NOT say it is a crime.
Read more carefully, councilor.

[Michael P]

I would think the important question is how the person got the classified material.

Normally, people who get national security clearances (so not the president) explicitly agree to safeguard classified information: not only to keep it in approved containers and locations, and to return/archive or properly destroy classified material when they no longer need it (record retention laws still apply, and “need” includes need-to-know), but to affirmatively protect it if they are aware of mishandling. (Plus other stuff.)

I don’t know how it works for the VP, but for normal people with a clearance, that agreement would mean they are well aware of the prohibitions on keeping classified material after one’s clearance is terminated (or suspended or revoked or whatever) and in improper locations. If they improperly moved or kept classified material, it would suggest mens rea. Similarly if someone intentionally sought classified information that they’re not cleared for or need to know (I won’t speculate on how that interacts with First Amendment protections for newsgathering). On the other hand, if someone got classified information unwittingly and doesn’t intentionally distribute it further, I doubt any legal liability could attach.

The Espionage Act is the major relevant federal law, informed by the current Executive Order on classified information. However, information doesn’t have to be classified to fall under the Espionage Act, and case law is not very well-developed. People who have ever held clearances should err on the side of caution.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 is probably more relevant to cases involving elected officials, modulo the whole "office under the United States" argument.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hunter Biden was staying in that house where the classified materials were stored in the garage.

Hunter Biden has ties to Chinese intelligence and is a well-known drug addict that suffers from blackouts.

But, the Democrats at the FBI will just trust the Bidens to do the right thing!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Speaking of Hunter Biden:
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/since-biden-inauguration-anonymous-chinese-donors-poured-millions-into-university-that-houses-his-think-tank/

[Nelson]

"Speaking of Hunter Biden"

Do we have to? The "guilt by genetic connection" bullshit is one of the most tired (and yet popular) character assassination gambits. It was tedious when Carter was attacked for his brother. Hell, it was probably part of the second Presidential election.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I would think the important question is how the person got the classified material."

I believe that is irrelevant as is intent (although intent might be an enhancement in prosecution). Improper possession or handling of classified information is the crime.

[Michael P]

What law establishes that supposed crime?

The laws I cited depend very much on how a person gets the classified or national defense information.

[JasonT20]

I believe that is irrelevant as is intent (although intent might be an enhancement in prosecution). Improper possession or handling of classified information is the crime.

I would think that possession alone would not be a crime, as someone could hypothetically come into possession of classified documents they shouldn't have through no fault of their own. For instance,

Someone with clearance had classified documents in their home. They handled them poorly, by putting them in an unmarked box in the attic. That box gets missed when the person moves out. Would the new owner be considered to have possession of them?

A) If he didn't know that the box was in the attic, he might argue that simply being in his house without his knowledge wouldn't constitute possession.

B) But what if he had seen the box and left it there, but hadn't looked inside?

C) What if he had looked inside, saw that some documents were marked as being classified? If he notified authorities about them, would he have had possession of them improperly?

D) What if he didn't think it was a big deal as the person he bought the house from had been retired from government work for over 20 years. He figured that the information was too old to be dangerous in the wrong hands and eventually forgot about it.

Only in D) would I think that he could possibly be guilty of a crime, but that would include more than simply being in possession of the documents. He thought about what it might mean for him to have them.

[Commenter_XY]

Michael P…This was a helpful answer. Thank you!

18 U.S. Code § 1924 (your link) makes it seem like a very close call, regarding mere possession being illegal. The law seems to require intent to take, or keep. Is my understanding correct?

[Michael P]

IANAL, but as I read it, 18 USC sec. 1924 requires the person to have gotten classified material because the person worked for the federal government (in a broad sense), and the elements of the crime are to “knowingly remove[] such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location”.

In theory, all of those qualifiers (acquisition through federal employment/office, knowingly remove, without authority, intent to retain, at an unauthorized location) must apply to the actual facts for this law to apply. In practice, I think courts would interpret the conditions expansively in favor of the government, except against high government officials or people who never worked on behalf of the federal government. Security rules are a big issue that are covered frequently in workplaces that handle classified information, so a working-joe defendant would probably have fair notice of what is prohibited.

[Brett Bellmore]

The high government official would also have such fair notice, but at the same time be tacitly aware that the rules wouldn't be enforced in their case.

[StellaLink_the dog]

How about in the case of Petraeus? Were the rules enforced because he was convicted of a misdemeanor or were they flouted because he should have been charged with and prosecuted for a felony?

[not guilty]

The Department of Justice reportedly had recommended felony charges against General Petraeus, but reached an agreement for him to plead guilty to a criminal information and receive a misdemeanor sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 1924. The factual basis for the plea is available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/03/petraeus-factual-basis.pdf

The facts would have supported felony charges under § 1924 or false statement charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Yeah, I know. My point was to challenge the gormless gobshite about his claim that rules would not be enforced against a high government official.

Personally, I think Petraeus should have been offered a felony/suspended rather than a misdemeanor.

[not guilty]

There is no close call. Mere possession of classified documents is not criminalized by 18 U.S.C. § 1924. The elements that the prosecution would be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt are that the accused:

(1) was an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States,
(2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract,
(3) became possessed of documents or materials,
(4) containing classified information of the United States (defined as information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security),
(5) knowingly,
(6) removes such documents or materials,
(7) without authority, and
(8) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

Mere possession of classified documents or materials is accordingly not a crime under this statute. The culpable mental state is that the accused, at the time of unauthorized removal, acted both knowingly and with the intent to retain the documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

[Commenter_XY]

So not guilty, thanks for the complete response; I learned! How do you go about 'proving beyond a reasonable doubt' #5, and #6 you listed? You litigate, right? So how does a prosecutor 'prove it'? What elements do they look at?

Now I am just curious. 🙂

[Noscitur a sociis]

How do you ever prove anyone knowingly did anything?

[not guilty]

An accused's state of mind, such as knowledge or intent, is ordinarily proven by circumstantial evidence (although direct evidence is occasionally available -- I once represented a murder defendant who left a note at the scene of a homicide stating, as best I recall, "I, [defendant,] am going to kill [the victim] and then kill myself. She has messed with my life for the last time.")

Any number of facts and circumstances can evince a culpable mental state. Among other things, a prosecutor would look to statements or communications the accused had made, conduct surrounding the offense -- a jury may infer that one intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts -- information available to an accused that would put him on notice of facts at issue where acting knowingly is an element.

[Life of Brian]

information available to an accused that would put him on notice of facts at issue where acting knowingly is an element

I don't know if you're intending to capture willful blindness here, but that seems to be the elephant in the room in this particular situation. Willful blindness as to the contents of the boxes could be inferred, for example, from the otherwise um... counterintuitive decision to hire lawyers to retrieve and look through them.

[not guilty]

As a general proposition, willful blindness (sometimes called conscious avoidance) can satisfy a statutory requirement that a person act knowingly. In a (civil) patent infringement case, the Supreme Court opined:

The doctrine of willful blindness is well established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge. Edwards, The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 Mod. L. Rev. 294, 302 (1954) (hereinafter Edwards) (observing on the basis of English authorities that “up to the present day, no real doubt has been cast on the proposition that [willful blindness] is as culpable as actual knowledge”). It is also said that persons who know enough to blind themselves to direct proof of critical facts in effect have actual knowledge of those facts. See United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700 (CA9 1976) (en banc).

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011).

The model jury instruction for the Ninth Circuit states:

You may find that the defendant acted knowingly if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that:

First, the defendant was aware of a high probability that [e.g., drugs were in the defendant’s automobile], and

Second, the defendant deliberately avoided learning the truth.

You may not find such knowledge, however, if you find that the defendant actually believed that [e.g. no drugs were in the defendant’s automobile], or if you find that the defendant was simply negligent, careless, or foolish.

Deliberate ignorance, otherwise known as willful blindness, is categorically different from negligence or recklessness. A willfully blind defendant is one who took deliberate actions to avoid confirming suspicions of criminality. A reckless defendant is one who merely knew of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct was criminal; a negligent defendant is one who should have had similar suspicions but, in fact, did not. 483 F.3d 913, 917 (9th Cir. 2007) [italics in original].

[Life of Brian]

A willfully blind defendant is one who took deliberate actions to avoid confirming suspicions of criminality.

Right, such as the actions I outlined above. I think everyone around here who has practiced for more than about 10 minutes, if honest, would agree that nobody hires lawyers to look through papers for them (much less just pack them up and move them!) unless they're trying to create some sort of plausible deniability firewall.

[not guilty]

That is a remarkably thin reed, LoB. Have you ever tried a criminal case to a jury?

[Life of Brian]

Well, I did say those who were honest would agree, didn't I?

It's always painfully obvious when I've hit a nerve -- you instantly retreat from the merits and try to pivot to a resume-measuring contest. All without providing the slightest shred of proof of your own credentials, amusingly enough.

So let's get back to it. Please do educate us on all the clients you've had in your illustrious 28-year career who asked you to intervene and buffer them from knowledge of the contents of their own documents, who weren't in the middle of a legal proceeding involving those documents or expecting to be in one. I'll wait.

[not guilty]

Are you meaning to impugn my honesty here? You made a far-fetched suggestion that doesn't pass the giggle test, and I pointed that out. Again, have you ever tried a criminal case to a jury? (Your conspicuous avoidance of my question speaks loudly.)

I question whether you have any real world experience regarding whereof you speak. If a federal prosecutor's only evidence of an accused's person acting knowingly were that he employed a lawyer to look for documents, that prosecution would likely be dismissed at the close of the government's proof on motion under Fed.R.Crim.P 29(a).

[Life of Brian]

Yup, you continue to scurry away from my question and actually doubled down on the dick measuring challenge, and continuing your old tired pattern where you cast my choosing not to doxx myself as some sort of phony-baloney adoptive admission.

It all points toward an insecure person desperately trying to compensate.

Now, care to answer my question?

[not guilty]

Don't be (more) ridiculous. You would not "doxx" yourself by admitting that you have never tried a criminal jury trial, nor by simply stating that you have. (I suspect that most commenters on these threads have not.)

Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger, meet Life of Brian.

If it will somehow make you feel better for me to answer your silly rhetorical question, my litigation practice did not require me to search personally for a client's documents. I'm no Christina Bobb, and I was more valuable to my clients as an advocate than I would have been by becoming a potential fact witness.

[David Nieporent]

I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. Plausible deniability of what? How does hiring a lawyer create any such thing?

I have never been VPOTUS or POTUS — nor a lawyer for VPOTUS or POTUS — but I've got to imagine that one of them tasking lawyers to review his or her papers is relatively commonplace.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, I've got the Too-Clever tag team on me now -- this is great!

NG: I, like you, could say anything I wanted to about my background, knowing it can't be measured or challenged. I, UNLIKE you, am not going to play that game, much less in response to a petulant demand by someone who uses credentials as a crutch.

If you have to keep on whining about who has done what when instead of showing you're capable of debating an issue in front of you, knock yourself out -- it just continues to show your weakness. If on the other hand, you've figured out a way to wriggle out of this tight spot, pray now grace us with how many times you've ever heard of a colleague of yours, an acquaintance -- heck, any lawyer at all -- being hired to pack and move papers that were completely benign and not suspected to be problematic at all.

DMN: I note you too took a hard pass at claiming you've ever heard of or even imagined a lawyer being hired just to pack and move totally benign papers. Instead you just "imagine" it would be "commonplace" for POTUS/VPOTUS -- why, and why them, why just them, why not anyone you've ever worked for, etc. etc.? For bonus points, apply your reasoning to this case, where the papers at issue that were supposedly being packed/moved by lawyers were (at least in theory!) Biden's personal papers long before he became POTUS.

You guys are reflexively defending a too-convenient, too-perfect, too-cute story that reeks to high heaven. All I need is for Sarc to pile on, and the "nothing to see here, folks" circle will be complete.

[not guilty]

Life of Brian, I am careful to substantiate my comments on this thread with appropriate legal authorities and relevant supporting facts. Your inability or unwillingness to do likewise shows that you are at best challenged at basic legal and factual reasoning.

While I am reluctant to get in a pissing contest with a skunk, over my career I have participated in scores of criminal jury trials and hundreds of appeals. That has taught me a thing or two about parsing statutes and evaluating the strength or weakness of the government’s case in a criminal prosecution. What relevant experience, if any, can you claim? Southern folk wisdom holds that one who can’t run with the big dogs should stay on the porch.

I am not going to run your rabbit any further as to hiring lawyers to conduct a search. As the writer of Proverbs counseled, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” Proverbs 26:4-5 (RSV) Since the latter maxim has proven here as useless as teats on a boar hog, I shall now heed the former.

[David Nieporent]

DMN: I note you too took a hard pass at claiming you’ve ever heard of or even imagined a lawyer being hired just to pack and move totally benign papers. Instead you just “imagine” it would be “commonplace” for POTUS/VPOTUS — why, and why them, why just them, why not anyone you’ve ever worked for, etc. etc.?

I don't know what "totally benign" means here. I would assume that someone at the very highest levels of the public eye — it doesn't get higher than POTUS/VPOTUS — has tons of sensitive documents that would be of interest to political rivals and/or the press. By that I don't mean illegal or illicit; I just mean private. Just off the top of my head: financial records, medical records, personal diaries and journals, private communications. Not to mention records from his long tenure in the Senate.

You guys are reflexively defending a too-convenient, too-perfect, too-cute story that reeks to high heaven. All I need is for Sarc to pile on, and the “nothing to see here, folks” circle will be complete.

A lot of words, but you didn't actually answer my question: plausible deniability of what? What do you think Biden's tasking of his lawyers to review his papers as they were being moved was supposed to insulate him from? What makes it "convenient," "perfect," or "cute"?

It's not that I'm disputing your argument; it's that I don't understand it. What do you think having lawyers review his papers is supposed to indicate? That he knew there were classified documents there? There's no way that makes sense — in that how would using lawyers help with that? That he knew there was evidence of Hunter Biden's crimes in there? Something else? I just don't get what you're going for.

As for lawyers rather than movers — when a firm that I was at moved offices after a dozen years a few years ago, we hired movers to undertake the physical transport of all of our paper files (as well as office equipment), but I assure you that we, as lawyers, reviewed the documents and packed them in the file boxes ourselves before we handed them off to the movers. Now, Biden is probably a bit busy to do that, so he tasked his lawyers with undertaking that review.

[Life of Brian]

What do you think Biden’s tasking of his lawyers to review his papers as they were being moved was supposed to insulate him from?

Knowledge of their contents. I think I've been very clear about that every time I've mentioned this issue and most recently in this very discussion about willful blindness, so I'm not sure why you'd be genuinely confused about it.

Another side benefit here is that (rightly or wrongly) the optics of lawyers discovering and perhaps letting their eyes slide over documents with confidentiality markings are probably a good deal better than aides, associates, or third-party movers.

What do you think having lawyers review his papers is supposed to indicate? That he knew there were classified documents there?

Zoom out: these are papers, apparently of Biden's, sitting in a shared office space that (apparently) need to be retrieved from that office space and taken somewhere else. That's just not a situation where you send lawyers in rather than associates, aides, or someone just to move the frickin' boxes, UNLESS you know (or suspect) there's something in those boxes that may be problematic and you need the lawyers to get out in front of.

when a firm that I was at moved offices after a dozen years a few years ago, we hired movers to undertake the physical transport of all of our paper files (as well as office equipment), but I assure you that we, as lawyers, reviewed the documents and packed them in the file boxes ourselves before we handed them off to the movers.

Oh come on. You didn't HIRE lawyers in that equation to go through those papers FOR YOU -- you just happened to BE lawyers who went through your papers YOURSELVES. That's the polar opposite of what happened here.

[Life of Brian]

As the writer of Proverbs counseled, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” Proverbs 26:4-5 (RSV)

And there you have it folks -- one last insult-laden histrionic fit, crowned with a BIBLE VERSE. You just can't make this stuff up.

[David Nieporent]

Knowledge of their contents. I think I’ve been very clear about that every time I’ve mentioned this issue and most recently in this very discussion about willful blindness, so I’m not sure why you’d be genuinely confused about it.

Because I still don't understand your logic. They're Biden's documents. (I don't mean he owns them, obviously; I mean they were in his possession.) Either Biden genuinely forgot they were there, in which case all of this theorizing falls apart, or he knew they were there, in which case, what would Biden's approach accomplish?

1) How would tasking lawyers to review the documents years after the fact in any way vitiate his previous contact with them such that he could feign ignorance of them?

2) How would tasking lawyers rather than movers to review and pack up the documents somehow allow him to better feign ignorance of them?

I just don't get your reasoning. Biden: "Hmm. These documents need to be moved. I could hire movers to pack up the office. But, wait, there are classified documents there. I'd better tell the lawyers to do it instead, because that will…" do what?

UNLESS you know (or suspect) there’s something in those boxes that may be problematic and you need the lawyers to get out in front of.

Couldn't he have gotten them out in front of it by just telling them, "Um, I'm in need of some legal help. I just realized there are classified documents in this office that shouldn't be there"? Why did he need to send them to actually do the packing for that purpose?

If the lawyers had been tasked with retrieving the classified documents and burying them, I could understand your argument: Biden used lawyers because he hoped that A/C privilege might help with a cover up. But that’s not what happened; Biden immediately reported the discovery of the documents to the appropriate agencies.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, hey thanks for taking the time to explain. This is why I come here. I learn stuff about how the law actually works.

Just curious, are you a criminal defense attorney? I am always curious about what VC Conspirators do while they are away from here. I have enjoyed the war stories immensely. 🙂

[not guilty]

I practiced law for 28 years, mostly criminal defense work, prior to retiring.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow...I am certain you have great courtroom war stories. Congrats on a long career.

[Commenter_XY]

Also appreciated the cites on willful blindness. I always wondered where that came from.

[David Nieporent]

I once represented a murder defendant who left a note at the scene of a homicide stating, as best I recall, “I, [defendant,] am going to kill [the victim] and then kill myself.

Hmm. Something doesn't add up there.

[not guilty]

It was not the brightest move I have seen a client make. The first words out of the prosecutor’s mouth during opening statement were the text of the note.

(Obviously, the accused did not kill himself.)

[David Nieporent]

(Obviously, the accused did not kill himself.)

Yes, that was the part I meant didn't add up.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You've spent ten zillion pixels going on and on about Trump and the documents and how he needs to be punished. And now you're defending Biden.

So, if Biden didn't commit a crime then what is Trump guilty of? Arguing after the fact that he had the authority? I agree that his arguments were total bullshit, but a former president making that argument isn't anywhere near criminal.

[not guilty]

I have said before, and I now reiterate, that Joe Biden's handling of governmental documents warrants further investigation. (Under prevailing DOJ policy he is not subject to prosecution as a sitting president, but others acting on his behalf are not immune.) I haven't seen evidence at this point that Biden acted with criminal culpability.

Donald Trump's conduct is very different, and is in no way comparable to Biden's. Refusing to comply with a federal grand jury subpoena, while a records "custodian" fraudulently certified that all documents responsive to the subpoena had in fact been produced, is a smoking gun for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 and 2071 and further evinces conspiracy under § 371 to violate § 1001(b).

Isn't it peculiar that no one in Trump world will discuss the fraudulent June 3, 2002 certification by Christina Bobb?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You don't think there's any criminality involved in having unsecured classified documents in the home of your crackhead son who does business with the "Spy Chief of China"?

[not guilty]

What I think doesn't really matter. That is why I try to support my comments with applicable law and factual support.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You said you hadn't seen anything that suggests criminality.

I'm just exploring what you've seen.

You've seen:
a.) Documents being unsecured in a garage for 5 years
b.) Hunter having access to that garage
c.) Visitor logs oddly being non-existent.
d.) 4 Secret Service car rentals attached to Biden weirdly catching on fire just after the DOJ was alerted to the documents.
e.) Transcripts or audio of Hunter confessing he was doing business with "The Spy Chief of China".
f.) Hunter on video or in photographs doing illegal drugs.
g.) A picture of Hunter in Joe's corvette with meta data indicating it was in proximity geographically and temporally to the unsecured documents.

And nothing in that set of facts suggests anything untoward to you.
I didn't mean to hurt your feelings or upset you.

[Nige]

Hunter Biden is setting Secret Service car rentals full of classified documents on fire! While doing drugs! For China!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Visitor logs oddly being non-existent."

For Biden, too. Apparently the SS doesn't maintain visitor logs for retired ex-officials.

"4 Secret Service car rentals attached to Biden weirdly catching on fire just after the DOJ was alerted to the documents."

One car caught fire. The rest were fire damaged by proximity.

Otherwise, nice list.

[not guilty]

BCD, I've gone over the relevant statutes elsewhere on this thread. I will even stipulate that Hunter Biden is a scoundrel, but how on earth does that indicate that Joe Biden acted with criminal culpability?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I forgot one fact about speculation or a leak, I can't recall about the subject matter of the classified documents being adjacent to the foreign relationships Hunter had.

Hunter could not have acquired those on his own.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"(Under prevailing DOJ policy he is not subject to prosecution as a sitting president, but others acting on his behalf are not immune.)"

Does that include conduct prior to assuming office?

[not guilty]

Yes, it does, for so long as he sits as president. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

[Nige]

‘And now you’re defending Biden.’

Is everyone, including Biden, having hysterical meltdowns that this is all part of a deliberate plot and a massive miscarriage of justice and abuse of power and warning that supporters won’t stand for any of it? Now THAT would be what I’d call defending.

‘So, if Biden didn’t commit a crime then what is Trump guilty of?’

If both of them just having the documents does not constitutre a crime, absent other evidence, what ELSE happened that makes the two cases different? Obscure question, I know, but the answers may surprise you.

[Sarcastr0]

If double standards only appear when you decide it's objective truth that two different things are the same, that's not a double standard.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Are you really this ignorant of the facts of Trump's situation?

JFC.

[bernard11]

but a former president making that argument isn’t anywhere near criminal.

Wait a minute.

Suppose you get a subpoena ordering you to turn over some stuff you are not supposed to have, according to the government. You think you have every legal right to keep said stuff.

Which of these is the appropriate course of action:

1. Ignore the subpoena.
2. Go to court and make your argument.

I mean, IANAL, and I don't think you are either, so maybe one of the L's around here can answer that.

[David Nieporent]

You’ve spent ten zillion pixels going on and on about Trump and the documents and how he needs to be punished. And now you’re defending Biden.

So, if Biden didn’t commit a crime then what is Trump guilty of? Arguing after the fact that he had the authority? I agree that his arguments were total bullshit, but a former president making that argument isn’t anywhere near criminal.

For the umpteenth time: Trump and Biden might have done the same thing in terms of acquiring the documents, and failing/neglecting to turn them in at the end of their respective terms of office. But that's not what has Trump in hot water. Trump is in trouble because he refused to return them when asked, then defied a subpoena, and then lied about having done so.

To the best of our knowledge, NARA never even asked Biden for the documents; rather, his lawyers discovered the documents and then he immediately reported the finding to the appropriate agencies. If Trump had voluntarily turned over the documents at any point before the subpoena, he would be in no legal trouble at all. If he had turned them all over in response to the subpoena, he would be in no legal trouble at all.

[Don Nico]

“for normal people with a clearance, that agreement would mean they are well aware of the prohibitions on keeping classified material after one’s clearance is terminated (or suspended or revoked or whatever) and in improper locations.” With respect to Mr Biden, this seems to be the operative point. He received classified documents either because his staff brought them to him or because he requested them. It is a reasonable assumption that he was authorized to be the custodian of those documents. He or staff member brought them for him to read at home (mistake number 1 unless he had an approved storage location (a safe not a box in the attic or garage). He or the staff or Jill or Bo or Hunter put them in a “box” (mistake number 2). He forgot that they were there (mistake 3). The documents were not from a previous owner of the house, They were not put there by a Republican operative. It is difficult in such circumstances to think that any non-politician government employee would not be severely penalized under such circumstance.

[David Nieporent]

Again, if those are the facts, the penalty would be nothing more than loss of security clearance and/or termination. No government employee would face prosecution under that set of facts.

[Don Nico]

David,
I think that you are correct, UNLESS the materials was shown to have fallen into the hands of an unfriendly government.
Depending on the NDA that one signed (and that might be variable for Special Access Programs, there could be monetary penalties. But I do not have current knowledge.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, just to help keep the lawyers on track when they answer, is it your premise that if someone insists mere possession matters, are we to take that as creating culpable equivalence between Trump and Biden? If so, on what basis the equality? Do you want Trump's culpability reduced, or Biden's increased?

[JasonT20]

Commenter_XY, just to help keep the lawyers on track when they answer, is it your premise that if someone insists mere possession matters, are we to take that as creating culpable equivalence between Trump and Biden? If so, on what basis the equality? Do you want Trump’s culpability reduced, or Biden’s increased?

To really keep things in perspective, the core of the problem with Trump having a couple hundred documents marked classified wasn’t just that he had them, but that he resisted giving them back for so long that the FBI ended up getting a search warrant.

What is reported so far is that Biden and/or his aides and lawyers informed the responsible people as soon as they were found there. No, the public didn’t learn about it right away, and that wasn’t right, but Biden and his people never seemed to try and resist giving them back or hide their existence from anyone that needed to know about them.

Thus, I don’t see any way for there to be any equivalence of legal liability between Biden and Trump both having had classified documents after they left office.

[DaveM]

He "resisted" based on a claim of executive privilege, which is not illegal or even unethical. It's not right to imply otherwise.

[StellaLink_the dog]

When did he make this claim of executive privilege and how does a private citizen former govenment employee enjoy the powers of an office he does not hold?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

His EP claim was bullshit, and he was told so by NARA.

His EP claim has no relevance to the fact he lied in response to a subpoena and attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents he lied about returning.

What is "not right" here, is you spouting bullshit unrelated to the facts or the law.

[David Nieporent]

He “resisted” based on a claim of executive privilege, which is not illegal or even unethical. It’s not right to imply otherwise.

He did no such thing, and of course such a claim is utterly frivolous anyway.

First, there's no such thing as executive privilege for an ex-president against the executive branch.
Second, citing executive privilege would not be a defense; it would be a confession that he knew the documents weren't his. By definition only presidential records can be subject to executive privilege.

[Brett Bellmore]

A core problem with Biden is that, somehow, the government was unaware that he had these documents. Which raises interesting questions given how classified documents are supposed to be handled.

Indeed, that's a very serious issue, since that means that we don't know that the documents found are remotely all he originally had.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"A core problem with Trump is that, somehow, the government was unaware that he had these documents (until he belatedly handed SOME of them over to NARA). Which raises interesting questions given how classified documents are supposed to be handled.

Indeed, that’s a very serious issue, since that means that we don’t know that the documents found are remotely all he originally had."

I'm sure you also meant to say that, right?

[StellaLink_the dog]

Indeed. In Biden's case, it appears that a dilligent effort has been made, and is likely continuing, to find and return classified material and this effort is being make, like, sua sponte, or something. That, of course, is not an excuse, the matter needs to be investigated, but it is very unlike Trump's behavior.

[John F. Carr]

There are different crimes with different intent requirements within 18 USC 793. Under the "unauthorized possession" subsection the crime is "willful" retention. But one may be "entrusted with" documents that one is not cleared for, and that is not unauthorized possession. One employer's policy for handling the most sensitive documents, potentially worth billions, was to wrap them in two layers of envelopes and send them by registered mail. The mailman was entrusted with our secrets.

[not guilty]

Indeed, 18 U.S.C. § 793 (which is not limited to classified documents or materials) creates multiple crimes, involving different culpable mental states. Subsections (a), (b) and (c) require a purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

Subsection (d) requires that the accused acted willfully and:

(1) lawfully had possession of, access to, control over, or was entrusted with,
(2) 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,
(3) communicated, delivered, transmitted or caused to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempted to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted such material or information,
(4) to any person not entitled to receive it, or
(5) retained such material or information and failed to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.

Subsection (e) requires that the accused acted willfully and:

(1) had unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over 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,
(2) communicated, delivered, transmitted or caused to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempted to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted such material or information,
(3) to any person not entitled to receive it, or
(4) retained the same and failed to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.

Subsection (f) requires that the accused:

(1) was entrusted with or had lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(2) through gross negligence,
(3) permitted such material or information to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(4) had knowledge that the same had been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and failed to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer.

Gross negligence is not defined under the statute. As a general proposition of law, criminal negligence requires a higher standard of culpability than negligence in the civil context, and gross negligence in the criminal context requires even greater culpability.

[Kazinski]

Well I think Biden has made the odds of Trump getting indicted for possessing classified documents almost zero, and it was going to be a heavy lift anyway.

If Trump did get indicted for possession of classified documents in Mar a Lago, then the obvious counter move would be for the House to open impeachment hearings on Biden's possession of classified documents in 3 different locations, then try to keep the impeachment investigation and hearings on the same schedule as Trump's trial. Obviously as soon as it gets to the Senate Schumer will dispose of it, so make the impeachment vote shortly after the jury verdict.

Of course this presupposes the DOJ and the special counsel is a completely political appendage of the Biden Administration, and political considerations will dominate their decisions, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb with that.

[Brett Bellmore]

At this point it appears that the special council 'investigation' into Biden's handling of the documents is being used to stonewall any House investigation. Which is hardly shocking, people were predicting that would happen even before Garland made the appointment.

Short of invoking "inherent contempt", (Last used during the Teapot Dome scandal.) there's not a lot the House can do to enforce subpoenas the President wants ignored.

[Kazinski]

I don’t think they can effectively stonewall a house investigation, because it just like the Trump investigation it is political theatre.

The House fighting in the courts to subpoena documents from Biden Administration and the DOJ is just as effective for political theatre as getting the documents and leaking them or presenting them at hearings.

Throwing in a contempt resolution and following up with an impeachment of Garland for obstruction wouldn't hurt the theatrics either.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think a lot of this depends on what you mean by "effectively stonewall"; I mean by it that their subpoenas will largely be ignored, and the DOJ will refuse to act on contempt of Congress referrals.

They'll learn nothing the administration didn't want them to learn, IOW.

[not guilty]

"I think Biden has made the odds of Trump getting indicted for possessing classified documents almost zero, and it was going to be a heavy lift anyway."

Donald Trump will not be indicted for merely possessing classified documents. The statutes at issue regarding Trump's conduct require more than that.

18 U.S.C. § 2071(b) (which is not limited to classified documents) provides that "Whoever, having the custody of any [governmental] record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

There is ample evidence of Trump's willful and unlawful concealment of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. For heaven's sake, the man refused to comply with a federal grand jury subpoena, and his self-styled records "custodian" fraudulently certified to DOJ officials that all records responsive to the subpoena had in fact been produced.

18 U.S.C. § 1519 (also not limited to classified documents) states "Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

The issuance of the grand jury subpoena evinces an investigation within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States. Trump's refusal to comply with that subpoena, along with his "custodian's" false certification on June 3, is evidence strong as horseradish of Trump's concealment of documents and coverup of his wrongful retention thereof with the requisite intent to impede or obstruct the investigation.

Joe Biden's conduct regarding governmental documents, however inept it may have been, affords no defense to Donald Trump's conduct. The two matters are being investigated by distinct special counsels, independently of one another. (Not to mention that under prevailing DOJ policy, Trump is now subject to criminal prosecution while Biden is not.)

[ducksalad]

Meh. It’s not super rare for high level officials to have their lawyers fight subpoenas rather than instantly comply. So regardless of whether it’s strictly legal, that part by itself is not particularly shocking.

Now if Trump had fled the country with the documents, or burned them in a 3am bonfire, that would be strong evidence of obstructing justice the way a layman would see it. OTOH going to court and arguing “their mine and you can’t have them” is obstructionist, and technically might even be obstructing justice, but it’s much weaker stuff. A layman without a partisan grudge is just going to see it as some kind of lawyerly maneuvering.

JFTR I don’t think Clinton’s e-mails, Trump’s papers, or Biden’s papers merit anyone going to jail. They also don’t merit one-tenth of the media attention they got. They’re all just cases of powerful, arrogant people who are “at the office” even when at home, who for years had an unquestioned right to possess the documents, wrongly but somewhat understandably lost sight of the difference between themselves as private citizens and as government officials, and very correctly view all the investigations as partisan attacks not deserving of lots of respect.

Just let it go. All three cases.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump, if he thought the subpoena was not lawful or valid, could have had his lawyers move to quash the subpoena before the presiding judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He didn't do that; instead, he refused to comply, and his self-styled records "custodian" affirmatively misled the Depart of Justice, certifying that all documents responsive to the subpoena had been produced.

[bernard11]

It’s not super rare for high level officials to have their lawyers fight subpoenas rather than instantly comply.

Which is not what Trump did.

[David Nieporent]

Meh. It’s not super rare for high level officials to have their lawyers fight subpoenas rather than instantly comply. So regardless of whether it’s strictly legal, that part by itself is not particularly shocking.

It's not super rare for anyone to have their lawyers fight subpoenas rather than instantly comply. Trump didn't have his lawyers fight subpoenas.

[JasonT20]

Joe Biden’s conduct regarding governmental documents, however inept it may have been, affords no defense to Donald Trump’s conduct.

Facts and legal analysis that is objective will never win over Republicans that believe that the Democrats have been out to get Trump since at least 2015, if not sooner. Remember, Trump could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes.

[John F. Carr]

I don't think the special counsel for Trump is worried about what Biden wants and what the optics are of charging Trump but not Biden. He can honestly say he has no ability to prosecute Biden, both because that is not his job and because longstanding and by now well-known department policy says sitting presidents are not to be charged. He can also point to different facts in the two cases, although two thirds of the country won't care about that part.

[not guilty]

Well, Merrick Garland has the final say on any decision to seek an indictment. It may well turn out that the special counsel investigating Trump recommends indicting him, while the special counsel investigating Biden recommends no prosecution.

[David Nieporent]

The special counsel is authorized to prosecute without first securing the approval of Garland.

[not guilty]

28 CFR § 600.9 states:

(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action –

(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;

(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and

(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.

I don’t foresee it happening, but it seems to me that Merrick Garland theoretically could conclude that a proposed prosecution is “so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued,” so long as he explains that decision to the specified Congressional officials. For example, hypothetically, if Robert Hur sought to indict President Biden while he is still in office, Garland could overrule him based on DOJ policy.

[David Nieporent]

Of course Garland has legal authority to overrule the special counsel. (And Biden has the ultimate legal authority to do the same!) But that doesn't change the fact that Garland's appointment expressly authorized Smith to prosecute. (I assume Hur has the same authority, but I haven't read that announcement.):

(d) The Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. The Special Counsel is also authorized to refer to the appropriate United States Attorney discrete prosecutions that may arise from the Special Counsel's investigation.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1552896/download

[not guilty]

"What I have read right here at VC is possession is what matters, intent is irrelevant."

There is a boatload of inaccurate information in the comment threads of this blog.

[Kazinski]

So the justice department, according to the WAPO has already determined than Trump wasn't using the classified documents he had in possession for any corrupt purpose.

Are you saying he's in the clear?

[not guilty]

Do you have a link to the Washington Post reporting that?

[Kazinski]

Trump's motive in Mar-a-Lago case seen as ego, not money

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link. The article that you link to, however, is a far cry from "determin[ing] tha[t] Trump wasn’t using the classified documents he had in possession for any corrupt purpose."

[Both Sides]

In fairness, there is a boatload of inaccurate information in the comments of most blogs, and definitely in the comments of blogs that discuss politics.

[Krychek_2]

On another thread, Mr. Bumble asked me which Biden policies I liked and why. I told him I didn't want to hijack that thread but would respond on this one. So, Mr. Bumble, here is my answer:

1. Ukraine. Russia is a fascist country trying to export fascism; Ukraine is a free country trying to remain free. If Trump were still president, the war would have ended in Russia's favor ten months ago. I like that Biden is helping Ukraine defend itself without involving the US in the actual fighting.

2. Death penalty. I agree with Biden that the death penalty should be abolished. I simply do not trust the state to decide who should live and who should die.

3. Abortion. I also agree with him that women are entitled to make this choice on their own, without bringing government into the doctor's office.

4. US Leadership on the global stage. Trump spent four years destroying relationships that had taken years to build. Like it or not, we live in a world in which our economy rises or falls with everyone else's, so it's in our interest to actually lead. Biden is rebuilding those relationships and it's a good thing,.

5. The CHIPS and Science Act. It's nice to have a president who thinks science is a good thing.

6. The 1%. It's economically unhealthy to have a situation in which 1% of the population controls most of the wealth. He also recognizes that somebody has to pay for all this government, and it should be the ones who can most afford it. I agree with his efforts to re-distribute the burden of governance to the 1% through higher taxes.

I don't expect everyone here to agree with my list, and I could also have made a list of Biden's positions that I don't agree with. But overall I think he's moving us in the right direction.

[Commenter_XY]

The CHIPS Act has real potential. We need a domestic supply of advanced semi-conductors, pronto. I might disagree with administration of that policy, but I definitely think it was the right move to make at this time (thinking of China's looming invasion of Taiwan, who supplies 60% of US semiconductors).

[JasonT20]

We can also hope that Sweden's newly discovered rare earth formations will eventually hit the market and lessen China's grip on them (though it will take a decade at least for that to happen). Or that alternatives to rare earths are found (which would be even better, since mining them is very costly and destructive).

I am less pessimistic than you are about China invading Taiwan, but I do share the overall concern. I would expect China's military to be a lot more competent than Russia's, making it much less likely to go poorly for China if they do. On the other hand, China seems to act more rationally, even though they are clearly just as authoritarian and power hungry. The fairly unified free-world response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine should give them some pause.

[Commenter_XY]

JasonT20, they (China) are going to invade Taiwan. Unless…..Taiwan magically becomes the world’s biggest porcupine. I know, I am very pessimistic about it. I see what I see. The objective conditions are there, the battle plans being drawn, the sides being chosen. I do worry about Taiwan greatly.

We could lose.

[Don Nico]

TSMC (in Taiwan) is the world’s largest semiconductor fab.

Would the company destroy the fab complex at the beginning of an invasion?

[Don Nico]

It would be nice if INTEL got to be the 2nd largest producer of semiconductor chips

[Michael P]

4. Yeah, the sudden abandonment of Afghanistan, greenlighting Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and more, are classic legs of Democrat diplomacy.

5. Yeah, having bureaucrats claim they *are* science and that people who cite peer-reviewed and government-published data should be censored is totally the Democrat way to respect science.

6. Your numbers are wrong, and also ignore that there is a lot of turnover among "the 1%" (whichever definition of that you prefer to target). Very typical Democrat politics, though: demonize and victimize a minority and claim is for the public good.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you really ask us to think of the poor billionaires as an oppressed minority?

[Michael P]

He said the 1%, not the 0.0002%.

[Sarcastr0]

Quibble all you want, the very rich in America are not persecuted.

[Michael P]

The proposal was to ensure they are.

[Ed Grinberg]

What better way to destroy a country's economy than to persecute "the rich"!

[Nige]

Let them accumulate all the wealth with impunity. That would be a better way.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How does one accumulate all the wealth in a market economy where you accumulate wealth by creating it and exchanging is for other wealth?

[Nige]

If you work that out, you'll quickly become a billionaire! I expect step one is: be born rich.

[JasonT20]

How does one accumulate all the wealth in a market economy where you accumulate wealth by creating it and exchanging is for other wealth?

Like Nige said, being born rich is a good start. Also, it helps that no country or the global economy more generally is an ideal market economy. Wealthy people can and do manipulate what would otherwise be "market" forces to their advantage at the expense of others. Wealthy people can and do use their wealth to influence government policy to their advantage at the expense of the rest of society.

If the only way to obtain wealth was by creating value and exchanging it freely with others that have created value, then you'd have a point.

[Nige]

Another step is to support the election of someone like Trump who’ll give rich people and corporations MASSIVE tax cuts.

Bust unions. Bust 'em BAD.

Keep your wages stagnant, your employees' positions precarious, maybe even get the state to subsidise your billion-dollar corporation with social security for underpaid peons.

Invest MASSIVELY in tech gimmickry that undercuts existing competition despite running at a loss, then rebrand your underpaid, micro-managed, intensively surveilled workers as 'independent' or 'freelancers,' while they work harder and longer for less.

So many steps!

[Krychek_2]

The "sudden abandonment of Afghanistan" was actually implementing Trump's policy that the US would leave Afghanistan. And it's not persecuting the rich to say that they should carry their fair share of the costs of running the country. Remember Leona Helmsley -- "We don't pay taxes, the little people pay taxes."

[bernard11]

Right.

It was Trump who set the hard deadline.

Biden might be faulted for not realizing how quickly the Afghan army would collapse, though I doubt many did realize that.

But the fact of withdrawal was not Biden's doing.

[Nige]

Everything about the withdrawal shows it was the right thing to do and should have been done a decade ago and there still hasn't been a reckoning for the obscene waste of lives and wealth involved.

[David Nieporent]

Everything about the withdrawal shows it was the right thing to do

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/talibans-higher-education-minister-defends-ban-on-women-from-universities

[Nige]

I view that situation as part of the overall clusterfuck that is the US intervention in Afghanistan.

[Sarcastr0]

Unless you want to argue for a permanent occupation, that was baked in 20 years ago.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not saying we should have stayed. I am saying that "everything" about the withdrawal does not show it was the right thing to do. I am saying that — as in most things in life — there were tradeoffs, and there were some reasons to stay.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yeah, Nieporent, colonialism has its points, but as a practical matter it's an extremely slow-acting remedy. British efforts in India seem to have got close to success in about 8–10 generations. Current events in India suggest that fell somewhat short of the time necessary.

To find quicker, more successful programs of national development and cultural modernization you could look to Russia and China. But their methods still span multi-generational intervals; plus which, their drawbacks have made them notorious.

Do you have a serious alternative in mind, one which you would be content to commit this nation to as the world's cultural moderator and mastermind?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P, there was never any way to get out of Afghanistan except suddenly. The American exit tactics will fairly soon be taught in service academies as exemplary. The casualties incurred were astonishingly few, in the face of an enemy in actual control of essentially everything.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, I usually don't bother, but this was just....sigh, so you. However, I am going to be more polite and reserved than other posters who have responded to you in the past.

This is objectively untrue (never, except) = Michael P, there was never any way to get out of Afghanistan except suddenly.

This is just delusional = The American exit tactics will fairly soon be taught in service academies as exemplary.

This is simply unknown = The casualties incurred were astonishingly few, in the face of an enemy in actual control of essentially everything.

lathrop, in evaluating your comment, the equation seems simple: Falsehood + Delusion + Unknown = WTF?! 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Dunno if I'd call the pullout textbook, but a more deliberate withdrawal would have been worse for everyone but the Taliban.

I do think we should have done a better job with refugee slots for those in Afghanistan who helped us, but everything else was making the best of a bad situation 20 years in the making.

It's conventional wisdom from the right it was a disaster, but it's become the kind of thing not to be looked into too closely anymore. I don't think the disaster narrative has had the legs the right thought it did, hence the unexamined conventional wisdom.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0, the potential fate of the Afghan allies troubled me enough that I gave it thought while withdrawal was obviously in the works. People old enough to remember the withdrawal from Vietnam could not help noticing a similarity. I couldn't imagine how to do it, given the practical realities.

In the event, those realities included notable sudden disappearances of Afghan employees from within the U.S. embassy, while absconding officials of the previously pro-U.S. government fled abroad. I had considered in advance that was a likely end-game scenario. It implied a lot of informational insecurity, with ready ability of adversaries to know in advance and disrupt U.S. plans.

It always seemed destined to end as a rout. A diminishing U.S. military presence would be forced to the brink of disaster, within rapidly shrinking perimeters protecting its exit routes.

Given that, why wouldn't an easy-to-notice increase in priorities to protect pro-U.S. Afghans simply have triggered the entire end-game scenario that much sooner. What the last months in Afghanistan showed was that the U.S. had long-since lost capacity to call the shots. The Taliban controlled the initiative and the timing.

Given the way things were, I suspect that many Afghans who were sincerely committed to the U.S. were better served by what did happen. Compared to applying for and getting papers from the U.S., it may have given them a better chance to maintain anonymity, while attempting to exfiltrate Afghanistan and make their way to the U.S. Not a great answer for them for sure. But what practical alternative have you seen which would have better accommodated the realities as they actually developed.

[Sarcastr0]

The paperwork wasn't in place. That could have done close-hold internally, in my opinion.
Or some groundwork could have been laid so it wasn't months of red tape nonsense in the way of getting these people into the US and out of danger at least.

[Stephen Lathrop]

After a right-wing meme gets established as a convenient, no-thought-required tool to own the libs, any attempt to induce thought about it is always unwelcome. When you try, all you get back is invective and ad hominem, as with Commenter_XY above.

[Commenter_XY]

What invective? There are demonstrable falsehoods (never, except), a remarkable capacity for self-delusion (exemplary withdrawal), and uncertainty (number of dead) in your.....contribution.

It is a rather tame assessment, lathrop. I could have been far less charitable and considerably less humorous; I know for a fact others have been.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, the idiot style of those others I count an advantage in my favor. Your own constraint, which is less than you suppose, puts you at an advantage compared to idiots. More constraint would put you at greater advantage.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you showed some restraint in posting what you think to be your expert analyses, everyone else around here would be advantaged.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cavanaugh, on the many subjects on which I lack expertise, such as the evacuation of Afghanistan, I post my opinions. If you suppose my opinions are mistaken, you know the remedy—more speech.

Every such post by me is an invitation for others to engage—either for experts to school me and others, or for those with contrary or similar opinions to offer them. I always welcome substantive questions from anyone who might like to see what answers I can offer.

I hope there has never been a time when I returned that kind of engagement with a rude response or a personal insult. I try not to do that.

I am disappointed but never surprised when the only engagement I attract is empty blather, ad hominem attacks, or pure invective. If you do that, either expect me to ignore you, or, less often, to chide you for your disengagement.

Sometimes a self-styled adversary lies repeatedly about what I have said, or insists on mischaracterizing it in some particular way. That kind of stupidity can goad me to hostility. When it does, I always hope my reply will not prove merely rude; I try to put some sting into it. There is an old maxim that a gentleman is someone who never gives offense by accident. Although, unfortunately, I was not raised as a gentleman—my parents aspired in that direction but did not know how to do it—I see the point of the maxim.

I have lived a long time already, and spent as much of it as I could informing myself about diverse topics. There are a few disparate areas where that effort equipped me with more-or-less professional expertise. Taking them in chronological order from the dates I first engaged with such topics, here is a list of those subjects on which I sometimes comment:

– Environmental issues, particularly as they relate to ecology (early 1950s);

– Print publishing and news gathering (1960s);

– Academic history and historiography (1960s);

– Photography, including news photography, design photography, fine art photography, and wildlife photography, and the businesses associated with all of those (early 1970s).

– Steel fabrication, construction, and engineering (1980s);

– Typography (1980s);

– Graphic Design (1980s);

– Aviation noise management, and airport-vicinity air traffic control (1990s).

On any of those topics I can converse with experts as an equal, if not always as an up-to-date equal anymore. Except for the first, third, and last of them (where my involvement took the form of self-training, or professional training, and/or years-long engagement with professional experts), I have been professionally employed with better-than-average success in activities of those kinds. On those topics I expect merely to do better than the average commenter who you find here; I may still make mistakes. Please correct me if you think you can.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, are you familiar with the term bloviate? The wall of text immediately above this comment qualifies. You're doing it to yourself. dude.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If those are your areas of alleged expertise, then the following comment doesn't belong:

"The American exit tactics will fairly soon be taught in service academies as exemplary."

That is the basis of my criticism today. You are not an expert on military matters, and those who are, did not find our withdrawal to be all that fantastic.

Particularly the amount of equipment we left behind for terrorists to take for themselves.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cavanaugh, how could my first sentence have been unclear to you. Here it is again:

Cavanaugh, on the many subjects on which I lack expertise, such as the evacuation of Afghanistan, I post my opinions.

See? Opinions, not alleged expertise.

That is exactly what every commenter on this blog is doing, almost all the time. I do it much less than most, because a fair amount of my commentary does fall into some area of expertise, within which my remarks mix at least professional-level experience with the opinions.

When I comment, I write longer comments on average but fewer of them. I skip a large majority of threads altogether. A great many of the more-familiar names who comment here, making short remarks, comment more than I do in the aggregate.

[Don Nico]

"On any of those topics I can converse with experts as an equal"
Wow, Lathop and you are humble to boot.

But to allow you to prove your point,
give us the link to the website of your fine art photography or wildlife photography.
Oh, in what year did you get a Pulitzer for news photography?

[VinniUSMC]

On any of those topics I can converse with experts as an equal

Toot toot.

Your posting history, especially around 1A and publishing topics, begs to differ. You believe yourself to be many times more capable than you really are.

[Reallynotbob]

I'm just here to point out that the never-except construction is not logically false. The below are all logically comprehensible.

X is true if and only if Y is true.
X is not true unless Y is true.
X is never true unless Y is true.
X is never true except when Y is true.

[Commenter_XY]

You're right, Reallynotbob. However, lathrop still remains wrong.

Both can be true. 🙂

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, your notion of a demonstrable falsehood seems to be to set up a contrary historical counter-factual, and pronounce it the truth. Historical counter-factual are, of course, always false. You only get credit for speculation about the future when you are talking about the actual future—not when you are talking about an imaginary future which lies in the past.

My reference for exemplary withdrawal in contact with the enemy came from The Complete Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. By comparison to the discussion and criteria set forward by Grant, I judged the Afghanistan withdrawal to be one Grant might praise. Whether results like those Grant deemed praiseworthy could plausibly become the basis for service academy curriculum I am content to let you decide for yourself. Note that what I am doing is speculating about the actual future.

[David Nieporent]

Historical counter-factual are, of course, always false.

Actually, they're always true.

In actual logic, the statement "If X, then Y" is always true if the antecedent is false.

[David Nieporent]

4. Yeah, the sudden abandonment of Afghanistan, greenlighting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and more, are classic legs of Democrat diplomacy.

The “sudden abandonment of Afghanistan” was actually the implementation of a deal negotiated by Trump a year before.

I don’t have any idea what “greenlighting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine” even means. Biden of course was still trying to head that off while Trump was praising it. The MAGA people, up to and including Tucker Carlson, were busy mocking Biden for trying to stop it, and sneering up until the day it happened that he was lying about Russia's intentions.

[Nelson]

4. We should have been out of Afghanistan over a decade ago. The whole exit was a shitshow, but the two Presidents before Biden didn't have the balls to even try. If the withdrawl plan sucked after 20 years of planning, the problem is as much on the DoD as the White House. The idea that anyone in America "greenlighted" Russia's invasion of Ukraine is insane.

5. That's not what the CHIPs act is.

6. I agree that politicians can't effectively create fair treatment of all income/wealth brackets. But the solution is to eliminate (or at least reduce) the loopholes in the tax code that give preferential and soecial treatment to the wealthy. And it would be a low-visibility solution that would take a decade to make a difference, so no politician will ever bother championing it.

[DaveM]

Your positions on the death penalty and abortion are inconsistent. About the death penalty, you say "I do not trust the state to decide who should live and who should die", and about abortion that women should be able to make this "choice" [to kill the unborn] "without bringing the government into it".

Read on their face, these two statements would mean you support the idea that individuals should be free to kill whomever they please, without "bringing the government into it".

I presume your actual belief is a bit more refined, and I think I can pinpoint where you are making a rhetorical sleight of hand to help you get over the difficulty: your use of the euphemism, "choice".

By telling yourself it is "a" choice -- in the abstract, without any specifics -- you let yourself off the hook of dealing with the ethical dilemma of killing an unborn person.

[Sarcastr0]

This assumes a lot about fetuses that is not shared by many.

Of course the reverse is also true - the right claims liking the death penalty and hating abortion to be consistent because the death penalty kills a guilty person and abortion does not. Which, by their own worldview, is indeed consistent.

[DaveM]

I don't see how it assumes anything, sorry. Is your proposition that intentionally killing a living but as yet unborn human poses no ethical dilemma to many people?

That can't be right. The very use of euphemisms to describe the act of abortion highlights that even its proponents feel some level of shame and guilt. The words are used as a cover, that much is surely obvious.

[Sarcastr0]

The level of dilemma depends on the person.

Your personal views are not universally held, even if you find that unbelievable.

[Krychek_2]

Dave, in addition to what Sarcastro said, even if I agreed that the fetus is a human person (which I don't), you're missing the very important point that with the death penalty it's the state that's doing the killing, whereas with abortion, the state is merely staying out of it.

[VinniUSMC]

even if I agreed that the fetus is a human person (which I don’t)

Obviously it's a turtle.

Seriously? There's nothing to "agree" on. Throughout the entire process of pregnancy, the clump of cells after the egg is fertilized is undeniably human. Arguably not a person, but certainly human. Just dumb...

[Nelson]

"to kill the unborn"

The "unborn" can't be "killed" or "murdered".

If anti-abortionists ever try making a case for life beginning at conception as an objective truth (and are willing to accept it if their belief is rejected), then you might have a leg to stand on. The death penalty is killing a living human. Abortion is not.

The fundamental difference is that the failure rate of death penalty cases is too high to justify as a defensible alternative to life without parole, while the government forcing someone else's personal beliefs on a stranger is abhorrent.

[Don Nico]

Nelson,
Certainly the unborn can be killed. Wake up. That is a question of biology
Murder, in contrast, is a question of law, and in most case the unborn cannot be murdered.

[Nelson]

I see your distinction between killed and murdered. While I agree with it as a legal distinction, rhetorically they are identical.

The anti-abortion movement tries to marginalize abortion by using inflammatory language to describe abortion providers. You can see the calculation and strategy involved because they have stopped trying to demonize the women themselves (that backfired on them when they tried, so they pivoted) and have focused on the providers.

Fortunately they have been as unsuccessful with their new strategy as they were with the last. Legal abortion is broadly supported in America. While their dishonesty and their recent victory over individual rights has made the people who already shared their beliefs more aggressive, they are still losing support as time goes on.

The "murder" language may be hyperbole, but it needs to be called out for the lie that it is. Saying "killing" is a distinction without a difference. It's false rhetoric.

[Don Nico]

No argument with you.

[Brett Bellmore]

1. "If Trump were still president, the war would have ended in Russia’s favor ten months ago."

This seems a bit dubious, in that Trump was taking actions that ran counter to Russia's favor, such as pressuring NATO countries to actually deliver on their defense spending requirements, and opposing the Russian pipelines that made Europe so dependent on Russian energy, while promoting a pipeline from the Middle East that would have enabled Europe to give Russia the cold shoulder without suffering. And in light of the fact that Putin didn't attack while Trump was in office.

2. That's fine. The death penalty is absolutely constitutional, but I don't argue with people who oppose it on a policy level.

3. Gotta keep that flaming maw fed.

4. "Trump spent four years destroying relationships that had taken years to build."

Yeah, like the Abraham Accords. He totally destroyed them! Oh, wait, sorry, that was Biden...

5. "It’s nice to have a president who thinks science is a good thing."

You mean, like curb stomping bureaucrats to get vaccines developed?

5. " I agree with his efforts to re-distribute the burden of governance to the 1% through higher taxes."

Which, mysteriously, will not end up falling on the 1%, you will shockingly discover.

[Krychek_2]

What did Biden do to destroy the Abraham Accords?

As for the tax burden not falling on the 1%, that's a function of not being able to get genuine tax reform through Congress.

[Mr. Bumble]

"As for the tax burden not falling on the 1%, that’s a function of not being able to get genuine tax reform through Congress."

And which party controlled the Congress and the presidency for the two prior years?

[Krychek_2]

Effectively neither one since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done.

[OtisAH]

Without Biden to pull the NATO team together it is very likely they fall back on old bad habits. By the time they settled out all their concerns and began to settle on some aid package representing a small fraction of the need, Putin’s government in Ukraine would’ve been established.

Putin’s blitzkrieg still would’ve failed. But without the aid and equipment Ukraine has received they could not have survived the onslaught for more than a couple months. And the number one reason they received that aid was Biden’s leadership.

[Don Nico]

"the number one reason they received that aid" was Biden's decision that this was an excellent chance to to weaken Russia through a proxy war.

[Moderation4ever]

President Biden is doing a relatively good job. He is helped by the fact that his opposition will not lay out any real policy. The 2022 midterms showed the opposition's weakness. The opposition won barely in a year when they should have won big. The 2024 election will not be as easy for them.

[Nige]

I expect they were actually helped by the illusory fable of the 'Red Wave' whose inevitability was repeated uncritically by that ol' liberal MSM.

[Brett Bellmore]

They were helped by the fact that the GOP establishment saw a wave election as an opportunity to purge the party of "Trumpy" candidates and not come out in a terrible position. Seats that could easily have been won were abandoned in terms of party assistance, in favor of shoring up incumbents who weren't under any threat.

[Nige]

Didn't the Party fund lots of Trumpy candidates, some of whom were spectacularly terrible, while Trump kept all the money he raised for himself? I mean, yes, trick question, that's what actually happened.

[David Nieporent]

They were helped by the fact that the GOP establishment saw a wave election as an opportunity to purge the party of “Trumpy” candidates

Once more: Trump is the GOP establishment, and has been since 11/8/2016.

[grb]

Moderation4ever : “The 2022 midterms showed the opposition’s weakness”

Weren’t the midterms astounding? The GOP underperformed even by normal standards, much less considering the economy’s issues and Biden’s unpopularity. I saw it best expressed in a couple of WWII-style quotes:

1. One referred to the midterms as the “Dunkirk Election”, capturing both unexpected delivery from catastrophe/pure evil, while still recognizing the threat goes on.

2. The other was Churchillian, and aimed at the party that has coddled & enabled Trump: “You had a choice between moral disgrace and political defeat. You chose disgrace and you will have political defeat”. Describes it perfectly, doesn’t it?

[Kazinski]

Needless to say I have to take issues with you on a few of those.

1.While I don’t think Biden has done a bad job on Ukraine, why did Putin wait until Trump was out of office before he invaded? Putin set the schedule and nothing changed strategically except oil prices (and that was Biden’s doing).

2. What effect has Biden had on the death penalty? It’s a state issue.

3. What effect has Biden had on Abortion? It’s a state issue now.

4. While I don’t doubt a lot of world leaders, especially in Europe, like Biden better, one of the most contentious issues with Trump was his insistence that they start taking their defense obligations more seriously, and they decouple their energy supplies from Russia. I don’t think anyone can argue now that Trump wasn’t right.

And the Iran deal is still dead, and Trump was right that we shouldn’t be negotiating with the Mullahs.

5. I like science too, but I don’t think government pork and crony capitalism is the way to advance it. We really didn’t get much for our money for Obama’s Green energy investment, no large American solar manufacturing industry, no breakthroughs in battery technology or energy storage.

6. Biden has made a lot of progress reducing the wealth of the 1%, mainly by mismanaging the economy and tanking Nasdaq by 33%. With TSLA, AMZN, META, NFLX all down at least 50% in 2022.

[Krychek_2]

I'm reluctant to speculate as to Putin's motives, but if I had to guess it would be that he miscalculated Biden's resolve and didn't want to give Democrats the ability to tie his invasion to Trump being president. But that's just a guess.

There is a federal death penalty, and Biden is pushing for a national abortion rights law.

While I agree with Trump that Europe should pay more for its own defense, the cost of reneging Obama's deal with Iran is that every country in the world now knows that the US can't be trusted to keep its agreements. Don't think that won't come back to bite us. We can debate whether Obama should have made the deal in the first place, but once it was made, you don't renege on your word just because you think a better deal should have been made.

Biden has not mismanaged the economy. Our jobs numbers are great and inflation is coming down.

[Kazinski]

"the cost of reneging Obama’s deal with Iran is that every country in the world now knows that the US can’t be trusted to keep its agreements."

The US didn't have an agreement with Iran, Obama did. If Obama told Iran differently he made promises he couldn't keep, same as in Paris.

The constitution is very clear about what the process is for the US to make binding international agreements, and I think it's a good thing to remind the world we still take the constitution seriously, and negotiating an agreement with an American President that has no prospect of Senate approval is going to be a fleeting victory.

[Krychek_2]

I disagree that every deal requires a treaty, but even if you're right about that, then that just shifts the problem back a level: The whole world knows that POTUS can't be trusted, regardless of who POTUS happens to be at the moment, and that will come back to bite us too.

It's like sending a lawsuit to mediation, working out a deal, and then having the lawyer for one side come back and say "My client is backing out." Did the client have the right? Yes, but nobody is ever going to trust that lawyer again.

[Kazinski]

Well I agree about not trusting Obama again for making an agreement he knew his client, the US, through their elected Senate wouldn't agree to.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, that's why mediation involves the principals, not just lawyers.

[bernard11]

why did Putin wait until Trump was out of office before he invaded?

I'm honestly curious what anyone thinks Trump would have done that would have stopped Putin. I suspect he would have done nothing but maybe bluster a bit, while Biden has done a great deal. Remember, Trump is a great admirer of Putin.

Why did Putin wait? I don't know, but if Biden taking office was the trigger then why did Putin wait an extra year? Maybe his timing had nothing to do with US politics, and depended on when he thought his forces would be ready to go.

The fact is that Biden has rallied western support for Ukraine pretty damn well. I very much doubt Trump would have even tried to do the same, or succeeded if he had tried.

[Kazinski]

We will never know, and I'll save debating alternative history for a fiction thread.

But the point is Krychek claimed that "If Trump were still president, the war would have ended in Russia’s favor ten months ago".

If Trump was so amenable to Putin taking Ukraine why didn't he act then? I don't remember Trump greenlighting a "minor incursion" by Putin the way Biden did:

“My guess is he will move in, he has to do something,” said Biden during a news conference marking his first year in office, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine."

"And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do," Biden added."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/blinken-ukraine-russia-attack-short-notice-invasion-fears-mount-rcna12691

[Sarcastr0]

Who knows why Russia chose the timing it did?

I don't think it's safe to assume Putin had perfect info on Biden and Trump, nor that his decision making revolved around the US alone and not more internal issues.

[Kazinski]

And that is as likely as any explanation, it's just the idiotic assertion that the invasion would have been over in two months were Trump still president, or the even more ridiculous 'Putin knew Trump wouldn't oppose him, but he didn't want to use that advantage because the Democrats would know that he knew Trump wouldn't oppose him.'

[Krychek_2]

The invasion *would* have been over in two months with Trump in the White House since he wouldn't have built the anti-Russia coalition that Biden did, or sent the Ukraine the weapons we've sent them, or otherwise stood in Putin's way.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, well we will never know if Trump would have handled the invasion that Biden greenlighted as well as Biden did.

[Krychek_2]

And how did Biden greenlight it? If your answer is Afghanistan, don't bother, since Biden was implementing Trump's decision to pull out.

[Kazinski]

Joe Biden:
“My guess is he will move in, he has to do something,”

“And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do,”

See above for the cite.

[Sarcastr0]

You think THAT was the cause of Putin invading?

Weaksauce.

[OtisAH]

And to you, those two out of context responses to specific questions from the press constitute a “go git ‘em Pootie” greenlight for the invasion, dummy?

Of course they do.

[Krychek_2]

Kazinski, if you seriously think that's a greenlight, you need to rethink it. Speculating about what Putin might do and the potential consequences is not exactly an invitation for him to invade.

[Kazinski]

"You think THAT was the cause of Putin invading?"

Of course not, the cause of Putin's invasion was Putin wanted to.

But signalling that the West's response might be less than united and severe wouldn't make him pause much and weigh the consequences.

This to Putin seems like a benefit to have Europe and the US and Ukraine bickering about the response:
"we end up having to fight about what to do and not do,”

Imagine you and your wife are warning your teenage daughter not to have a party when you are out of town for the weekend:

"My guess is you will have at least a few people over, you have to do something,”

“And it depends on what you do. It’s one thing if it’s a small party and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do.”

Better be prepared for the aftermath of a kegger when you get home.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2022/01/20/no-minor-blowback-to-bidens-ukraine-gaffe-495795

[Nige]

EVERYbody assumed the Western response would probably be ineffectual, and Putin wasn't waiting to pull the trigger for a fragmentary quote on the eve of the invasion to confirm that assumption, this is just stupid.

[Nige]

What was the greenlight? All the explicit warnings not to invade?

[bernard11]

Biden has made a lot of progress reducing the wealth of the 1%, mainly by mismanaging the economy and tanking Nasdaq by 33%. With TSLA, AMZN, META, NFLX all down at least 50% in 2022.

Because tech stocks are not generally volatile. Get serious.

[Kazinski]

Well it is only the second loss in the Nasdaq 100 since 2008 and only the 3rd loss since the Dotcom bust:
Year Return
2023 3.25
2022 -32.97
2021 26.63
2020 47.58
2019 37.96
2018 -1.04
2017 31.52
2016 5.89
2015 8.43
2014 17.94
2013 34.99
2012 16.82
2011 2.70
2010 19.22
2009 53.54
2008 -41.89

I'm not going to argue that its even a bad thing, because I think a lot of tech stocks were overvalued, but I don't think there is much of an argument that this inflationary episode and the resulting interest rates and recession was at least exacerbated by Biden administration policies.

Even Janet Yellen admitted she was dead wrong about "transitory inflation". But Biden is still trying to blame Putin.

[David Nieporent]

1.While I don’t think Biden has done a bad job on Ukraine, why did Putin wait until Trump was out of office before he invaded?

It's been reported multiple times, including by insiders like Bolton, that Trump intended to pull out of NATO if reelected. It would've been insane for Putin to interfere with that by invading. Let the US withdraw first, and then invade. Only after he knew that Trump had lost — and obviously Biden wasn't going to do something similar wrt NATO — did it make sense for Putin to act.

[Don Nico]

And there is plenty of private sector investment to bolster the semiconductor industry. Plus plans for a very large TSMC fab in Arizona and a huge Intel fab in Ohio.
But sure, US industry will be happy to get Federal capital

[Commenter_XY]

Krychek_2...Serious question.

When you say: 6. The 1%. It’s economically unhealthy to have a situation in which 1% of the population controls most of the wealth. He also recognizes that somebody has to pay for all this government, and it should be the ones who can most afford it. I agree with his efforts to re-distribute the burden of governance to the 1% through higher taxes.

Is your idea of a tax solution a revenue type solution, or a physical redistribution of personal material wealth type solution?

[Krychek_2]

XY, I recognize the reality that a great deal of wealth exists on paper only. If I own a million dollar piece of artwork, it's only worth a million dollars if I have a buyer willing to pay that, and you can't very well cut a piece of it off to shore up social security. So it's really just a million dollar asset on paper. I get that.

I would raise tax brackets for people earning more than a half million dollars a year, while also closing a lot of loopholes that benefit the wealthy.

And I would also go after money that isn't helping the economy. If a poor person gets an unexpected thousand dollars, every dime of it is going to get spent, which means it's continuing to benefit the economy. If a rich person gets an unexpected thousand dollars, he's going to throw it in a savings account where it will just sit there without benefitting the economy. So I would have a system in which, if you have assets that aren't helping the economy, you have to either spend some of them or they'll get taxed at a higher rate. That way, the assets are benefitting everybody.

But that, too, would only apply to the wealthy. I'm not concerned about some middle class person's 401k; I'm concerned about the trillions of dollars serving no real public good except to enhance some millionaire's balance sheet.

[Kazinski]

Wait, savings accounts don't benefit the economy?

I just got a mortgage and bought a house last month, I think the bank used money from savings accounts to finance my loan.

A lot of very wealthy put their excess cash into municipal bonds for the tax favorable income treatment, maybe that's what you are thinking of. Enabling more government spending probably doesn't help the economy much.

[Krychek_2]

Enabling government spending creates jobs, which does benefit the economy. The banks wants your savings account so they can invest it, but they don't need it to loan money. You do understand that loaning you money doesn't actually involve exchanging cash, right? They simply put a notation that your account now has X amount of money that it didn't have before.

[Kazinski]

Yeah I have a passing familiarity with how banking and finance works, I've even heard of something called a reserve ratio, which is currently 10%.

Which means if a bank has 1 billion in deposits it has to keep 100 million in reserve and can loan out 900 million.

So for every mortgage for 500,000 it puts out, they need to have 550,000 in deposits. Even if both the savings and the mortgage are just paper notations.

Really if that's how you think accounting works it's even easier for a government to pretend they have a 100 million to spend without taxing someone, than a bank to pretend they have 100 million to loan without anyone depositng any money in their bank.

[bernard11]

I think Krychek is confusing individual banks with the banking system here.

If I deposit $50K in 1st National bank they can, if the reserve is 10%, lend out $45K, not $500K. They don't have the $500K. Remember, that loan is going to be used by the borrower, Kazinski, say, for some purpose. Maybe he buys a car, so the money ends up in 2nd National, in the car dealer's account.

Now 2nd National has a $45K deposit, which lets them lend out $40,500, and so on, until $500K is created, in the abstract, by the banking system.

But the reserve requirement is not the main constraint on bank lending. In fact, banks can borrow reserves, at interest, or sell assets to get more. Indeed, the Fed may buy treasury securities to increase bank reserves to encourage lending. Other constraints include the level of loan demand, as well as normal judgments about risk. On top of that there are regulatory requirements about capital and other matters.

But the main point is that it is the system, not the individual bank, that creates money.

[Krychek_2]

Kazinski, and Bernard:

The $100 Bill

It’s a slow day in a little East Texas town. The sun is beating down, and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit. On this particular day a rich tourist from back east is driving through town.

He stops at the motel and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.

As soon as the man walks upstairs, the owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.

The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel.

The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her "services" on credit.

The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel owner.

The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything.

At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, picks up the $100 bill, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.

No one produced anything. No one earned anything.

However, the whole town is now out of debt and now looks to the future with a lot more optimism.

[Kazinski]

I think you need to take your deficit reduction plan to Biden. I think he would buy it.

But I think you have to concede that
"If a rich person" can get everyone in an entire town out of debt by putting a $100 deposit on a hotel room for a few minutes, that a 1000 dollar deposit in the bank is going to have an even greater positive impact.

[Krychek_2]

Except the rich person in the story didn't deposit it in a bank. He kept it in circulation.

[Absaroka]

"Except the rich person in the story didn’t deposit it in a bank. He kept it in circulation."

If he had deposited it at the bank, it would still be in circulation, because the bank would loan it out.

[bernard11]

So imagine this scenario:

The butcher says to the hotel owner:

"I'll let you off the $100 if you'll get the pig farmer to let me off."

The pig farmer lets the butcher off if he'll get the co-op to let him off.

The Co-op says "OK, but you have to get the prostitute to let me off. "

She says, "OK, but I need to get the hotel bill cancelled."

All done. But all that happened is everyone forgave a loan in exchange for getting one forgiven. No different than if you and I owed each other $100 and agreed to cancel both debts. The story doesn't suggest a means of paying off debts, other than forgiving an equal amount.

Now change it and it gets interesting.

There are no debts. Instead:

The hotel owner buys some beef from the butcher.
The butcher buys meat from the pig farmer.
The pig farmer buys feed.
The Coop guy buys the prostitute's services.
The prostitute rents a room.

Now everyone is better off, because the money was in circulation. That's what money does.

[Randal]

Is this surprising to people? It seems duh obvious to me.

First you’ve got a circular debt. A owes B, B owes C, and C owes A. There’s no net debt there. Everyone is solvent — their accounts receivable equals their accounts payable. It’s in no way surprising that a zero net debt can be easily unwound.

Second, I think what you’re trying but failing to get at is that assets can be loaned more than once. Well, yeah. It’s like subleasing. A lends B 100$, B lends C $100, C lends D $100, etc. etc. Again, I’m not sure what’s surprising about that. It doesn’t mean money has been created, because everybody except A again has debts equal to their assets + accounts receivable, and A has $100 receivable. So there’s still just $100 net.

There can be problems with leverage in that sort of scenario. I suspect that’s what you’re trying to articulate, and it’s where the reserve requirement comes from. Imagine in your circular debt hypothetical that the pig farmer defaults. That could cause the supplier to default, which causes the hooker to default, which causes the hotel to default, etc…. even though there was no net debt. It ends up not mattering in that scenario since the outcome is the same — everyone’s debts are erased.

But it can matter in more complex cases, such as when asset values and interest rates fluctuate. The GameStop short squeeze is an example. More than 100% of GameStop’s shares were shorted, because each share can be lent more than once. (I lend you a share to short, the person you short it to lends it to someone else to short, etc. etc.) That magnifies any price fluctuations… if GameStop goes up $1, the total amount of debt to service per share goes up by >$1. Attempting to unwind the debt requires buying shares, which raises the price more. That can produce runaway feedback effects which destabilize the market, like we saw GameStop.

[Bob from Ohio]

The hooker goes back to watching TV. The tourist decides all the rooms are lice infested and is not going to stay. The hotel owner gets arrested for theft.

[Nige]

Jim Thompson would have written the hell out of this story, but it wouldn't end up as a comforting fable about the economy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure that savings accounts benefit the economy more than pickle jars, at this point. I recently opened up my son's first bank account. 0.15% interest when inflation is 5-10%; We're paying the BANK to hold onto the money! About the only advantage of having that money at the bank is the debit card.

The upshot of effectively zero bank interest in a time of inflation is that, no matter how long you save money, your account balance can never in real terms grow beyond a modest multiplier of the rate you're depositing, because the old deposits are inflating away.

[bernard11]

That may not benefit you, but it benefits the bank.

Whether that benefits the economy is not clear.

[Commenter_XY]

Krychek_2, When you say 'closing loopholes', I interpret that as: make tax code simple, meaning no loopholes, no credits, no deductions. Is that a fair assessment of your loophole definition?

By your answer, I have the impression you are talking more about wealth taxes, and not just income taxes. Meaning, it is not really a revenue issue for you as much as you advocate physicial redistribution of personal material wealth. Is that a fair assessment?

I guess where I get confused is determining what money is helping the economy and what money isn't. How do you decide whether money is helping the economy or not. Is there an objective standard you use?

[Krychek_2]

I would be willing to implement a wealth tax, yes, though I'd want to see the fine print before I committed. Closing loopholes would simplify the tax code, but it's specific loopholes that benefit the rich that I have in mind. For example, the abuse of charitable contributions that aren't actually charitable, the creation of trusts and other entities to hide assets, the ability to declare a low tax state your residence even if most of your time and business dealings are in other high tax states. That sort of thing.

As for what does and does not benefit the economy, this has been written about extensively, and it's not simple enough to reduce to a couple of sentences in a blog comment. If you're actually interested I'll get you some citations. And there are assets that are close to the line, but there are also assets that are clearly on one side or the other.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow, you have a lot of different objectives here = Closing loopholes would simplify the tax code, but it’s specific loopholes that benefit the rich that I have in mind. For example, the abuse of charitable contributions that aren’t actually charitable, the creation of trusts and other entities to hide assets, the ability to declare a low tax state your residence even if most of your time and business dealings are in other high tax states. That sort of thing.

Would you be open to considering alternate tax structures, like consumption based taxes with different tax rates? For example, we could have a 0% tax on food, but a 75% tax on super luxury cars like Rolls Royce.

I am just not sure how we achieve what you're looking for in today's income tax structure.

[Krychek_2]

I do have a lot of objectives, and I think the entire tax code needs a re-write rather than nibbling at the edges here and there. If I were given dictatorial powers for 24 hours and decided to use the time on the tax code, it would see major structural changes. But, our current political system disfavors major structural changes, so one does what one can. And yes, I do think luxury items should be taxed at a higher rate than basic necessities.

[Kazinski]

They tried a luxury tax during the carter administration and it was disastrous.

Problem is a lot of luxury items are handmade with a lot of labor intensive detail and the people that make those things are working class.

The Rhode Island small boat building industry was devastated, and as well as custom cars, jewlery, etc. And a lot of things that were hit by the tax were easy to buy in Europe with no tax which just made high end shopping vacations more enticing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree with Biden that the death penalty should be abolished.

You realize the federal government is seeking death penalty in a trial right now right?

[Kazinski]

Yeah but they won’t use it.

The Federal Government has executed 16 people since 1976, starting with Timothy McVeigh. 13 were under Trump.

The states since then have executed almost 100 times that, 1536. Making Biden’s death penalty position mere posturing because it’s a state issue and the states already know and don’t care what Biden thinks on the issue.

It wouldn't surprise me if the DOJ isn't asking for the death penalty because if they can get it then Biden can commute the death penalty for some additional posturing.

[Krychek_2]

There's a huge difference between implementing laws that you disagree with because they are the law, versus trying to change the law? That was the Pat Brown view when he was Governor of California: He hated the death penalty, and every year he sent the legislature proposed legislation to abolish it (which never passed), but dozens of people went to the gas chamber during his administration, because he had sworn to uphold all of the laws, even the ones he disagreed with.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That's true, but I'm not sure how it applies here. The law gives federal prosecutors absolute discretion to not pursue the death penalty. For that matter, it also gives the president absolute discretion to commute the death sentence of any and every federal prisoner.

Why (one might ask) hasn't the president done that?

[Krychek_2]

I believe the law also prevents the president from interfering in individual prosecutions, for the obvious reason that we don't want political prosecutions. His sole involvement is in the decision to grant clemency if he chooses to do so.

As for why he has not commuted the sentence of every prisoner, I don't want to speculate, but here are a few of several possibilities:

1. Like Pat Brown, he may feel duty bound to enforce the law, even if he disagrees with it.

2. The issue hasn't arisen because no federal prisoner has come close to having an execution date since he took office.

3. Since most Americans do favor the death penalty, he may be saving his political capital for other things.

There may be other possibilities too.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I believe the law also prevents the president from interfering in individual prosecutions, for the obvious reason that we don’t want political prosecutions. His sole involvement is in the decision to grant clemency if he chooses to do so.

I really didn’t think I had to spell this out, but the president absolutely can direct federal prosecutors to not seek the death penalty. There is nothing unlawful about it: indeed, directing subordinates in this fashion would be a quintessential exercise of the executive‘s core law enforcement authority,

2. The issue hasn’t arisen because no federal prisoner has come close to having an execution date since he took office.

Which is exactly why commutations are meaningful: to prevent President DeSantis and Attorney General Cotton from reversing course and setting a bunch of execution dates.

3. Since most Americans do favor the death penalty, he may be saving his political capital for other things.

Yes, I agree that that’s clearly what he’s doing. Which is why I find it odd you cite his putative opposition to the death penalty as a point in his favor, when he’s conspicuously declined to exercise the simple steps he could have taken to actually nod something about it.

[Krychek_2]

I said I was speculating and there may be other possibilities. You may be right about him having the authority to direct prosecutors not to seek the death penalty, but he may believe that doing so would be failing to execute all the laws, including the ones he disagrees with. But again, that's speculation. I don't know and neither do you.

If it is simply a political calculation, political calculations happen all the time. Otherwise nothing would ever get done. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but if I were president and my horse trading choices consisted of commuting the death sentence of the Boston Marathon bomber, or getting single payer health care passed, I'd send a nice card and maybe flowers to the Boston Marathon bomber's parents. In politics, you accomplish what you can.

But being opposed to it is still a point in his favor, because in the unlikely event that there is an opportunity to abolish it, I want him there rather than Ron DeSantis and Tom Cotton. It's not likely Congress will actually vote to abolish it, but if that were to happen, I want someone with my views in the Oval Office at the time.

[Krychek_2]

Also, you don't know that he isn't planning to commute all death sentences the day before he leaves office. That would be the politically savvy way to do it if he were planning to do it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If Trump were still president, the war would have ended in Russia’s favor ten months ago."

If Trump were still president, there would be no war since Russia would not have invaded.

[Krychek_2]

And why do you think that?

[Bob from Ohio]

4 years of no invasions.

[bernard11]

How do you think Trump would have responded to an invasion?

[Krychek_2]

Ah, the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo prompter hoc.

[Ben_]

Because imaginary what if scenarios are sooooooo rigorous…

[Bob from Ohio]

“If Trump were still president, the war would have ended in Russia’s favor ten months ago.”

Any Latin phrase for this fallacy?

[Krychek_2]

What's fallacious about it?

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's not based on anything logical.

[Nelson]

I'm on board with #1-5, but #6 is something that the government is completely incapable of doing. It is a political, not an economic, goal. The ways to make born-on-third-base trust fund babies be treated like the rest of us are all boring as shit. They wouldn't make good television or be easily explained in campaign literature, so they will never happen. Congress is like social media; if no one notices, it isn't worth doing.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, how do you all feel about the coming depopulation crisis?

For the first time in more than 40 years, the Chinese population dropped, as deaths exceeded births (by 850,000 people). In 30 years, experts estimate the Chinese population will drop by almost 100 million. Meanwhile China's population tree is alarming, with the lowest age cohort (0-5) being at almost 50% of its largest age cohort (50-54). China of course isn't alone. South Korea's population is dropping. Japan's population dropped by 700,000 people last year.

Rapidly depopulating countries will have massive economic effects and shifts.

[DaveM]

No doubt “ith’s a conspthiracy” to some, and at times, one almost agrees with them. COVID the virus directly killed x but the response is now killing 2x, 3x — all exactly as was predicted by those same “conspiracy nuts”.

I actually believe that what stopped the population bomb is simple economics. Richer societies don’t need to reproduce as rapidly. Capitalism has infected the entire world except for a few lone holdouts, and it has brought a cornucopia of riches to places where famines were formally common. As a result, family size is down.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This isn't really a COVID thing, but more long term demographic changes.

[Sarcastr0]

Chinas got problems.

Japan and Korea will be fine - they have resilience via trade and their issue is not nearly so accuse. Chine just stopped having children in response to Covid if yiu believe the numbers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Japan will be fine. Not so sure about Korea, their reproduction rate is shockingly low, and they're not as industrialized, and a high degree of automation is probably the only way to cushion this.

A friend of mine pointed me to this podcast, which I found quite relevant to the issue.

"China just stopped having children in response to Covid if you believe the numbers."

Yeah, if you believe their numbers. Why would anyone sensible believe numbers coming out of a totalitarian state?

What happened in China is that their one child policy jump started the demographic transition that basically all countries see as their economies advance beyond bare survival, and put it on steroids. And they didn't realize the mistake early enough to back off, and didn't back off enough when they did realize it. Now they've got a totally bonkers generational pyramid, and their population is going to crash before they have any chance at all of getting the next generation into their child bearing years.

It's entirely possible that, by 2100, the US will have a larger population than China, they screwed themselves so badly. Things are going to get really ugly there, and soon, as the demographic pig in the python is aging out of productivity, with practically nobody to replace them.

[Kazinski]

Korea seems more welcoming to guest workers than Japan, and there are large youthful surplus populations of culturally compatible workers available in SE Asia in the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia that Korea can tap into.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Many of those places ALSO have dramatically dropping birth rates. The Phillippines leads the pack at 2.78 children per woman. Vietnam is down to 1.96 children per woman...below replacement rates. Thailand is all the way down at 1.34 children per woman. Indonesia is only at 2.19...

It's not like there are going to be a lot of excess workers.

[Sarcastr0]

You should learn from the overpopulation worries; population alone is not a crisis, it's a stressor on other elements that can turn into a crisis.

It'll stress Japan's debt issues; bears watching.
I don't know enough about Korea's internal issues.
China's isolated imperialism makes it needy and brittle; that's the one most likely to become an issue. (Though it's already proven more resilient than I'd have thought)

[Kazinski]

Yeah but look at the Philippines demographic tree compared to Japan's. Clearly the Philippines has enough of the working age population to augment Japan's sufficiently and enough of a wage gap to make it worthwhile to do so.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Philippines_single_age_population_pyramid_2020.png

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japan_Population_Pyramid.svg

[Armchair Lawyer]

The Philippines is the one big outlier. But it can't cover Japan and South Korea and the US and China and....

And that doesn't account for the fact that the Philippines is dropping pretty fast. Currently it's at 2.78 (births per woman). 20 years ago it was at 3.71. 20 years before that (1980) it was at 5.11. It's the same pattern as many other countries, just a little delayed. In 20 years, the Philippines may well be sub replacement as well.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Japan's birth rate is down at 1.34 children per woman. It'll be the canary in the coal mine, as it's had the longest time. But...

Look at their Demographic tree. They have the same number of people in their 40's as they do in their 70's. But in the age range under 10? It's maybe 70%.

Currently they're holding on. But soon, the population tree is going to be entirely inverted, and it'll be a disaster.

[Armchair Lawyer]

South Korea is going to be brutal....They've got Japan's problems, but more dramatically (but for not as long as Japan).

To put this in perspective...there are roughly 1/3 the number of 2 year olds in South Korea as 50 year olds.

Right now, it's OK. When those 50 year olds hit 70, and those 2 year olds hit the workforce... It's gonna be bad.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't really worry about the coming depopulation crisis because there are still plenty of people in this world. We are a long way off from depopulation being a crisis. What this does mean is that cultures (not countries) are going to have to be more accepting to immigrants and to the mixing of heritages. The last part is a slow process, but it does happen. I see that shift from my parents' generation, to my generation, to my children generation.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is not one of the "number" of people. It's their age distribution.

People go through a regular cycle of being born, spending a couple decades dependent, going to work, gradually rising productivity, plateau, decline/retirement, dependency, death.

When the population drops too fast, by a big drop in reproduction, (Genocide is uglier, but less disruptive in this regard.) the proportions in each stage get out of whack. First you get a big jump in productivity, because the previous tranche of people are on the rising part of the curve, and the children and people taking time out to raise them aren't dragging the average down.

But a bit later, when the last generation to be produced in normal numbers hits retirement, average productivity drops off a cliff, because those high productivity people, in large numbers, stop producing. And if you try to restore things, and successfully convince people to start reproducing again, that only aggravates the situation.

You can't treat people as just numbers to understand this, you have to look at the age demographics, and their implications.

[Moderation4ever]

We have a world full of people and plenty of time to address the problem. As population age immigrants can backfill for lower skill jobs and the immigrants' children will be educated to replace higher skilled people as they retire. We are a long away from some dystopian crisis. What people have to accept is that we need to move from thinking at a country level to a world level.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Which immigrants? From where?

I mean, it's a nice thought. But global birth rates are plummeting, near everywhere. Why would they immigrate to China or Korea, when they have plenty of opportunity at home.

[Moderation4ever]

Am I missing something or do we not have a crisis at the border? We can't get immigrants but Republicans tell us they are flooding the country?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, the US is sufficiently attractive compared to the rest of the world that we could, if we made it our policy, attract enough skilled and educated people to completely compensate for our shortfall in reproduction. Until we drained the rest of the world dry, anyway.

That doesn't solve the problem, it just redistributes it, and delays the reckoning. Basically every advanced country in the entire world is below replacement. There's something broken about modern civilization, that's causing that.

You've got a room full of people with gushing wounds, transfusing blood from the rest of them into the healthiest looking one, who continues to bleed out onto the floor with the rest of them, is NOT a solution.

[Sarcastr0]

We're not below replacement if you include immigration.

Nothing is broken; there is no gushing wound.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's like saying the guy with blood spreading across the floor isn't bleeding as long as you've got an IV in him dumping in fresh blood. As talking points go, it's stunningly stupid.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “As talking points go, it’s stunningly stupid”

Huh? Sarcastr0 said the population is stable due to immigration. I don’t know the numbers myself, but as a point that’s perfectly sound and logical.

So how do you get to “stunningly stupid” and your stunningly stupid metaphor (which was hysterical to boot)? Only you can explain that, but here’s a theory: Per Brett, the “right-people” not reproducing enough equals “a guy with blood spreading across the floor”. The “wrong-people” immigrating don’t count, however stable the numbers.

Of course American history offers repeated examples of the “wrong people” proving right in the end. Italians, Irish and Jews are some examples. It’s been the same song over and over, and history always proves it wrong.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"We’re not below replacement if you include immigration"

1. Show your work for that assumption. Given current fertility, that may not be accurate.

2. You assume there will be continued immigration. From where? Mexico? They're sub-replacement fertility. China? Way sub-replacement rate. India? Sub-replacement fertility. Even El Salvador? Sub-replacement rate fertility.

[Absaroka]

"There’s something broken about modern civilization, that’s causing that."

I submit that there is something broken about a society that is/has exceeded its long term carrying capacity.

Easter Island's problem wasn't not having enough babies.

[Brett Bellmore]

We have not even remotely approached the long term carrying capacity of the Earth.

[Absaroka]

(citation needed)

See, for example, 'How the World Really Works' by Vaclac Smil. The issue of whether we can support our current levels sustainably seems up in the air to me. It's a complicated question. I have yet to see a definitive accounting.

Also note there are a couple of numbers involved - one is 'how many people can we support by eating only insect protein, recycling urine, living in one room apartments in Hong Kong style skyscrapers, and the only way to ever see Yellowstone is to win the lottery'.

The other is 'how many people can we support while being able to visit Yellowstone without a waiting list, have turkey at thanksgiving, live in a multiroom house, and fly to see Grandma once in a while'.

The second number is smaller than the first.

[Nige]

We’re systematically wrecking the envrionment we depend on for survival – it’s not the population level that matters, it’s how we manage the systems that keep us alive.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that doesn't work, because the immigrants tend to be from populations that lack the relevant skills.

And can we morally save the West by gutting the third world?

[Armchair Lawyer]

The one area that has a decent birth rate is Sub-Saharan Africa, an area that's been engaged in constant war for years. A whole bunch of child soldiers trained up on a diet of war and vengeance.

Seems that bringing them to the US en masse might create issues of conflict.

[Kazinski]

With an elderly population the type of skills they need are agricultural workers, nursing home workers, truck drivers, food service etc.

They can export the factories.

[Nige]

'And can we morally save the West by gutting the third world?'

This is actually an excellent point. Immigration is a massive tax rich countries extract from poorer ones. Treating the immigrants like shit is just a way of showing everyone who's the fucking boss.

[Kazinski]

So shutting down immigration is the solution?

[OtisAH]

“Depopulation crisis.” In a world of over 8 billion people.

Yes, whatever will we do?! Hilarious.

[dwb68]

Old people need to be supported by young people. And keep in mind, species exist because of young people. Only cultures who breed other people survive to the next generation.

[Sarcastr0]

Only cultures who breed other people survive to the next generation.

Nativist twaddle. Cultures can grow plenty of ways without 'breeding.'

[Absaroka]

I dunno. Can you give an example of one? If you define, say, 'Catholic priests' as a culture then yes, they have survived solely by recruitment from the non-celibate for 1500 or some such years. But the Shakers, for example, have mostly or completely died out. But my sense is that DWB was using 'culture' to mean something like 'nation' or 'tribe'. I'm not aware of any examples of those that survived solely from recruitment from outside.

[dwb68]

lol. You can only recruit people from the "outside" if there are young people to recruit. Most religions are against abortion and birth control. Which, not a coincidence, increases birth rates.

If the Catholic church survives its because its constituents have a high birth rates (not because they are proselytizing and converting people, they aren't). Some then go into priesthood to further the culture.

I always find it ironic. Democrats "believe" in evolution but don't understand its consequences, causing them to have low birth rates and die out.

[Nige]

I don't think Democrats 'believe' in whatever you think evolution is.

[Sarcastr0]

Immigration! Immigrants come here and embrace our culture, diverse as it is.

During the Cold War we did a lot for Capitalism on the world stage via Hollywood and trade - be super cool and have good blue jeans and whiskey and people want to be like you. As Gorby lamented.

[Armchair Lawyer]

But the native population grew during that time

[Sarcastr0]

Hollywood did not demand in our population growth; it was a separate channel for cultural growth.

[dwb68]

Nope. 4 billion years of evolution: Pass on your genes or die out. Period. Evolution is a fundamental law, like gravity and supply and demand.

[Sarcastr0]

I like my personal genes and plan to pass them on hopefully.

But as a nation, or culture? Genes got nothing to do with it. If American culture continues, but we’re all brown now? I don’t much care.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I like my personal genes and plan to pass them on hopefully."

Say, aren't you fairly old? This is the sort of thing events tend to derail if you wait, like my being sterilized by cancer treatment shortly after my first and only child. A big part of the reason we ARE sub-replacement is people thinking they can put off having children forever, and suddenly finding out that they... put off having them forever.

"But as a nation, or culture? Genes got nothing to do with it. If American culture continues, but we’re all brown now? I don’t much care."

Yeah, I agree. I married a Filipina, and my son is darker than half the "black" people on this street. I honestly don't much care what Americans look like a hundred years from now.

But there's no sensible reason to think American culture WILL survive high levels of non-selective immigration. Immigrants adopt local culture, but local culture adopts their culture, too, especially at high levels of immigration.

"You are what you eat" is much more true of immigration than diet. If you want a functional culture a hundred years from now, it's stupid to have mass immigration from dysfunctional cultures.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “But there’s no sensible reason to think American culture WILL survive high levels of non-selective immigration”

Well, no reason except we’ve seen that gloomy prediction again and again throughout U.S. history. There’s always some new Other who’ll destroy America if allowed to immigrate to this shore. How often have cynical politician sold this fear to gullible crowds? How many times has the rhetoric proved wrong in the end?

Well, every time. It seems pretty “sensible” to ignore this stale tired shtick given it’s been wrong every time before.

[dwb68]

"A big part of the reason we ARE sub-replacement is people thinking they can put off having children forever, and suddenly finding out that they… put off having them forever."

Half true. Nature has a way of remediating this long term. The short answer is that people (mostly women, since men are fertile their whole life) who procreate later will selectively pass on the genes to procreate later. Its true, many women are now childless in their 30s. But, women in their 40s who bear children will become the new normal because their own children will have a higher likelihood of bearing children in their 40s. On the flip side, the hook-up-culture women who wake up with no children wont pass on the hook up culture.

The great slowdown in replacement rates is but a short pause in long term evolution. Keep in mind, we have been "human" for several hundred thousand years.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm still young enough, but you're not wrong about time being a thing.

Immigrants adopt local culture, but local culture adopts their culture, too, especially at high levels of immigration.
We're well below that threshold. Little China is not going to make us communist.

The way to keep our culture from being dysfunctional is to pay attention to it. Immigration is not an invasion; our immigration numbers have been integrating fine and quicker than ever.

[dwb68]

What you pass to your kids is both genes and mating behavior (aka culture). Nature only cares about one thing: surviving to the next generation.

[Sarcastr0]

Nature operates at a species level. And we're all the same species. You're essentializing...genetic race as a behavior driver, I guess? Don't do that; it's like 1920s level racist.

Culture is not an inherited trait; it can be taught, adopted, rejected.

Culture is also a *lot* more than mating behavior. Plenty stuff we do is drive by more than maximizing getting our bone on.

[dwb68]

No. Evolution does not operate at the species level. It operates at the level of the reproductive unit (bacteria for single celled organisms or mating pairs for mammals, etc). https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/natural-selection-genetic-drift-and-gene-flow-15186648/

Sub populations of species often diverge due to their selective fitness… in fact thats how we get species in the first place! Go back far enough, humans and chimps were the same species. And there were several sub populations of hominids, none of which survived except us.

Culture is definitely an inherited trait. That’s why religions have forced indoctrination at early ages, lol.

You are half right, culture can be taught, adopted, and rejected. Long term, though the world is populated by the organisms that reproduce the most. So if you are teaching people not to reproduce, your ideology is dead long-term. The major religions of the world (ironically) figured this out a long time ago (no abortion, no birth control). Thats how they became the major religions in the first place!

[Sarcastr0]

Evolution acts in populations selection works on individuals.

No, human races are not going to spectate.

Long term, there enough variables nothing you are positing matters,

[dwb68]

"Evolution acts in populations selection works on individuals."

Note quite. Selection acts on alleles, (sub)populations are groupings of alleles.

"Long term, there enough variables nothing you are positing matters,"

Well, duh, long term the sun dies lmao.

Evolution happens faster than you think. A mere 1% difference in fitness makes a massive difference over generations (because of exponential growth).

[Nige]

Evolution isn't a law, evolution is gradual change in organisms over time. Lots of species, or sub-species, died out because they destroyed their environment - that's our prolem, not population levels.

[not guilty]

The terrorist wing of the anti-abortion movement has struck again, this time in Peoria, Illinois. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arson-peoria-illinois-abortion-clinic-planned-parenthood/

[Michael P]

That's less terroristic, more investigated, and much less frequent than a lot of attacks on churches and other religious institutions: https://www.theblaze.com/news/vandalism-arson-attacks-against-churches-on-the-rise-at-least-57-incidents-related-to-pro-abortion-activism-report

[Sarcastr0]

2 things can both be bad.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, and one of them can be much worse and more frequent, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Having trouble with the concept?
Burning churches is bad. Also burning abortion clinics.

Quit changing the subject. Looks like you're defending arson.

[Michael P]

Having trouble counting? Again?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, bad things are bad. Worse and more frequent bad things are worse. Is this a complicated concept?

[Sarcastr0]

When a bad thing is brought up, and you're response is to point to a different bad thing and call it worse, makes one wonder why you decided that was relevant, other than to maybe stop talking about the original bad thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

A related bad thing.

Back to "whataboutism!"

NoT Guilty brings up the "terrorist wing" of the anti-abortion movement, to say how awful the whole movement is. Michael P brings up the entirely related fact that pro-abortion terrorism is a lot more common!

But the goal here is to tar the entire pro-life movement as terrorist, as though any really sizeable movement lacks nutcases. And it doesn't help that goal to notice that the pro-abortion movement is many times worse.

So you shout "Whataboutism!" to prohibit putting things in context.

[Reallynotbob]

Neither one is more common than childhood gun deaths. So obviously THAT's the only bad thing we should be talking about. /s

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like you have a logical argument you want to make, but chose instead to defend Michael P's whattaboutism with no mention of the overgeneralization issue you had.

Either speak to the argument you're defending, or put forth a new argument. You can't do both at once.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Looks like you’re defending arson."

Well, that's an hypocritical point from you, in light of your attitude toward the 2020 George Floyd arsons.

[Sarcastr0]

My point back then was that comparing arson of an empty building to *murder* was incorrect, not that arson was cool and good and not a crime when it’s against a church or courthouse.

But you have said lying to own the libs is fine by you, so dunno why I bother.

[Bob from Ohio]

At least one person died due to an arson.

You dismissed arson as not "violence".

"you have said lying to own the libs is fine by you"

Prove it.

[Sarcastr0]

I said that an individual example of attempting to burn an empty federal building was not violence akin to murder.

I forget what y'all were trying to excuse, but it was a killing of some sort.

Prove it.
Really, Bob? You were so proud at saying principles and integrity were for suckers, only winning matters. Back-tracking now?

[Bob from Ohio]

"principles and integrity were for suckers, only winning matters."

Yes, in politics.

Lying is a perfectly acceptable tactic for politicians, only children expect them to tell the truth anyways. I am not a politician though.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Politics is a reflection of our values. If you find lying an acceptable form of engaging in politics, why shouldn't people consider support of dishonesty a value of yours? I mean if you are happy to elect and support other people to lie on your behalf for your interests, why wouldn't you do that personally too?

[Bob from Ohio]

"if you are happy to elect and support other people to lie on your behalf"

But I find it acceptable for both sides. I may not like it when the opposition does it [because my side might lose] but I expect it to happen and don't cry about it.

Winning is the only principle any politician has and hardly any have a lick of integrity.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“I may not like it when the opposition does it [because my side might lose] but I expect it to happen and don’t cry about it.”

Okay. So you like it when your side does it to your advantage: how is this not an expression of your personal values and why wouldn’t that be the case in your personal life?

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, you were excusing the behavior back in 2020. Not cheerleading, since you tepidly acknowledged at the time that it (rioting and mayhem) was wrong. You got called on it.

Both behaviors are wrong, period. I would like to see both behaviors (crimes?) zealously pursued by the FBI/DOJ with equal fervor. Ain't seeing that.

[Sarcastr0]

I was excusing nothing; I continue to condemn any riots that happened.

That you can't understand someone not conflating the BLM protests with the associated riots is your own problem; it's not me excusing anything.

Both behaviors are wrong, period. I would like to see both behaviors (crimes?) zealously pursued by the FBI/DOJ with equal fervor. Ain’t seeing that.
Different situations are being treated differently. You say you're not equating them and then you act like they're basically equal.

This kind of hand-waiving is what the right is going with. It may work. You shouldn't fall for it, much less carry water for this 'it's not a false equivalence' brand false equivalence.

[Michael P]

So can Democrat hacks refusing to investigate crimes against disfavored minorities. Yet again.

So can ridiculous leftist double standards about what qualifies as terrorism -- we were told that this kind of arson against churches wasn't violent because no person was physically harmed, and it wasn't terrorism because reasons.

So can dumb false equivalences between a single incident and a widespread, multi-year crime wave.

[Krychek_2]

"So can ridiculous leftist double standards about what qualifies as terrorism — we were told that this kind of arson against churches wasn’t violent because no person was physically harmed, and it wasn’t terrorism because reasons."

You were told that by whom? I seriously doubt that anybody, left, right, or center, made such a ridiculous assertion. If you have a citation for anyone having actually said that, I'd certainly like to see it.

[Absaroka]

FWIW, I just plugged 'arson against churches wasn’t violent because no person was physically harmed' into duckduck and the first page of results contained this Reason article that has some quotes like "Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. To use the same language to describe those two things is not moral."

Not specifically about church arsons, but in the neighborhood. I didn't look past the first page of results.

[Krychek_2]

And that's a nonsense argument, and Reason should be ashamed of itself for making it. The whole point of committing arson is to intimidate and terrorize people. You don't burn down someone's church because you want the parishioners to feel at ease.

[Absaroka]

Ummm, perhaps you didn't read the article? Reason is reporting what other people said.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you saying the church arsons and vandalism isn't being investigated?

[Ed Grinberg]

Democrat hacks refusing to investigate crimes against disfavored minorities.

Right.

US divided over Roe's repeal as abortion foes gird for march
As I was reading this, I thought about the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August of 2017. Both the Biden administration and the Washington D.C. administration feel about the pro-life demonstrators pretty much the way Charlottesville administration felt about the Unite the Right rally (i.e., they want them dead). (Recently, the Biden administration has been cracking down on pro-life activists.) If Antifa or some similar outfit were to attack the demonstrators tomorrow, will the authorities intervene? Or will they watch, smirking, and then arrest any ("wrongthinkful") demonstrators who fight back?

[Nige]

The authorities? You mean cops? Famously pro-antifa cops? You are a card.

[not guilty]

Michael P, the Family Research Council is hardly a reliable narrator. The "57 incidents" referred to, however, include graffiti incidents with pro-abortion messages and protests that interrupted church services. https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF22L24.pdf p. 6. This conduct, while improper, falls far short of firebombings.

Did you think I wouldn't click the link?

[bernard11]

Tony Perkins used to be big buddies with David Duke, IIRC.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The terrorist wing of the anti-abortion movement has struck again"

You should contact the police since you know who did it.

[not guilty]

I make no claim to know what individual(s) are culpable for this act of arson, but violence is endemic in the anti-abortion movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

[Bob from Ohio]

Learn the meaning of "endemic".

Plenty of the incidents were unsolved. 4 arsons a year [even assuming motive] is hardly "endemic".

[not guilty]

There is a long and sordid history of those on Eric Rudolph's side of the culture wars killing, attempting to kill, bombing and burning abortion care providers and facilities. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/29/us/30abortion-clinic-violence.html

[not guilty]

See also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

[Bob from Ohio]

“Since the 1970s in the United States, there have been at least 11 murders, 42 bombings, 196 arsons, and 491 assaults against abortion providers.”

50 plus years so 1 murder every 5 years, 4 arson each year, less than 1 bombing each year and 10 “assaults” [undefined] each year. Hardly “endemic”

Let’s do Baltimore every weekend.

[Michael P]

Yeah, those 50 years seem mild compared to the riots in 2020 over a druggie suffering an overdose.

[not guilty]

Really, Michael P? Have you asked the surviving family members of Doctors Gunn, Britton, Slepian and Tiller, Misters James Barrett, Robert Sanderson and Garrett Swazey, and Ms. Shannon Lowney, Lee Ann Nichols, Ke'Arre Stewart and Jennifer Markovsky about that? (All killed by terrorist abortion rights opponents)

[Michael P]

You do know that insurrectionist terrorists killed more people than that during the 2020 riots, right?

You just don't care because you agree with them.

[Sarcastr0]

*someone* has insurrectionist envy!

[Nige]

Acts of violence discredit movements, except when they don't. Yes, that cuts both ways. Also, we have to own guns in case we decide we want to violently overthrow the government.

[Ben_]

Remind us to care about it after we see action taken against leftist terrorists.

[Michael P]

Meanwhile, the terrorist wing of the Democrat party is up to its usual "antifa" stunts: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/authorities-identify-person-killed-at-atlanta-s-cop-city-training-center-site/ar-AA16uGPP

[dwb68]

The ATF pistol brace rule (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces) will be upheld:

1. It doesnt matter about Chevron/Auer deference. The statue reads a rifle “designed, made,and intended to be fired from the shoulder”. The way 99.9999% of braces are used (go to the range some time) is to fire the gun from the shoulder. That’s why we all bought them, to get around the SBR rule. The ATF didn’t need a new rule IMO, and a judge correctly, independently, interpreting the law will say putting a brace on a stock makes it a rifle under the plain text of the statute.

2. Its constitutional. Under Bruen (see footnote 9), licensing is ok.

The .gov will argue that carry (“bear”) is not a “2nd class right” and has equal footing to “keep” – and licensing is ok for bear, ergo its ok for keep. Bruen supports this syllogism. Keep your SBR, just license it!

The ATF has solved the “shall issue” problem by making it nondiscretionary (allowing you to possess your braced SBR simply by submitting your eform), also solved the “reasonable time” problem, and eliminated the tax. The licensing almost surely satisfies footnote 9. In fact, its easier and quicker to register my pistol braces than get my FL or UT carry permits, and those were favorably cited in Bruen.

So sorry to everyone, I think that the intellectually honest position is that the new ATF rule will be upheld in some form. Pistol braces make rifles SBRs, although the details of the rule may be changed by an appellate court.

The good news, if there is any: to preserve the NFA they will be forced to extend this precedent to other firearms. That means I see a near future where SBRs and suppressors can get registered like pistol braces (no tax and immediate possession). Machine guns may end up being a different story, I think everyone recognizes those are extra dangerous.

The bad news: anti-gunners played the long game on the brace rule. Watering down the NFA to no tax and immediate possession ala pistol brace rule sets NFA up for registration of semi-automatic rifles down the line. Possibly including a training requirement.

Bruen was a great opinion, which will demolish a lot of gun control laws. Except, in reality, it will be a mixed bag. Ten years from now, people will come to regret it much like the infamous Scalia quote from Heller about reasonable regulation. Bruen put carry on the same footing as possession, but then said carry could be licensed. I mean its true, carry and possession were never really licensed historically, but 6 pretty conservative justices were unwilling to go that far.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like Heller, Bruen was a step in a journey, from the Court relentlessly ignoring the 2nd amendment, (Nearly 70 years of flatly refusing cert, without comment, for any case where the parties raised the 2nd amendment as an issue.) to partially upholding it, (Heller) admitting it was incorporated, (McDonald) upholding it a bit more. (Bruen.)

It's by no means assured that this journey will continue, but neither is it assured that the Court will stop at Bruen.

[Kazinski]

I think federal gun registration is constitutional but the ATF can't do it on its own and it will be many years before it can pass Congress.

Same with a federal license to keep or bear arms, they can't do it without Congress, nor can they substantially burden the right.

And the majority of the states now allow constitutional carry. In my state I don't need a license to buy, own, or carry concealed or openly. No magazine size limits or restrictions on any semiautomatic rifles.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think federal gun registration is flatly unconstitutional, for enumerated powers reasons. Simply put, none of Congress' powers, honestly interpreted, extend to that. "Honestly" interpreted is key here, I would never count on the federal judiciary to honestly interpret federal powers, they're chosen by the people whose powers they're passing on.

Constitutionally, the federal government can require you to prove that you own certain arms, as an exercise of the militia clause. But they have no constitutional basis for demanding that you divulge gun ownership in general.

Similar to the way the federal government might require that you own a dictionary, and prove you own it, but that doesn't imply that they'd be entitled to an inventory of your private library.

Simply put, the only purpose of gun registration is to know who to take guns away from.

[apedad]

You're flip-flopping between constitutional and policy questions.

It's absolutely constitutional for the feds to require everyone to register weapons, i.e., that does NOT infringe on the right to own a weapon.

Whether that is a good (practical? useful?) idea is a question of policy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Which enumerated power are you citing for this proposition, apedad? Remember, the federal government doesn't have every power not prohibited to it; That's the states. The federal government has its enumerated powers, plus those implied powers that are both necessary and proper to carry them into effect.

I'm coming up empty on an enumerated power that has federal gun registration being necessary for its implementation, or even proper.

[Kazinski]

Article 1 Militia clause:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

If Congress has to provide for organizing and arming the militia and the unorganized militia consists of the able-bodied civilian population that is expected to provide their own arms, then Congress would have the power to keep records of who is armed with what. Model, caliber, age of the weapon would all be necessary to know for arming and resupply of the militia.

[dwb68]

idk. Maybe maybe not. If the Feds can mandate everyone own a gun in 1791, they can probably mandate a registry to check, as long as registering is reasonably easy. Besides double checking, a registry would also facilitate inventory needs for ammo stockpiles in case Canada, Mexico, or Russia invaded. They can probably also mandate certain standard calibers to ensure interchangeability and logistics efficiency.

The reality of the whole “registration equals confiscation” argument is that by the time they are confiscating, they have also suspended the 4th amendment and are knocking down your door so they dont need a registry. They will assume everyone they don’t like has one and lock them up.

The real protection against a registry is probably the 4th (privacy) or 5th amendments (self incrimination), not the 2nd.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If the Feds can mandate everyone own a gun in 1791, they can probably mandate a registry to check, as long as registering is reasonably easy. "

As I said, they could mandate that you prove you have the gun you're mandated to own, they could mandate you prove you have the ammo for it. This doesn't imply they're entitled to know about what other guns you have.

"The reality of the whole “registration equals confiscation” argument is that by the time they are confiscating, they have also suspended the 4th amendment and are knocking down your door so they dont need a registry."

The actual reality of it is that, if they don't know who owns what guns, they are reduced to door to door searches that DO require suspending the 4th amendment, pissing off everybody. And, not incidentally, telling the nation's gun owners that it was time to start a wholesale slaughter of feds.

If they do know, they can order the banks to lock out the accounts of everybody on the list until they hand 'em over, and other more targeted measures that wouldn't materially impact non-owners.

So, yeah, registration hugely facilitates confiscation.

[Randal]

Even if the registration requirement is "do you own at least one gun," that facilitates confiscation 99% as well (you know which houses to search). And you admit that much registration is constitutional. I don't see where all this delicate line-drawing is getting you.

[apedad]

The TSA said in a release on Tuesday that it found the record number of guns at 262 different airports, continuing a trend of each year surpassing the previous one in total number confiscated, only interrupted in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The total for 2022 was up from the previous record of 5,972 taken in 2021. Almost 90 percent of the firearms confiscated last year were loaded.

The TSA said in the release that it found firearms in travelers’ carry-on luggage at a rate of 8.6 guns per million people screened. It screened about 761 million passengers and crew members at airports nationally throughout 2022.

On average, the agency found one firearm for every 116,394 travelers it screened.

[dwb68]

And? So what. People with a CCW should be able to carry on a plane. I could get behind some extra training, because its a tin can in the sky (TSA shooting quals are very rigorous). But lots of civilians can pass the shooting quals, and if they can they should be able to carry.

[bernard11]

People with a CCW should be able to carry on a plane.

No. They shouldn't.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I think I am with you on that one, bernard11. I'm good with Air Marshalls and Pilots (behind closed cockpit doors) being armed. Anyone else, not so much.

[Brett Bellmore]

This sort of thing is just presentism. Until 1961, it was perfectly legal to have firearms in carry on bags, or even in your pocket. Kennedy managed to put an end to that in '61, but an exemption was swiftly made for sporting arms in stowed baggage, and police officers were exempt, even when traveling privately.

IIRC, it wasn't until after 9/11 that it became simply illegal.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Air Marshals are should absolutely not be armed.

Or exist at all, for that matter.

[Mr. Bumble]

...because?

[gallinalg85]

Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate short barreled rifles at all, and ATF certainly doesn't.

[Kazinski]

Certainly possession of short barreled pistols can’t be infringed because they are in common use.

Where I think the courts will strike down the regulation is there isn’t any evidence they are unusually dangerous either.

What really is the rationale of the new regulation? It's the only thing the ATF could come up with that they might be able to twist an existing law to ban?

[dwb68]

to be fair to the ATF, the plain text of the statute is “designed, made,and intended to be fired from the shoulder”. Its not a “twist” Pistol braces turned a pistol into a rifle, always have. ATF erred by letting them on a market. I think people who expect this to be struck will be severely disappointed. I say this as someone who donates to SAF and other orgs to fight this, and owns several pistol braced weapons.

[gallinalg85]

It was not designed, made and intended to be fired from the shoulder. It was designed to be used as an arm brace. What people choose to use it for is secondary.

In any case, if they are successful in banning it, it'll be outrageous if they're not ordered to pay compensation, given that the ATF originally blessed those devices.

[dwb68]

No, it wasnt. In the ATF rule they even cited a TFB TV review from 2013 that the brace allowed people to "get around" the SBR rule and shoulder it.

In ten years I have literally never seen anyone at the range using it like a brace. 100% as a stock. No judge will be that dumb.

[gallinalg85]

So what? It might have allowed people to "get around" the rule, but that doesn't mean that it was designed for that.

In any case, whomever challenges the suit should also ask for 2nd Amendment relief. Even if the brace ban is statutorily legitimate, the SBR ban violates the Constitution, full stop.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

The shooting in Virginia by a single-digit-age shooter is just the beginning. It'll be a trend. Not as often as school shootings generally, but it will be often enough that it will stop being surprising.

And (of course!) sooner or later one of the victims will die of the gunshot wound(s). Sooner or later we will be arguing what to do about some single-digit-age kid(s) somewhere or other who will have shot one of their teachers to death.

Now is the time to stock up on candles for prayer and mourning vigils.

[Moderation4ever]

This is just another case of an individual failing to properly secure a firearm. They pop up too often when toddler or young children access a gun that is not properly secured. Our Constitution gives people the right to own a firearm, it does not say that you should have one. That is a personal decision and one that people sometimes get wrong. If you cannot take the responsibility to secure and handle a gun properly you should not get one. If you are not in a good mental state, you should not have one.

[apedad]

"If you cannot take the responsibility to secure and handle a gun properly you should not get one. If you are not in a good mental state, you should not have one."

Can we codify your 'shoulds?'

[Moderation4ever]

No, nor should we. This not a legal issue but a social one. We all need to insist that people who have guns do so responsibly. If a person see another doing something stupid with a gun they should tell that person. If your friend or relative is having difficulties, lost a job, has a failing relationship, would that be a good time to say maybe you should give me your guns for six months till things have settled?

[Absaroka]

" If your friend or relative is having difficulties, lost a job, has a failing relationship, would that be a good time to say maybe you should give me your guns for six months till things have settled?"

Note that Universal Background Check laws make that difficult.

[Reallynotbob]

That's a lot of words that amount to "thoughts and prayers."

"You should give up your guns because you seem depressed."
"No."
Exeunt.

[OtisAH]

Unfortunately safe storage laws are an infringement on the right to possess any and as many firearms as a person wants. It’s right there in the constitution which you’d know if you bothered to read it…

[Moderation4ever]

Plenty of gun owners manage to safely store firearms, so I don't think we need to set the bar low for those that don't or can't.

[Kazinski]

I keep one of my guns loaded on my closet shelf, not in the way and not out of the way.

Doesn't do any good if I can't get at if I need it.

[Davedave]

Hasn't done any good, you haven't shot yourself yet. Treason carries the death penalty, but you haven't the balls or the moral fibre to execute yourself.

[Kazinski]

I'm not over sensitive, but advocating people you disagree with kill themselves crosses a line.

Not that you care, but thank god for the mute button.

[Reallynotbob]

"Any and as many"
Another pro-grenade advocate here.

[John F. Carr]

Now is the time to wonder why a school that was warned in advance and searched the student did not find a gun. The parents may have failed. The school did not have to.

[Ben_]

We should make it illegal. Then no one will do it any more.

[Sarcastr0]

Truman continues to be a good time.

Calling his mother to say he’s going to make a speech a bout Civil Rights and she was gonna hate it.
Calling back the Republican Congress in an election year and laying the Republics. Platform before them to pass.
Writing a speech calling for then People to rise up against the labor bosses and management and Wall Street, in response to a rail strike.
Hating the job and telling everyone he saw. But then running for re-election anyhow.
Mentioning a number of times how he liked Papa Joe, till being told maybe to shut up.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Is that the book with the story of Marshal so-and-so. As I recall it, Truman had a Missouri crony he made a federal Marshal, so Truman could keep him around as a poker pal. Off they went to Europe, to talk with the Soviets.

Noting the unidentified guy next to Truman, some Soviet asked who he was. "That's Marshal [name]," came the reply. It touched off a wave of frantic activity in the Soviet intelligence community, to discover how such an important and high-ranking American military figure had gone unnoticed.

[Sarcastr0]

Not in this book, but that sounds extremely plausible.

Truman loved his old machine politics cronies, and poker buddies during stressful times were vital for him.

Though he's also pretty into the storyteller's license, so grain of salt for anything Truman personally says (outside of his letters to his Mom)

[Dan Schiavetta]

What sets Truman apart is how much a stranger he was coming in, apart from the atmosphere of crisis he was thrust into, unprepared — unacquainted with wealth, overseas travel, big-money connections. It’s amazing he didn’t make more mistakes.

This is going back to 1969 or so:

My dad said the common joke at the time, “All Presidents prove something. Coolidge proved you can be President and not say anything, Hoover proved it’s not always a good idea to be President, FDR proved you can be President as long as you like, Truman proved that anyone can be President, Eisenhower proved you don’t even need a President . . . “

[Sarcastr0]

Heh,

[Kazinski]

I ran across a great talk by Constantine Kisen at the Oxford Union.

https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo

The topic is "This House believes woke culture has gone too far", but at least half of it explains why the wests approach to climate change is doomed to failure.

[Moderation4ever]

Republicans are a party that lacks message discipline and I offer the following. The message they try to put forth is that changes in voting laws are to protect the election integrity. Then members like Robert Spindell, a member of the Wisconsin election commission sent out the following in an email;

“We can be especially proud of the City of Milwaukee (80.2% Dem Vote) casting 37,000 less votes than cast in the 2018 election with the major reduction happening in the overwhelming Black and Hispanic areas,”

Mr. Spindell is not the first to admit the Republican want changes in election laws mainly targeted at minorities, just the latest.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, how is this different from Democrats going off reservation on messaging? Which I assure you, happens. Just gets reported on less by Democratic reporters.

[apedad]

Oh...we're doing whataboutism again?

I thought Mr. Bumble poo-poo'd that.

[Brett Bellmore]

We will always be doing "whataboutism", because the left are not actually entitled to restrict the topic of discussion to exclude their own wrongs, much as you seem to think you are.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is restricting your commenting, dude.

We're pointing out your commenting is bad, is all.

[Moderation4ever]

As you assure me it happens do you have any examples?

[Brett Bellmore]

For instance.

Or,

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks." -- Rep. Paul Kanjorski,

Or,

"“Cheney deserves same final end he gave Saddam. Hope there are cell cams.” — Rep. Chuck Kruger "

And that's limiting myself just to Democratic politicians calling on Republicans to be murdered, just to handicap myself.

Seriously, every group of any size has people who say stupid things.

[Moderation4ever]

We are not talking about stupid things we are talking about off message. Saying changes are for voting integrity and then admitting it to suppress minority voting.

[Nige]

Yeah, the guy didn't say something over the top about crooked political opponents, he boasted about disenfranchising minorities.

[Brett Bellmore]

And that's a stupid thing to say, but it hardly means that everybody who supports an election law Democrats oppose is out to disenfranchise minorities.

[Nige]

No, it means some people who support it are better at pretendimg it isn't about disenfranchising minorities than others.

[Ben_]

You have proof that those neighborhoods weren’t where vote fraud was happening?

[Moderation4ever]

The general rule is innocent till proven guilty. Or does that not apply to minorities? If an area has a lot of minorities, you just know there is voter fraud, is that right?

[Ben_]

Except when you want to lob accusations at Republicans.

[Moderation4ever]

The lobbing seems to be a two-way street. Remember Hunter Biden and Paul Pelosi.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Robert Spindell"

Ah, Robert Spindell said something. "changes in voting laws are to protect the election integrity" must be false because one unknown minor official said something?

Nutpicking, Isn't that what Sarcasto calls it when we highlight a Democrat saying something?

[Nige]

If that's nutpicking, who put that nut on the election commission?

[MoreCurious]

Do you agree with one, both, or neither of the following statements? (1) The investigation of Trump’s handling of presidential documents will result in no official action being taken against him. (2) The investigation of Biden’s handling of vice-presidential and/or presidential documents will result in no official action being taken against him. Why?

[Michael P]

I think neither one will result in criminal or Senate (impeachment) conviction. The criminal case would be too hard to prove in either case, and partisan considerations will probably lead to both criminal cases/investigations quietly being dropped (probably without charges), and Senators are too concerned with party to provide 67 votes for either one.

I put roughly 50-50 odds on Biden being impeached at all; if he is, I think his pre-presidency handling of US government material will be viewed as a minor impeachment charge (or, less likely, not charged at all). I don’t think that mis-handling would be seen as a standalone reason to impeach him, but it’s being used to discourage a re-election campaign.

So the only official consequence I expect for either is possibly a "minor" impeachment charge against Biden that will go nowhere in the Senate.

[John F. Carr]

I say less than 50% chance of impeachment. Trump's conduct was serious enough that Democrats expected and got a few crossover votes. Biden could get a few crossover votes not to impeach or remove.

Biden will not be charged while in office. The investigation will not recommend charges after he leaves office. Trump... maybe. It depends on non-public information. Is anybody credible willing to testify it was Donald Trump, in the library, with the candlestick?

[Nige]

How are they going to impeach Biden for this and then support Trump? Even if not as a presidential candidate, as a victim of deep state injustice?

[Ed Grinberg]

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

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's a great article, thanks for the share.

[Nige]

Gentlemen, it's Them.

[M L]

"Nor was Trump’s record all that radical—much less so than that of Joe Biden . . . Trump’s core agenda—border protection, trade balance, foreign restraint—was quite moderate, both intrinsically and in comparison to past Republican and Democratic precedent."

Sheesh. So true. What is wrong with all the psychos today?

[Ben_]

"What is wrong with all the psychos today?"

They care about 4 things:
1. Power
2. Money
3. The stories they tell themselves
4. Catering to the special people.

Trump was Orange Man Bad in the stories they tell themselves. And Trump didn’t kneel at the altar of the special people.

[Nige]

All the REALLY special people knelt to him.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Not sure why you wrote that in the past tense.

[Nige]

They still haven't stood up.

[David Nieporent]

Lack of self-awareness, or enough chutzpah to fuel a rocketship to Mars?

People I have known for 30 years, many of whom still claim the label “conservative,” will no longer speak to me—because I supported Trump, yes, but also because I disagree on trade, war, and the border. They call not just my positions, but me personally, unadulterated evil. I am not an isolated case. There are, as they say, “many such cases.” How are we supposed to have “democracy” when the policies and candidates my side wants and votes for are anathema and can’t be allowed? How are we supposed to live together with the constant demonization from one side against the other blaring 24/7 from the ruling class’s every propaganda organ? Why would we want to?

This from the guy that declared that electing Hillary Clinton in 2016 was the equivalent of letting Al Qaeda win.

[SRG]

AFAICT this is the longest SC session in years before any opinions have been released. It may even be a record. Surely they'd heard one or two cases where a quick-ish opinion was possible?

[Brett Bellmore]

They get lazier every year. Or something internal is broken.

[Reallynotbob]

It's all the conservatives being lazy. Obviously. /s

[Noscitur a sociis]

It is a record: currently 108 days since the first oral argument of the terms. The previous record is 65.

[Brett Bellmore]

I really don't know what's going on. Obviously the majority and the minority on the Court are at loggerheads, but that doesn't have to mean that they get nothing done.

Have they tied themselves up in safeguards to stop leaking to the point where they can't get work done?

Has somebody set their heels in the ground and is just refusing to cooperate in finishing cases?

I'd love to know, and at some point they'd better say something, it's getting absurd.

[not guilty]

Historically a large portion of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous or nearly unanimous. Opinions in these cases are often issued much sooner in the term than divided decisions, the latter of which often include dissents or partial concurrences. I wonder why that is not the case this term.

[Life of Brian]

Probably lost a ton of time looking for the Dobbs leaker (all for naught, per a headline I saw pop up earlier).

[ragebot]

Yea I am sure all the SCJs spent most of their waking hours looking for the leaker and ignore the cases before them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Most of the things they might do to prevent future leaks, or at least render them easier to pin on somebody, would seriously reduce productivity.

But my guess is that, since Dobbs, comity on the Court is dead, the losing minority feel that strongly about it.

[John F. Carr]

In COVID authoritarian news,

There are multiple reports that the end of COVID restrictions in China was likely forced by an uncontained outbreak in rural areas of southern China. WSJ is still going with the popular unrest angle. Both could have contributed.

New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern has announced her resignation. After worldwide praise for not being Trumpish and keeping her country mostly COVID-free, her popularity at home has dropped.

[Absaroka]

We have an exciting new contender for the Hank Johnson 'How Dumb Can the Government Be' awards:

"Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content that all tech platforms must proactively prevent from reaching users."

No more Dunkirk documentaries, it seems. At least not that portray it in a favorable light.

[John F. Carr]

Is there any German footage of boats near Dunkirk being bombed and shot, with the narrator praising the heroic Luftwaffe?

[Absaroka]

I suspect there would be German gun camera footage, but I haven't seen any used, if any survived the war.

The WWII documentaries I see generally take the viewpoint that it's a good thing that the Allies won.

[SRG]

I assume those documentaries can no longer be shown in some Southern schools as they might offend children whose parents are white supremacists.

[Estragon]

Alec “the bloviator” Baldwin will be charged with involuntary manslaughter over the Rust incident. I am having trouble finding a link to the DA’s statement announcing this.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That seems appropriate to me.

[Ed Grinberg]

Nuts. He obviously didn't mean to shoot anyone. If anyone should be charged, it's the person in charge of firearms for this production; they obviously didn't know what they were doing. "Criminal negligence"?

[Estragon]

Yes, the armorer is being charged as well.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The assistant director has already pled guilty to "negligent use of a deadly weapon".

[Estragon]

Yes, thank you, we are referring to different individuals.

[Absaroka]

IANAL, but in Texas, manslaughter seems to only require recklessness:

"To convict a defendant of manslaughter, prosecutors must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly caused the death of another individual.

Reckless Conduct

There is no requirement of premeditation to this crime and no requirement for there to be intent or knowledge on the part of the defendant. The only requirement is that the defendant's conduct was reckless."

So the question seems to be 'if someone hands you a gun, saying it is unloaded, is it reckless to point it at someone else and pull the trigger without checking yourself'.

I expect opinions will differ, but on any range or class I have been at the answer would be an unequivocal 'yes'.

[Absaroka]

Oooops, my bad - should be NM, not TX.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He obviously didn’t mean to shoot anyone."

Its called "involuntary" manslaughter because it does not require intent.

[Reallynotbob]

Let's just define it for anyone who might need it. From NM Statutes 30-2-3:

B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

[Bob from Ohio]

"without due caution and circumspection"

I imagine this has been fleshed out in case law. Sounds like mere negligence to me.

[John F. Carr]

Quoting AP (https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-rust-movie-shooting-charges-decision-8c76eddb8a6418419078903d24ec3813):

Actor Alec Baldwin and a weapons specialist will be charged with involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer who was killed on a New Mexico movie set, prosecutors announced Thursday, citing a “criminal disregard for safety.”

Assistant director David Halls, who handed Baldwin the gun, has signed an agreement to plead guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon, the district attorney’s office said.

[John F. Carr]

On paper New Mexico's law is broader than most: "Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. ... Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection."

I could argue about whether Baldwin was reckless or wanton or grossly negligent, the usual mental state required for manslaughter. I am sure he acted without "due caution and circumspection" as I understand the terms. One would have to look at case law to understand how the law works in practice.

[Reallynotbob]

The prosecution feels weak to me, unless there was some unreported fact that puts particular responsibility on Baldwin.

The testimony will probably be that actors rely on their armorers on set, and that Baldwin did the minimal things actors are expected to do when handed a firearm prop. It will probably also be that reliance on the armorer to load blanks is more responsible and careful than asking actors to load and unload weapons themselves, or to handle loading on set as some kind of "final check."

It seems to me the way to prosecute this would have to be to demonstrate that Baldwin had reason to believe the armorer was incapable or unreliably negligent. That may be the truth, if what I have heard about the armorer's practices with live rounds near the set are to be believed. But without showing Baldwin could not rely on the production's armorer, I don't see a conviction based on reported news.

[Brett Bellmore]

I seem to recall accounts that he wasn't actually supposed to be "shooting" the gun in that particular direction, when the discharge that resulted in the death happened. I expect that if it had been a scripted act, he might have had a better defense.

[John F. Carr]

The following is based on online posts by somebody who claimed to be in the business of staging movie gunfights. He sounded credible.

You never point a real gun at anybody, whether it is loaded, unloaded, or loaded with blanks. Fight scenes are scripted so the gun points past somebody with camera angles hiding the exact line of fire. When the gun is pointed at the camera the operator is out of the line of fire. If a gun needs to have its barrel in somebody's face a non-functional replica is used. If a generic gun is required, not an antique as in Rust and not a distinctive kind protected by IP lawyers, a company will sell you a version that can only fire blanks. You don't put this kind in somebody's face because blanks can kill at close range.

It was said, and this is internet gossip rather than reliable sources, that Baldwin refused to take gun safety training. Point against him, he refused to learn how to be safe. Point for him, he did not know just how wrong his behavior was.

[Brett Bellmore]

Other accounts have people on the set using that very gun for plinking during breaks in filming.

Alec Baldwin's Gun in 'Rust' Shooting Was Used for Target Practice by Crew Members: Report

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators, do you eat carrots? Maybe you have a bag of carrots laying around, and you're wondering if there is an easy recipe with minimal effort to cook them? Well I have good news for you.....here is an amazingly simple and healthy recipe for those carrots. Takes about an hour to make, start to finish. And mostly that is roasting time.

https://toriavey.com/roasted-carrots-with-dill/

Pro tip: Fresh dill really makes this recipe. You can use dried dill, but it is not as good.

I know as a working parent, I had a hell of a time getting kids to eat healthy with appealing recipes that taste good. Try this one, you'll appreciate Commenter_XY later, I promise. 🙂

[John F. Carr]

The only good use for a carrot is to throw it into a pot and boil it with a stew until all the carrot flavor is gone.

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, well John F. Carr, you should give this one a try. The roasted carrot has a different taste than boiled. 😉

[Brett Bellmore]

I usually throw them in the bottom of the roasting pan when I'm making a meatloaf, (As well as having them grated in it.) Cooking them in the grease really adds a huge amount of flavor.

[Jerry B.]

Anyone else notice the mass of crimes not turned up by a month of microscopic analysis following the release of Trump’s tax returns?

Did the smoking gun turn out to be a wet match?

[bevis the lumberjack]

CNN got off of the Punish Trump!! train long enough to defend Biden. Brought an "expert" on to say "this happens every day".

So, yeah, everyone who's ever worked in DC has top secret documents stored away somewhere on their property. No biggie.

Lol. The double standard (or hell, if it's everybody I guess it's a million standard or something) is laughable. And nobody gives a shit. America's watchdogs circa 2023.

[Sarcastr0]

IIRC you think there is a double standard because people are either honest or dishonest, so Biden and Trump are the same.

Good luck with that.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re right. One had top secret documents and one didn’t. Wait, that’s not it.

Either way it’s ok because everyone does it. Although that one guy should be punished because he’s hateful and nobody likes him.

Do you actually wear a cheerleader outfit when posting to immerse yourself in your role?

[Nige]

'Although that one guy should be punished because he’s hateful and nobody likes him.'

Not why he's being punished. Wait. Is he even being punished?

'Do you actually wear a cheerleader outfit'

We had commenters here gong ballistic about the dreadful calculated deliberate civil-war-triggering injustice inflicted on Trump, but to you, cheerleading for Biden is pointing out the differences between the two cases.

[Sarcastr0]

bevis, I come with facts and arguments. You can disagree, but that's not cheerleading.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Facts. “Trump did a thing and it’s a crime. Biden did that thing but it’s a not a crime because he was nicer about it after he was caught”.

That’s opinion. It’s not fact.

[Nige]

He wasn't 'nicer' about it, he returned the documents when they were discovered and did not have a ragegasm when an investigation was started. If he was being 'nicer' he'd have tied them up with a bow and included a box of chocolates when they were sent back.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

bevis, what exactly is the "thing" that in your mind was a crime for Trump but not for Biden?

[Sarcastr0]

That's actually a strawman, bevis, not an opinion.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, we know already that Biden's not honest, but that's hardly new information. Nor is it new information that he lies like a dog.

There IS an obvious difference between the two cases, which is that Biden sicced the FBI on Trump. And, shockingly, didn't sic them on himself.

[Nige]

Bevis! Here's that cheerleading outfit you were looking for!

[Brett Bellmore]

It probably does literally happen every day; Biden alone has accounted for every day of the last 6 years, remember.

[Nige]

What, lost or mislaid documents being found and returned with minimal fuss? Reinforces the already obvious point that Trump brought all the trouble down on himself.

[Nige]

'The double standard'

What double standard? Biden's being investigated for this, just as Trump is being investigated for what he did, it's just that Biden and his supporters are not having public meltdowns about it. A Trump supporter died attacking an FBI office, for God's sake. Is that the double standrd you;re complaining about? Nobody gives enough of a shit about Biden's documents to die in outrage at them being investigated? You're the worse virtue signaller on this site.

[Ben_]

Most importantly, it’s a guide to completely discount everyone who pretended to care about it before recently changing their mind.

You seem a little surprised. I hope you learn enough so you’re not surprised in future.

[Nige]

Yeah, all the people who CLAIMED to care who are now conspicuouly failing to threaten civil war or attack FBI offices. No surprise there, eh?

[Randal]

Nobody would’ve cared about Trump either, if he'd returned the documents when the archives asked for them way back in May 2021.

For example, nobody cares about the documents he did return. Only the ones he tried to keep.

[not guilty]

I have long wondered what motivated Donald Trump to act as he did regarding the documents found at Mar-a-Lago. Journalist Murray Waas has some interesting observations, including reporting on the special counsel investigation. https://murraywaas.substack.com/p/exclusive-special-counsel-has-questioned

[Bored Lawyer]

I would go with "he's a horses rear-parts" theory. Occam's Razor.

[Ben_]

Probably that he wanted them and knew he had the authority to declassify them on a whim, so there was no problem, despite what deranged partisan haters might say.

How is the prosecution going to prove that Trump didn’t declassify them? Saying they can’t find any evidence the documents were declassified doesn’t prove anything — it leaves the question open.

Trump is only in danger in two scenarios:
1. It can be shown that Trump himself said or acted as if he still believed the documents were classified.
2. Enough Dems involved in the process so that the reasonable doubt standard is ignored because Orange Man Bad. It becomes just another communist-style show trial.

[Nige]

'How is the prosecution going to prove that Trump didn’t declassify them?'

How is Trump going to prove he did, should he make that argument, which he hasn't yet, and which in and of itself did not mean he could keep the documents anyway?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The level of legal analysis at this "legal blog" is remarkable.

Much like the level of education at conservative-controlled campuses.

Carry on, clingers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Presumption of innocence slip your mind?

[Nige]

They're either classified or declassified. It's entirely binary. If there's no evidence they were declassified, then they're still classified. And, again, it makes no actual difference to his not being entitled to keep them, and the rest of the documents. This must be another of those double standards - all the people who pointed this out are now hypocritically NOT claiming Biden telepathically or otherwise declassified the classifed documents he returned.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If there’s no evidence they were declassified, then they’re still classified."

And there's your presumption of guilt, right there.

If there are two ways I could do something, one criminal, the other not criminal, and you can't prove which way it went down, I get the presumption of innocence. You actually need to prove he didn't declassify them, since he legally had that power, and if he did, he's in the clear.

We're not talking about telepathic declassification here. We're talking about flunkies getting an order and ignoring it.

[Nige]

'You actually need to prove he didn’t declassify them,'

No, I don't, since the classified status had nothing to do with his posession of them being illegal. If HE wants to argue they weren't classified, he's going to have to prove it.

'You have to believe me when I say I declassified whatever classified documents you find in my possession' does sound like a Trumpian legal argument - I'll leave it to the courts to decide on its merits, should he decide to make it.

'We’re talking about flunkies getting an order and ignoring it.'

That seems to be an explanation you completely made up. Regardless, there should still exist some sort of copy of the order to declassify them. If he can't prove he issued such an order for the spcific classified documents in his possession, then he can't prove anything.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, it is not a presumption of guilt.

The government first can prove they were classified at one point. Which is pretty much a given, but technically the government has to prove it.

The jury can presume from that that until they are DEclassifed, they remained classified.

It's the same if a defendant shot someone, and then claims he was already dead. It's enough for the State in a murder trial to prove he was alive shortly prior to the shot. The defendant then has to prove, no, he happened to die (or was killed by someone else) between the time of the State's evidence, and the shooting.

[Ben_]

Alive versus dead isn’t something that can be whimsically and effortlessly changed. Declassification of documents is.

[Randal]

Well, no. You have to actually do it, which requires, at minimum, telling someone.

[Voize]

if he did, he’s in the clear

The fact that they were classified is evidence that an executive branch expert determined they contained information damaging to national security, which is what the Espionage Act cares about. Trump declassifying them doesn't change that unless he shows he did it because they were no longer sensitive.

[Ben_]

The defense doesn’t have to show anything.

[Voize]

True, they can let the prosecution's evidence remain uncontroverted and live with the result.

[Ben_]

And if the prosecution doesn’t present any evidence that the declassification didn’t occur, then there’s no evidence at all that the documents are still classified.

[David Nieporent]

Ben_ is either not a lawyer or not a competent one. The prosecution doesn't have to present evidence that declassification didn't occur (what would that even mean?) any more than it has to present evidence that the documents weren't planted.

If the defense came forward with some evidence in favor of one of those theories, then the prosecution might be required to refute it. But until it does, the prosecution doesn't have to do anything; it isn't required to proactively negate every hypothetical alternate explanation.

[Ben_]

All the analogies to other situations are dumb. If the accused can, at any time, with zero effort, make a decision that what he’s doing isn’t a crime, then why wouldn’t he? Anyone would.

Reasonable doubt is already built in.

To prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to overcome that with evidence. They likely don’t have any.

[not guilty]

Whether the documents were or were not classified is a red hearing. Don't forget, statutes matter. Several federal statutes relevant to Donald Trump's conduct vis-a-vis the documents, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071, 1519, 371 and 1001, do not distinguish between classified and unclassified materials.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m with BL. Trump is an obnoxious asshole who responds to the most innocuous insult/accusation with furious denial. He reacts so reflexively that his arguments are frequently ridiculous. It’s almost a pathology with the guy.

[SKofNJ]

Why hasn't there been a blog post about Sheila Jackson Lee's proposed law to ban speech that might lead to "white supremacist" conduct?

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably because, "Forget it, Jake, it's Sheila Jackson Lee."

[Estragon]

It’s included in the same post about Florida banning AP African American studies

[M L]

Woman gets choked to death by hospital security for wearing her COVID mask too low. Video shows security camera was intentionally turned away as assault takes place. Judge dismisses charges

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/stephanie-warriner-charges-1.6710644

[M L]

CNBC International Managing Editor threatens to punch out actual journalist for asking him a question.

https://twitter.com/OzraeliAvi/status/1615322999728603136

[Sarcastr0]

By actual journalist, do you mean the world’s proudest Jewish Nazi guy?

[M L]

Probably, I guess right wing means Nazi now. Or maybe it's just a general insult. Your mom is a Nazi.

[Sarcastr0]

No, ML, that's what your guy called *himself.*

[M L]

Does your dishonesty know no bounds? Or will you admit that you are mistaken and maybe you were misled?

You are close to becoming Kirkland-level and unworthy of responding to. Sad because you used to be at least a little better.

https://twitter.com/ozraeliavi/status/1138552159505543168

https://www.9news.com.au/national/jewish-organiser-of-melbourne-hard-right-rally-disgusted-over-nazi-label/3b726518-343f-4c18-985b-ec014e915295

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You, M L, are the fan this bigot-hugging, white, male, right-wing blog deserves.

And cultivates.

But neither you nor the Volokh Conspiracy is a problem replacement won't solve.

[Sarcastr0]

At a protest for the jailing of Tommy Robinson, calling yourself a Nazi? Heckuva joke to choose.

Does this look like a joke to you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN_6fQntIXg

Bottom line: this guy is a clown.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No matter what the left call us,"

So, yeah, he was being sarcastic, it was a reference to being called a NAZI by the left.

You'd think somebody who calls themselves "Sarcastr0" would pick up on sarcasm.

[M L]

He's become a parody of himself.

[M L]

Pfizer CEO is asked: How long did you know that the vaccines don't prevent transmission?

https://twitter.com/OzraeliAvi/status/1615768882014310400

[jb]

Assuming the linked article is correct, that video is six minutes of him not being baited into answering a stupid question. Is there something more interesting that happens during the course of the video?

P.S. OMFG, is it possible you or anyone else still doesn't understand that vaccines decrease the probability of things not reduce risk by 100% and that's till okay and valuable?

[M L]

If the Pfizer CEO's previous statements are as the interviewer claims, then the Pfizer CEO lied. He would certainly be in the company of numerous others who have made such statements.

[jb]

Seems like a more interesting video would be showing what he actually said in the past and comparing it to the reality.

I feel quite confident that the Pfizer CEO never said the vaccine was 100% effective, which is one of the early claims made here. That doesn't make me want to just assume everything else he says is a good quote that proves the Pfizer guy is a liar.

[M L]

I agree on the first point.

I liked how they pointed out that in the past Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion for deceptive marketing practices.

Big Pharma is very virtuous you know.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disgusting, un-American jerk and disgraced loser (former) Prof. John Eastman is back in the news.

Is he lining up character witnesses for a sentencing hearing?

Prof. Bainbridge also considers Eastman "a person of high integrity."

[not guilty]

Interesting stuff about John Eastman. He is a likely defendant in Fulton County, Georgia. Any conviction there will not be subject to a presidential pardon by a future Republican president (if there is one).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Will we see Alan Dershowitz and Eugene Volokh as the all-star tag team for the defense in Eastman’s criminal trial? Maybe Associate Justice Thomas working — formally or informally — for the defense, too?

[Ben_]

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2023/01/18/woke-velma-sparks-conspiracy-theories-of-being-a-right-wing-psy-op/

American entertainment industry struggles with values. Turns out that even the small percentage of woke true believers aren’t actually entertained by the grievance-pushing.

They can’t write contemporary stories without this BS because they’ll get (socially) canceled. So all you’ll see is failures like this, historical stories, and pure fantasy. They’ll throw in token characters into the histories and fantasies to keep the mafia away so they can still engage in their craft.

Meanwhile foreign entertainers don’t face the same problems. They can focus on entertaining audiences. Look forward to seeing more, better content from Asia and Japan. Also some from Northern Europe. Less from Great Britain, Hollywood, Vancouver, and anywhere else infected with wokeness.

[Nige]

'They’ll throw in token characters into the histories and fantasies'

Exactly what sorts of 'token' characters did not exist in history and do not exist in fantasy?

From the link:
'“Velma is not defensible by any stretch of the imagination. It’s just bad. Making progressive jokes is fine so long as the jokes are good. They are not good,” wrote Tassi.'

Hmm, bad show is bad. How 'woke' of them to 'cancel' a show they think is bad!

Do all the succesful stories with 'token' characters in them somehow not count?

[Ben_]

You are really, really interested in token characters added to appease woke mafia types rather than to make the story better. You think that entertaining audiences is secondary in entertainment content.

What should Americans think about people like you who push adulterated content? Not friendly thoughts.

[Nige]

No, I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you mean. What 'token' characters didn't exist in history and don't exist in fantasy such that including them in stories makes the stories less entertaining?

'push adulterated content'

What counts as adulterated content to an American audience?

[Ben_]

Keep asking questions that don’t have anything to do with whether audiences are entertained.

[Nige]

Audiences seem plenty entertained, and they you have shown that quite capable of being vociferous about it when they aren't. It's your claim that certain elements render stories less entertaining, I'm just asking you to be specific about what you're talking about with such passionate conviction.

[Ben_]

Audiences don’t have to clear these things with you.

[Nige]

Beginning to suspect you might not have your finger on the pulse of what audeinces like you seem to think you have.

[Randal]

Ben, all Nige did was ask you what you meant by "token characters." You don't seem to know. I don't know. Is it just a meaningless rambling, or did you have some sort of point that you want to clarify?

[Sarcastr0]

Everyone hates that show. In a bi-and-non-partisan fashion. There are theories it was created to get hate-watch views.

If your hate runs as a white oppression narrative, that's you.

You do know that Hollywood dominates the box office worldwide, yes? Additional cultural constraints or no, they're doing fine.

[Ben_]

"There are theories it was created to get hate-watch views."

Even the meta-story about that show is extremely lame.

[Mr. Bumble]

Without comment.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/supreme-court-releases-report-of-investigation-into-dobbs-decision-leak

[SRG]

From WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/19/supreme-court-leak-roberts/

This is, IMO, the killer sentence: "The report did not indicate clearly whether the justices themselves were questioned"

So we can narrow the possible leakers down to 9 (or 8 if one gives Roberts the benefit of the doubt, which I am inclined to).

[Brett Bellmore]

All the "killer sentence" tells us is that somebody at the WaPo wanted to imply that a Justice leaked it, nothing more.

[M L]

Hunter Biden Lived in Wilmington House with Classified Documents While Bagging Millions Linked to the Highest Levels of Chinese Intelligence

While addicted to drugs, cavorting with prostitutes, and making deals with businessmen tied to the highest levels of Chinese intelligence, Hunter Biden lived in the house where Joe Biden stored classified documents.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/01/18/exclusive-hunter-biden-lived-in-wilmington-house-with-classified-documents-while-bagging-millions-linked-to-the-highest-levels-of-chinese-intelligence/

[SRG]

Hunter Biden - the new Benghazi

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sure, man. All of those foreign entities were piling cash on Hunter for advice on Russian hookers and on mixing your coke for the best high. You know, his areas of expertise.

[M L]

Imagine if Trump Jr. got even ten dollars from linked to the highest levels of foreign intelligence.

[Nige]

His daddy still wouldn't love him.

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports that the Supreme Court today announced that an internal investigation has failed to identify the person who leaked a draft of the opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/us/politics/supreme-court-leak-roe.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20230119&instance_id=83113&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=122944&te=1&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

The Times report states that the court’s marshal, responsible for overseeing the inquiry, said that investigators had conducted 126 formal interviews of 97 employees, all of whom had denied being the source of the leak. Investigators also found no forensic evidence by examining the court’s “computer devices, networks, printers and available call and text logs”. It does not indicate whether justices or their spouses were questioned.

If I may speculate a bit, cui bono? Chief Justice Roberts would have upheld the challenged Mississippi statutes without overruling Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. If the Chief could have persuaded one other justice to join him, that would have become the controlling opinion pursuant to Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.) The premature release of the draft Alito opinion may have been intended to shore up a tenuous majority in favor of abrogating Roe and Casey.

Virginia Thomas, I'm looking at you.

[Mr. Bumble]

You can look all you want but it seems as if the answer won't be forthcoming.
Move along. Nothing to see here. Move along. Water over the dam or under the bridge. Move along.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I've been enjoying the 20th anniversary articles posted at The Balkinization blog. Interesting writing on a wide variety of topics.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a shame Jack got tired of people disagreeing with him in the comments, and closed them to all but contributors. (Who never use them!) There used to be some lively discussions of the posts there at one time.

Alas, there was a trend starting in the 2010's of left-wing blogs either shutting down their comments, closing them to a tiny group, or imposing Eastern European levels of ideological moderation. I guess the leading edge of the left's abandonment of free speech.

[Randal]

Oh please. Right-wing blogs work the same way. People like echo-chambers, it's human nature.

VC is one of the few exceptions.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously? I've never encountered a right-wing blog that was similarly bad.

I don't doubt that there are a few like that, but the right wing blogs I frequent, such as Instapundit, tend to have virtually no moderation at all, aside from deleting spam.

[Randal]

Wow. There are some truly stupid people on that site! Flat-earth sorts.

[Brett Bellmore]

Left-wingers, too, and they don't get censored.

[Absaroka]

It has happened before, for example with a 1966 trial of an RSV vaccine:

"In 1966, a vaccine was tested in the United States against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — which infects almost all children before they turn two1. The tests had dire consequences: Children weren't protected; many infants still caught RSV, suffered worse symptoms than usual, and needed to be hospitalized; and two toddlers died as a result of enhanced disease symptoms"

ISTR other examples from the 1950's, but it's hard to search - searches for vaccine problems get mostly covid vaccine hysteria.

(and to be clear, that a vaccine didn't work out isn't evidence that vaccines are bad. Back when seat belt laws were knew, you'd find people swearing that seat belts were dangerous because their Uncle Ralph only survived a fiery wreck because he wasn't wearing a seat belt, and that didn't make sense either)

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Brett, I don't think he shut down comments because people were disagreeing with him. I think it was because the comments were being used to make partisan, non-academically rigorous arguments, as happens here.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/TheQuartering/status/1616179410356568064?

Video of Biden frenching his granddaughter and feeling up her boob.

Sickening.

[David Nieporent]

Shockingly, right wing incel who spends all his time thinking about gay sex does not know where breasts are located on the female body.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Holy hell. A Texas Republican just introduced a bill to prohibit citizens of China, Iran, North Korea and Russia from buying property in Texas. Republican lovers of liberty in action.

[dwb68]

Reminder that the UK does not protect rights, not even the first amendment:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/17/donelan-confirms-stiffer-online-safety-measures-after-backbench-pressure

Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content that all tech platforms must proactively prevent from reaching users.

Donelan said posting positive videos of crossings could be aiding and abetting immigration offences. Natalie Elphicke, the Conservative MP for Dover, had originally tabled an amendment proposing the change.

[Randal]

the UK does not protect… the first amendment

I was really hoping you didn’t actually mean that. But you did. Thanks for my daily chortle.

[not guilty]

U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks in the Southern District of Florida has invoked the inherent authority of the court to impose sanctions of $937,989.39 against Donald Trump and his lawyer Alina Habba, jointly and severally, for their pursuit of a frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and thirty other individuals and entities. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157.302.0.pdf

It appears that Mr. Trump and Ms. Habba have disregarded Molly Ivins' First Rule of Holes: stop digging!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A Clevend Clinic study just came out and its findings were the more vaccines you had the more likely you were to get COVID.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/very-large-cleveland-clinic-study?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=auto_share&r=o7iqo

lmao, eat shit vaxxies. No refunds.

[Nige]

Am I going to click through that link to the study to find there's a correlation with most of the people catching new covid variants being vaccinated and boosted because most people are vaccinated and boosted? Because I'd hate to think you were that dumb.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would expect it's more like, the more vulnerable you are, the more obsessive you were about getting vaccinated.

But, relevantly, maybe, recent findings indicate that the new bivalent vaccine is something of a bust, due to immune imprinting. People who were previously exposed to or vaccinated against the earlier strain included in it gained no additional immunity to the newer strain. And after a few boosts, even stopped getting additional resistance to the older strain, too.

Apparently when you're trying to teach the immune system to be on the look-out for something new, it's a really bad idea to distract it with something old at the same time.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It was a study of Cleveland Clinic employees.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Apparently you think scientists and researchers at Cleveland Clinic are that dumb.

tRuST ThE SciEnCE (except when it doesn't align with my beliefs!)

[Sarcastr0]

No one said it was bad science, only that *your interpretation* of the result was that dumb.

And Steve Kirsch the vax denier is that dumb. Which is absolutely true.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think smart people attack the messenger like you're doing? Or do they prefer to attack arguments and claims, like you're not doing?

I mean if there were two categories of people: smart and dumb, where would you put people who relied up attacking the messenger?

In the smart group, or in the dumb group?

[Sarcastr0]

I made a logical distinction between what you think people said and what they actually did say.

I personally do think you’re too dumb to note the comments above about sample bias when you take the results as you did.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Go look at Randal's comment regarding the study. He's not on my team.

Then come back and reflect upon how utterly stupid you and people like Nige look acting on thin, blue-anon tropes and memes alone and not having enough integrity to check for yourself.

One of their findings was just as I stated.

[Ben_]

If right wingers made a parody of those guys, would anything be any different than what the real people actually do?

It wouldn’t be funny because they’re just sad conspiracy theorist assholes. Sad assholishness amuses no one.

[Randal]

Ben, as a Republican vice-president once said long before you were born, it’s a terrible thing to lose one’s mind... or not to have a mind at all. How true that is.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And Steve Kirsch the vax denier is that dumb. Which is absolutely true.

Dude, I can still see that in your comment. It sitting right there and you're acting like no one can read what you wrote.

[Ben_]

Sarcastr0 cares a lot about social acceptance (among his leftist peers) of speakers. Facts are comparatively unimportant to Sarcastr0.

Obviously you can see that here. What does Sarcastr0 care about? Not the efficacy of vaccines. No. He didn’t comment on that. Sarcastr0's interest is dividing messengers into good guys and bad guys with zero regard to facts or knowledge.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yawn. Boring personal attack. Contributes nothing.

[Randal]

Looking at the study, it’s a little more nuanced than Charlie is saying, but he’s basically right.

Caveats: It’s just one study, this result wasn’t the focus of the study (it’s just an interesting note they made about a pattern they discovered in their data), and it’s a preprint (not yet peer-reviewed). That said, it passes my sniff test for legitimacy.

The specific findings are that the bivalent vaccine is effective against its intended variant, Omicron, but only 30% effective (which they hypothesize may be because people are already largely immune anyway due to having been previously infected).

They also reiterate that the original vaccines were effective against the original strains.

But their data does show that the original vaccines increase your risk of getting infected by Omicron by quite a bit.

Again, this wasn’t the point of the study. They don’t propose any mechanism for the result, and they don’t attempt to control for any extraneous or confounding variables (like Brett’s theory that it’s due to a correlation between getting vaccinated and being vulnerable). So they don’t state it as a conclusion, just as an offhand observation requiring further study.

But yeah, given the magnitude of the effect, I think it’s likely to be confirmed.

[Randal]

This is in no way meant to suggest that either Charlie or Steve Kirsch is not dumb. A stopped clock being what it is and all. 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not impossible for a vaccine to make things worse. For instance, if you just stupidly made a standard vaccine against HIV, it would probably make HIV much, much worse, because that virus specifically is attacking immune cells. Anything that draws the immune system's attention to the virus is counter-productive.

I haven't heard of anything like that going on with Covid, but it's not impossible.

[Randal]

Yeah, there’s lots of possibilities. It could be something like that, or your previous theory, or something where the vaccine did prevent pre-Omicron infections, but previous infections are better protection against Omicron. Or like, when your body sees Omicron, it sends out its old-school antibodies, which don’t work on Omicron, and by the time it adjusts, you’re infected. Most likely, a combination of things.

It’ll be interesting to see where this goes with future studies.

But, you know, it’s also worth noting that like Steve Kirsch’s take is a stupid one. He’s jumped straight to “everybody lied!” Which, no, the vaccines totally served their purpose of blunting the impact of the pandemic when it was a real problem.

The silver lining is that the people who think like Steve largely comprise the MAGA crew, and Trump is on the wrong side of this issue in their eyes. This will make it even harder for Trump to justify his support for these vaccines to his base.

[Randal]

You guys probably don't care about this at all, huh.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64348902

Ron DeSantis government bans new advanced African American history course

Or more likely, you guys probably think it's great. Anyone willing to call out DeSantis's censorship?

[M L]

I would not support banning a class or course or information. That's terrible.

Of course when it comes to government schools, the government decides what is taught in those schools. And hopefully they make good and beneficial choices.

But do we really need the government to run education?

[Brett Bellmore]

I notice an almost complete lack of any information about the content of the course. Does the author actually think that it's categorically impossible that there could be anything wrong with the course? They give that impression.

"However, one of the developers of the AP African American studies course had previously told Time magazine that the class does not teach "critical race theory"."

And if they said that, it absolutely must be true, right?

[Randal]

You might have a point… if DeSantis had banned the course due to its content. But:

A statement by a spokesperson for Florida’s Republican governor DeSantis said the course “leaves large, ambiguous gaps that can be filled with additional ideological material, which we will not allow”.

That is the lamest excuse to censor something I’ve ever heard. There’s nothing actually wrong with it, but a teacher might accompany it with independent ideological material? Isn’t that always possible? What the fuck is an ambiguous gap?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Fill in the blank" is content, in a meta sort of way. Basically the adverse action was because they wouldn't say what was going to be taught.

[Randal]

Basically the adverse action was because they wouldn’t say what was going to be taught.

Are you saying that because you have some info, or just spitballing?

If we're spitballing, my spitball is that DeSantis was like well, what does it say about white people? And the College Board was all, it doesn't say anything about white people, or brown people or yellow people or blue people, for that matter. It's a course about African American history. So DeSantis banned it. It's gotta say actively nice things about white people or it's illegal.

[M L]

This is a very interesting bit by Tucker Carlson that someone posted under one the main Reason articles.

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1616248246938271744

[David Nieporent]

Other than the fact that someone can be so brazen a liar, what's interesting about it?

[M L]

Which liar are you referring to? Bob Woodward? I don't think there are any such specific claims in this clip but I'd be interested to know more.

/Sarcasm but let's have it already. What are the lies Mr. Dependable Bootlicker?

By the way, people reading who dislike Tucker Carlson should try to set that aside and avoid letting it color a topic such as this.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Isn't he the guy who escaped a defamation lawsuit because the judge ruled his audience should know that he isn't stating actual facts in his show? I suppose being a liar isn't always a bad thing.

[Randal]

Before Hamline, remember anti-Zionist Berkeley and "the apartheid state of Israel?" Here's Netanyahu's new gov't:

“The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right over all areas of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan and Judea and Samaria,” the latter referring to the occupied West Bank.

That ties Zionism pretty tightly to apartheid. Some sort of magical, equitable Zionism is looking less and less plausible.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the Biden document count is still rising. He's been doing this a while, apparently he was taking home classified documents while in the Senate, too. And apparently the DNC has given the media the go-ahead to notice that a drug addicted idiot with extensive dealings with strategic enemies would have had uncontrolled access to them.

Looks like they're preparing to make sure Biden isn't the 2024 nominee.

Meanwhile Antifa is burning down Atlanta. Think the local idiots will have the gall to claim it's actually the Proud Boys setting the fires?