Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

It appears that some Republican state legislators in Georgia are playing Calvinball with Fani Willis and her fellow District Attorneys. https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20232024/216780 Shame on them.

[Commenter_XY]

What's your objection, not guilty? Is it a law?

[not guilty]

Right now it's just a bill. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=schoolhouse+rock+bill&docid=608054476526345050&mid=139FA145BEE70B1B7B2D139FA145BEE70B1B7B2D&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

It is inappropriate IMO for the governor and legislators to interfere with the exercise of professional judgment and discretion by popularly elected prosecutors. Indeed, the lieutenant governor -- who himself is a target of investigation in Atlanta -- is authorized to make an appointment to the proposed commission's investigative panel.

The bill lacks procedural safeguards sufficient to ensure compliance with due process guaranties -- that task is left to the commission itself under subsection (g). The substantive criteria for discipline are vague and amorphous, including such phrases as "willful misconduct in office" and "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute". There is no subpoena power or other compulsory provided, no discovery mechanisms, no specification of the applicable standard of proof, and no judicial review of the commission's action.

It is more than a bit curious that this proposal was not made until fourteen minority prosecutors were elected in 2020.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, the simple response is: It ain't a law (yet).

Prosecutors are elected, as you say. Therefore, the job is inherently political. This is the shit that happens in politics. There are a lot of dumb bills that get written. Personally, because it is an elected position, my preference is to leave the 'removal' decision to the voters.

[Mr. Bumble]

"There are a lot of dumb bills that get written. ..." and a lot of dumb pols that get elected (including prosecutors and judges).

[Armchair Lawyer]

Seems to be a lot of objecting to bills that aren't actually laws lately...

[Sarcastr0]

That’s a pretty normal thing to do, actually.

Seems lots of Republicans hiding the horrible shit they are planning behind it not yet being law, at which point it’s too late.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not really. National level objecting to state-level bills? Very odd.

Seems people are just trying to prime the outrage pump.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes state politics has been of national concern for a while now. Accelerated since Dobbs.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Politics, passed laws? sure.

Just the bills, before anything has actually passed? Not really.

[Sarcastr0]

You are just wrong. State level bills that are bad have been national news since I was a child. Generally if they have some party behind them, but sometimes just for being so batshit.

It has accelerated but it is not some new political tactic. Maybe you just find what the GOP is doing these days to be more shameful than in the past.

[OtisAH]

How exactly do you think bad bills are defeated before they become bad law?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm sure you have plenty of examples from say, 2003, of national level debates over state level bills if this is so common.

I'll wait for your links to show up.

[ThanksForTheFish]

Really? I remember a lot of national level objections when various states were proposing anti-abortion bills.

[bernard11]

So much for local control.

As always, the GOP is all about it as long as the locals do what they want.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What’s your objection, not guilty?"

It might interfere with his Trump sexual fantasy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that (a) the urban electorate does not reflect those who work in these cities and (b) who George Soros is funding.

[jb]

Dog whistles about both blacks and Jews aside, your proposition is that commuters should somehow get special representation both where they live and where they work?

Just curious: do you think we should have special oversight of elected officials in college towns, since the voters don't represent the students who go to school there?

[Dr. Ed 2]

College students *can* vote in the college town if they want to, most don’t. But this is a bigger issue in summer resort communities where 80%-90% of the taxpayers are not year-round residents and hence *can’t* vote. One historical approach (because the non-residents were the political elite of the state) was to create a municipal corporation — https://www.dedhamme.org/index.asp?SEC=2CCF7E26-5C86-4C0A-BBA3-A05D4FEB2723&Type=B_BASIC

But urban DAs who refuse to prosecute basic street crime are a real problem for suburban residents who have to travel into these cities it is a real concern and I don’t have a problem with them asking the state to address it.

There’s really no difference between the urban violence of today and the rural violence of the Jim Crow South in so much as the local voters tacitly approve of it. It may be economically motivated today where it was racially motivated back then, but the issue in both cases is that the local voters tacitly approve of it, and those victimized by it can’t vote.

Hence, in both cases, the only solution is for the larger government to step in.

And as to your other question, remember that there was a time when there were property requirements for voting. So, theoretically, if you own property in two communities, you ought to be able to vote in each community's election -- although it's probably easier to give folk a say through their state rep which is what is being proposed here.

[John F. Carr]

Based on its text the law appears to be in response to the dispute in Florida over removal of a prosecutor who implied a non-prosecution policy for crimes liberals did not want enforced.

[not guilty]

I don't think so. https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/prosecutor-fani-willis-is-investigating-trump-by-sheer-coincidence-the-ga-legislature-has-decided-to-investigate-prosecutors/

I have read -- I don't recall where -- that some Democratic Georgia legislators proposed an oversight body for prosecutors in the wake of shenanigans regarding the initial refusal to prosecute the killers of Ahmaud Arbery, but that went nowhere. The instant Republican sponsored effort is about covering Donald Trump's backside.

[John F. Carr]

Willis herself says the motive is racism, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which also notes a dispute over enforcement priorities much like the one in Florida.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Willis herself says the motive is racism"

OMG, that is unexpected. The race card, don't accept office without it.

[David Nieporent]

The instant Republican sponsored effort is about covering Donald Trump’s backside.

No, it isn't. It's about overruling/punishing prosecutors who don't want to prosecute things like abortion.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Or is it about prosecutors unilaterally making shoplifting a legal form of shopping? That’s happened in several cities.

[OtisAH]

Such as…?

[John F. Carr]

SF or the Bay Area in general is the most commonly cited example.

In Massachusetts shoplifting under $250 is a fine only offense and not ordinary larceny. It's not going to be an enforcement priority. We do not have the level of complaints that I hear about California.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What Massachusetts has is the civil suit though -- memory is that the retailer can sue for treble damages although it is more of a problem than you might think.

[OtisAH]

How does “not an enforcement priority” translate to “a legal form of shopping”?

[ragebot]

OtisAH lets start with that shithole libtard city Portland.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/walmart-has-completely-exited-a-major-us-city/ar-AA18pK50

[Randal]

Oh my god you guys are dumb. And you claim to be low-tax capitalists (I assume)!

Guess what's fucking expensive? Cops. Also? Courts. Also? Prosecutors. Also? Jails and prisons.

It doesn't make economic sense to subsidize Wal-Mart's business model. Shoplifting is a problem in urban areas. It's one of the more minor problems. We already have high taxes for dealing with all the other problems.

If Wal-Mart wants to put a lot of easily-stolen goods out in the open, they should pay for the necessary security. If that's not a viable business model, so be it. That's what Amazon is for. Shoplifting problem solved.

This isn't a pro-criminal thing. It's a pro-free-market thing.

[ducksalad]

"That’s what Amazon is for."

Guess the porch pirates haven't reached your neighborhood yet.

[bernard11]

Tell us, John, has that been an issue in GA, aside from the Arbery case, I mean.

[Bob from Ohio]

Welcome to the big leagues Fani!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How is life in the minors, Bob from Ohio?

if you don’t want to say, Jenna Ellis can speak for all washouts.

[Kazinski]

I happened watch the Tucker Carlson show day before yesterday when I was flipping through channels at a motel, and I watched some of the tapes.

The most interesting is the tapes of the QAnon Shaman which shows a Brady violation by the prosecutors:
"Albert Watkins, whose client Jacob Chansley pleaded guilty to felony charges in connection with the Capitol riot and was sentenced to 41 months in prison, said Department of Justice prosecutors were legally bound to turn over the footage. Clips shown on Carlson’s Fox News Channel program show Chansley walking freely and peaceably through the building, often accompanied by multiple police officers."
https://www.dailywire.com/news/its-appalling-qanon-shamans-lawyer-says-doj-lied-withheld-videos-aired-by-carlson

Chansley as part of his plea bargain waived his right to appeal his sentence, but I wonder what his recourse his when his rights to a fair trial were flagrantly violated?

The other interesting thing I saw was a tape of Ray Epps outside the capital at a time he has testified under oath that he had already left the capitol and had gone back to his hotel.

That will be interesting, I'm not holding my breath for the DOJ to charge him, but Congress should certainly call him back to testify before an appropriate committee to have him clarify his testimony and answer followup questions.
https://bbcgossip.com/news/tucker-carlson-ray-epps-lied-to-january-6-committee-about-when-he-left-capitol/?amp=1

[not guilty]

"Chansley as part of his plea bargain waived his right to appeal his sentence, but I wonder what his recourse his when his rights to a fair trial were flagrantly violated?"

I am skeptical that any Brady violation occurred, but if it did, Mr. Chansley's recourse would be governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Since more than a year has passed since his November 2021 sentencing, he would have to show that he filed his claims within one year of the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

The facts which Mr. Chansley admitted by pleading guilty are set forth here. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1430996/download

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, I would like to ask you about the legal tactics. You were a criminal defense attorney for 28 years, right? I figure you can just tell me the straight and narrow from a criminal defense attorney perspective.

Put yourself in Albert Watkins' shoes, for a moment, as a thought experiment. You see this new footage that you never saw before. What do you do? How do you get a new trial? I am asking how not guilty [yes, you! :)]will go about doing this.

As I understand this, the reason the footage was not available to Albert Watkins was because Congress did not turn the footage over to the DOJ. So there is no way that the DOJ can give something to the defense they never had, right? Therefore, no Brady violation. Do I have that right? Pretty smart.

Is that a deliberate legal tactic? And how does a good criminal defense attorney understand that it is being done, and then get around it? I am asking the question from the perspective of how this actually works in real life....not the politics.

I learn from your legal cites. I'd like your perspective on how it really works in the trenches.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, I thought the requirement was that the prosecution turn over exculpatory evidence. Evidence that someone at the scene of his own crimes was not at every moment doing something criminal is not exculpatory. Although I suppose a case could be made that just walking around peaceably, or even chatting with police, after breaking and entering, is criminal conduct.

[Armchair Lawyer]

One of the potential defenses here is entrapment.

One could argue that if the police were literally opening the doors for an individual who had peacefully entered the Capitol, and helping to usher them through, they were engaging in a form of entrapment, if the person was later prosecuted for trespassing (or one of the variants thereof).

[Sarcastr0]

And yet no one is arguing that…Almost as though once you break in and assault police one of them not trying to take on a mob and waiving you away from the people you came to assault doesn’t cure you wrongdoing.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Actually, some of the defenses are arguing that. You need to keep up to date.

This new footage may help the cases of many others. Many entered the Capitol peacefully, and didn't engage in any violence. Yet they were charged anyway.

If an area is marked "No Trespassing," but a cop removes the barrier to that area to let you through, and makes hand motions to go through...then charges you with some variant of trespassing later. That looks like entrapment.

[Sarcastr0]

Tucker lies and deceptively edits. His bullshit isn’t going to change anything. If there are new facts to be revealed they will come out independent.

Kevin doesn’t think there will be new facts hence spinning up Tucker.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Actually, there’s evidence the January 6th committee deceptively edited footage by adding sound to CCTV circuits. You're aware of this, yes?

I’m unaware of any evidence that Tucker has deceptively edited this footage.

[Brett Bellmore]

Deceptively edits by leaving in the footage that the Jan. 6th committee omitted. How dare he lie by adding context!

[Sarcastr0]

Haha yes that’s exactly what Tucker did, Brett. Just added context!

Oh wow.

[OtisAH]

The funniest thing about this daily stream of nonsense from all the same characters on all the same topics is that these jokers don’t do this for their careers. They’re not MAGA Party reps. They don’t work for think tanks. They just enjoy being twats on the internet.

“Say what you will about the tenets of a career in propaganda, at least it’s an ethos…”

[Kazinski]

Well we already have a new fact, that capitol police, 3 or 4 at time, were escorting the QAnon Shaman around the capitol building opening doors for him.

As for being selectively edited, they actually aren’t, not at least most of the ones of Chansley, they show from the beginning walking into a room with police officers escorting him and continue through until he exits the room.

But in any case, one thing you can’t dispute it's these tapes were not disclosed to the defense, and it’s undisputed that the prosecutors had access and reviewed them.

[Sarcastr0]

Not new facts, not even really material facts, limited as they are. I'm quite pro defense, but this is not Brady, chief.

Walking into a room...How did he get there, I wonder? Where did he go later? Do you even care?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's like an officer waving you through a red light -- the officer takes precedent over the light or sign.

No, the officer isn't expected to stand in front of the 50 ton truck and get run over, but if he appears to give the driver permission to proceed, he can't then cite the driver for running the red light.

[Bwaaah]

"once you break in and assault police"

In reading the U.S. Attorney's "Statement of Offense in Support of Guilty Plea," I don't see any indication of him having "broken in" or having "assaulted police."

Where did you get those assertions? Were you referring to "them," not him?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Sarcastr0 is a government bootlicker and literally lies and makes shit up so no one ever sees any Federal in any bad light. His nickname around here is Gaslightr0.

[shawn_dude]

If you enter someone’s home without permission, even if the front door is unlocked, you’re trespassing. “Breaking in” is entering without permission with the intent to commit a crime. You don’t need to actually break something. So with that in mind, scroll to the part where the capital was surrounded by barriers staffed by police officers trying to keep people out. If you step over a smashed barrier and avoid the unconscious officer recovering from assault to enter via the door unlocked by someone smashing a window first, you have no reasonable defense against trespass.

According to the NYT: “Among the first rioters to break into the Capitol, Mr. Chansley was arrested three days later and charged with civil disorder, obstruction, disorderly conduct in a restricted building and demonstrating in a Capitol building. Prosecutors say that while he was in the Senate chamber, he left a note on the desk of Vice President Mike Pence saying, “It’s only a matter of time, justice is coming.”” …all of this while people chanted “Hang Mike Pence!”

Police did ask him to leave and he refused stating "Mike Pence is a fucking traitor!" He pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding.

As for assaulting police, I don’t see that charge here, though he was part of a violent mob that did assault police. DC laws may or may not attach some responsibility to him for that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, what if you stepped over the barrier for the purpose of attempting to assist/aid said unconscious police officer?

I'd have done that, a lot of people would have done that -- and likely without working cell service, I'd have called for help on the officer's own radio.

I know how a *normal* police department would respond to that, but lord knows about the CHPD. Probably they'd shoot you...

And you'd consider me a criminal. Lovely....

[Sarcastr0]

If things were utterly different, then maybe this dude would be in a different situation.

Your mind works in such weird ways with truth and fiction.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do you think he was unaware of his own conduct that day? How about his lawyer? Are you suggesting that they didn't think about offering that as a defense because they somehow forgot what he did or didn't do?

This is just another example of why you're not a lawyer.

You're aware of course, that Tucker Carlson is not considered a reliable or trustworthy source by his own employer? Why you're willing to place any faith in his statements when his own employer says he's full of shit speaks volumes to your stupidity.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I think they took a plea deal, based on the evidence they had.

Perhaps if they had more footage ahead of time, demonstrating more thoroughly the entrapment, they would not have. It can be difficult to prove entrapment. Having footage of the police literally opening doors for you to go through would've been quite helpful.

[shawn_dude]

Entrapment?!

He was one of the first people to cross the smashed police line trying to keep him and the rest of the mob out. He entered the building through a smashed door. He went to the Senate, climbed up to Pence's chair and refused police requests for him to leave. Then he wrote a note threatening Pence and prayed. He was trying to prevent Congress from certifying the electoral vote.

Can you be entrapped *after* breaking and entering with the intent of committing a crime? Doesn't the entrapment have to come first?

[Armchair Lawyer]

The police were literally opening doors for him, according to the video. Two police officers. Just him. No attempt to arrest or remove the suspect.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Do you think he was unaware of his own conduct that day? How about his lawyer? Are you suggesting that they didn’t think about offering that as a defense because they somehow forgot what he did or didn’t do?

Are you really so brain damaged that you don't comprehend the difference between an unsubstantiated claim and one backed by evidence?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You, of all people here, calling someone else brain damaged?

Hilarious.

This isn’t evidence of entrapment. Maybe you should get your own brain checked, Captain Irony.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You, of all people here, calling someone else brain damaged?

You make it easy.

This isn’t evidence of entrapment.

I didn’t say it was evidence of entrapment, you illiterate moron. I was addressing your braindead argument based on the question of why he (or his attorney) didn’t cite what’s seen in the videos as a defense (to what is irrelevant). Without the videos there was no evidence to support any claims that those things even took place, regardless of what they might have (or not have) been a defense against.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're living proof that short-bus kids don't get the same education as everyone else.

"Without the videos there was no evidence to support any claims that those things even took place, regardless of what they might have (or not have) been a defense against."

One of your numerous problems that I'm not paid to diagnose, treat, or sympathize with, is that you're a quintessential moron. You claim that 'without' those videos, there's no evidence to support it (entrapment). You can pretend that's not what we're talking about, but that just proves your idiocy, since it was precisely that which I responded to AL about. If you can't follow a conversation between others, then you should keep your mouth shut.

The fundamental problem with your dipshit take, is that even WITH the videos, there is still no evidence of entrapment, because HE WAS NOT ENTRAPPED.

"Without the videos there was no evidence to support any claims that those things even took place, regardless of what they might have (or not have) been a defense against."

Was he being charged with peacefully walking about the inside of the capital? No.

So he and his lawyers didn't offer up that as a defense - not because they didn't know what he did, but because they aren't the godawful moron that you are, and knew that evidence of him temporarily not being violent while inside the building unlawfully was not evidence that the crimes he pled guilty to were false charges and that he was in fact innocent of everything.

Anything else you'd like to get schooled about? Any other conversations you'd like to interject your stupidity into and get the topic completely wrong despite having ample time to read and attempt basic comprehension of the arguments before discussing?

Maybe you should just fuck off and spare yourself the embarrassment.

[not guilty]

"One could argue that if the police were literally opening the doors for an individual who had peacefully entered the Capitol, and helping to usher them through, they were engaging in a form of entrapment, if the person was later prosecuted for trespassing (or one of the variants thereof)."

Uh, no. SCOTUS has recognized that entrapment is a relatively limited defense. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 441 (1932), and Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 372 (1958), both recognize "that the fact that officers or employees of the Government merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not defeat the prosecution." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 435 (1973).

[Armchair Lawyer]

Limited? Sure. But there's a difference between a sting operation by undercover police officers encouraging something, and a uniformed police officer encouraging something.

Let's put this in context with an example.

Imagine you go to see the judge in her chambers. The door is closed, with a uniformed police officer out front. The police officer opens the door and gestures for you to go in. You go in. There's no judge there. You're then immediately arrested for trespassing.

What's your defense?

[not guilty]

Imagine you go to see the judge in her chambers. The door is closed, with a uniformed police officer out front. The police officer opens the door and gestures for you to go in. You go in. There’s no judge there. You’re then immediately arrested for trespassing.

What’s your defense?

Perhaps that no crime was committed at all?

A defendant asserting entrapment admits that he engaged in criminal conduct, but argues that the criminal design originated with the government.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You're going to argue that if you, as a private lawyer, are caught in a judge's private chambers, alone, without the permission of the judge...

You aren't actually trespassing? Really?

That's going to go over well.

[not guilty]

While laws vary a bit by state, criminal trespass is typically the act of intentionally entering or staying on another person’s property without permission. Many states’ laws don’t allow for a trespassing conviction unless there was some kind of notice that the trespasser wasn’t permitted to be on the property.

Your hypothetical doesn't posit criminal intent nor the absence of permission.

[not guilty]

Commenter XY, do you mean Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), or Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742 (1970)? Each case is germane here. The latter case indicates that a defendant is not entitled to withdraw his plea merely because he discovers long after the plea has been accepted that his calculus misapprehended the quality of the State’s case. 397 U.S. at 757. “Central to the plea and the foundation for entering judgment against the defendant is the defendant’s admission in open court that he committed the act charged in the indictment.” Id., at 748.

Brady v. Maryland and its progeny establish that the prosecution is required to disclose to the defense information that is exculpatory or favorable to the defendant and is material to guilt or as to punishment. The Supreme Court has not required that such disclosure be made at the plea bargaining stage. In United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 633 (2002), the Court opined that the Constitution does not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.

The Court in Ruiz did not explicitly consider whether withholding of exculpatory evidence during the pretrial plea bargaining process would violate a defendant’s constitutional rights. Several U.S. Courts of Appeals have since declined to distinguish between impeachment evidence and exculpatory evidence. See, e.g., Alvarez v. City of Brownsville. 904 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc).

A defendant seeking to set aside a guilty plea based on evidence discovered after his conviction has become final has a Sisyphean task. Perhaps the best route would be to claim that the later discovered evidence shows the defendant’s actual innocence pursuant to Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), such that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence. See also, House v. Warden, 547 U.S. 518 (2006).

I hope this is helpful.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Regardless of whether he can use it to set aside his plea or not, will you at least admit that it was unethical for the government to have kept that evidence from him and that there should be some sanction?

Or are you saying that if you were charged with a crime it would be fine if the prosecution kept evidence like that from you…..

[not guilty]

As a general proposition, it is unethical for a prosecutor to withhold evidence favorable to a defendant. In this instance, I don't know whether the U.S. Attorney's office had the footage that Tucker Carlson played. Apparently Mr. Carlson got it from Kevin McCarthy.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Doesn't it seem likely that the DOJ/US Attorney looked at every available moment of footage to try to find evidence of crime and identify the perpetrators? I'm sure they actually had it, and it seems likely that someone in their shop had seen it.

The J6 committee obviously had it as well and chose to set it aside because it didn't support the agenda that they swore they didn't have.

[not guilty]

I don't know whether the U.S. Attorney or the FBI had the footage that Mr. Carlson aired, and I don't wish to speculate. If it was in the possession of the House January 6 Committee, that does not mean that the DOJ prosecution team had it as well.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I know. But why would they not have had it? And looked at it?

[not guilty]

I surmise that the U.S. Attorney was relying primarily on the FBI for assistance in its case preparation. The House Committee likely relied on its own staff, and I recall that the Committee did not share its materials with DOJ until after Mr. Chansley entered his plea and was sentenced.

[bevis the lumberjack]

If the FBI had exculpatory material it should have been turned over to the defense - whether or not the DOJ saw it. Otherwise you create a mechanism for cheating. The cops just keep exculpatory stuff to themselves every time and Brady is gutted.

[M L]

Prosecutor to House Committee: "Just give us the good parts. You can hang onto the rest 😉 *wink wink"

[Voize]

As a general proposition, it is unethical for a prosecutor to withhold evidence favorable to a defendant

Under Kyles v. Whitley, 514 US 419 (1995) a prosecutor has an affirmative duty to discover collected evidence helpful to the defense:

This in turn means that the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police.

[OtisAH]

“…will you at least admit that it was unethical for the government to have kept that evidence from him and that there should be some sanction?”

No because that did not happen.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/03/08/the-759-digital-devices-tucker-carlson-didnt-review/

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, you're awesome. Holy Moly do I learn. Thank you for that. I had Brady v Maryland in mind when I said Brady. Heck, there are two Brady cases? How do you guys remember all this stuff?

Ok, back to the tactics question. How would not guilty address this situation if s/he were in Albert Watkins' shoes.

[not guilty]

A litigant ordinarily does not get relief that he does not ask for. I don't know that the D.C. Circuit has yet addressed whether the opinion of SCOTUS in United States v. Ruiz is limited to impeachment material. I would argue for a distinction between the impeachment material at issue in Ruiz and material which itself evinces the absence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, that tied up the loose end. I appreciate the 'practical legal education' not guilty. I really do learn.

[John F. Carr]

Did the prosecutor or the prosecutor's agents have the allegedly exculpatory evidence before trial?

[Mr. Bumble]

Based on what I’ve read so far they are claiming that they did not have access to the tapes, since they were embargoed by the Democrat controlled Congress.
(well, except for the cherry picked clips the Jan.r committee used)

[John F. Carr]

Then it wouldn't be a Brady violation, just ordinary newly discovered evidence.

[Commenter_XY]

Pretty shrewd strategy. How do you sniff it out and get around it?

[Mr. Bumble]

You can't if this type of reasoning holds:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/judge-denies-non-violent-january-6th-defendant-time-to-review-new-evidence-obtained-by-speaker-mccarthy-trial-for-nypd-retired-policewoman-starts-today-despite-her-public-defenders-plea-for/

[Commenter_XY]

I would respond this way, Mr. Bumble.

First, I think you first need to 'suss out' whether that is being done. I don't know how defense attorney's do that, but it starts there.

Second, you need a legal argument. I don't know what that would be, since IANAL. But I know that there has to be one out there, waiting to be made. We'll see. Some enterprising lawyer (or law professor) will think of something.

It is a big lift.

IMHO, I think Brett called it, separately. At some point, a POTUS will look to pardon or commute the sentences of completely non-violent participants. Washington pardoned the Whiskey Rebellion participants after a period of time; there is precedent for this. In today's polarized body politic, that seems....unlikely. But you never know. Cooler heads generally prevail over time.

Those with 'blood on their hands' are a different matter entirely.

[Brett Bellmore]

Practically none of the January 6th defendants can be said to have "blood on their hands", though. I wouldn't say zero, a few got violent, but very few relatively speaking.

[Sarcastr0]

There's video of some pretty civilian assaults of the police, Brett. As you have been told about a thousand times now.

[Brett Bellmore]

And there were a hell of a lot more January 6th defendants than people who assaulted police, as I expect YOU know.

[Nige]

How do you know the exact number of people who assaulted police on Jan 6th?

[Mr. Bumble]

Adding more confusion to the story, Uncle Remus says Jan. 6 committee didn't look at the videos.

https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/09/top-democrat-on-j6-committee-we-actually-didnt-review-any-of-the-surveillance-video/

[BrotherMovesOn]

Bumble is not just an effeminate, annoying little troll, he's a racist too!

[Mr. Bumble]

With all due respect, phque you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yer, calling Rep. Thompson "Uncle Remus" is perfectly innocent. Nothing to do with his race, what-so-ever...

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure it has something to do with his race. He is a Black man who likes to tell tales, with a strong resemblance to Uncle Remus (from Song of the South) another Black man know for telling tales.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben? I'm calling bullshit on that.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, if you call a black person either of those you are being openly racist!

Like if I called a random Caribbean woman Carmen Miranda. Or an Asian Bruce Lee or Fu Manchu.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bullshit honkey.

[David Nieporent]

I am skeptical that any Brady violation occurred,

It's questionable, for two reasons: (1) a few moments of video where Chansley wasn't breaking the law is hardly exculpatory as to the charges against him; and (2) it's not even clear that Brady requires disclosure when someone pleads guilty before trial! (There's a circuit split on the issue.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, was there anything on there about Tucker Carlson's confession in the Dominion case that he has been lying all the time, about everything?

[ThePublius]

Yea, that's the ticket, attack the messenger and ignore the message. Carlson didn't fabricate the video that he's showing.

[Nige]

He's spinning it like crazy, though.

[David Nieporent]

Carlson didn’t fabricate the video that he’s showing.

He did choose to show only a few moments of the tens of thousands of hours, though.

[Mr. Bumble]

As did the Jan. 6 committee. Are you ready to watch 40,000 hours of video?

[Sarcastr0]

So you don't believe the Jan 06 Committee but you're going to believe Tucker?

Of course you are.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So you don’t believe the Jan 06 Committee but you’re going to believe Tucker?"

There is no reason to believe either one over the other. Both were/are equally biased.

[Sarcastr0]

No, see violence is like sewage, and nonviolent protest is like wine. A dude doing a bit of violence ruins a whole day of otherwise nonviolent tresspass.

Thus, a picture where someone wasn’t being violent and the police were being nice to him does not establish that the person was not a violent yahoo.

But a picture of a person being a violent yahoo establishes he wasn’t an innocent bystander.

Though honestly, they went into the Speakers’ chambers and whatnot, seems to me the burden is on them to show they though this was just a tour led by the police.

[Bob from Ohio]

Most of the people did no violence. A minority, sure, but that is what happens in riots that arise from protests. Most defendants have only been charged with trespass, fancy sounding trespass charges but trespass nonetheless.

Poor Chansley was not charged with any violence. He still got hammered by the judge because he sat in Nancy's chair in a funny costume.

Now let's talk about burning bowling alleys and stores down in riots.

[Sarcastr0]

Hiding behind what they are charged with is some low nonsense.
What they are charged with is of course not the same as what they did.

This poor guy was not in the Capitol to hang out and look around. He didn't think he was on a tour - entrapment will not work as a defense.

He was in a violent protest. This tape does not establish otherwise. It also doesn't really show how he got into the Capitol, as part of said violent protest.

Your sympathy for this poor guy while you slaver for the blood of just about every other person who has touched the criminal justice system says a lot about your morality system.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog’s fans defend insurrectionists. This blog endorsed John Eastman. The pattern of un-American conduct is disgusting.

We should be grateful these assholes are culture war roadkill.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

He did choose to show only a few moments of the tens of thousands of hours, though.

That's at least as stupid as your mindless parroting of the "horse dewormer" claptrap regarding Ivermectin. You're really on a roll lately convincing people that you're not to be taken seriously.

[Sarcastr0]

Happened to watch Tucker’s show what even GOP Senators call full of lies?

What an amazing coincidence.

I would take his story as the full facts on anything, especially this.

[Randal]

Hahaha I can’t believe you’re falling for Tucker Carlson. That's hilarious.

I’m having a hard time even understanding the lie. Was Tucker purporting to show the entire Chansley tresspass end to end? If so… lol. If not, what relevance does it have? Are you and Tucker claiming that being “often accompanied by multiple officers” is somehow exculpatory? What’s that theory? A lot of violent protesters would like to know!

[shawn_dude]

After stepping over smashed barricades while people assault police officers trying to keep them out, he enters the building though a smashed door, walks to the Senate, climbs to Pence's seat, refuses a police request to step down, leaves a threatening note, and then... then he's entrapped.

LOL.

[bernard11]

Clips shown on Carlson’s Fox News Channel program show Chansley walking freely and peaceably through the building, often accompanied by multiple police officers.

"Video clips show the defendant walking freely and peaceably through the door and lobby of the bank, exchanging greetings with the security officer, before approaching the teller window."

I mean, WTF kind of evidence is that?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“Video clips show the defendant walking freely and peaceably through the door and lobby of the bank, exchanging greetings with the security officer, before approaching the teller window.”

What is it you're alleging Chansley did after the events in the video footing in question?

[Sarcastr0]

Or before; the point is the lack of context.

[Magister]

A post from not guilty above links to what the government alleges he did, and which he agreed he did in the plea bargain: including repeatedly ignoring police instructions to leave, screaming obscenities in the Senate chamber, and writing a vaguely threatening message on paper on the Senate dais ("It's Only A Matter Of Time. Justice Is Coming!") as part of delaying Congress from the electoral vote count. In short, obstructing an official proceeding.

You'd have to be Mr. Magoo to enter the Capitol that day and think you were being a peaceful tourist.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A post from not guilty above links to what the government alleges he did, and which he agreed he did in the plea bargain: including repeatedly ignoring police instructions to leave, screaming obscenities in the Senate chamber, and writing a vaguely threatening message on paper on the Senate dais (“It’s Only A Matter Of Time. Justice Is Coming!”) as part of delaying Congress from the electoral vote count. In short, obstructing an official proceeding.

Try reading my question again, as you appear to have not understood it...or you simply ignored it. Either way, you have not addressed it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If the events in the video occurred after the time at which Chansley admitted to obstructing an official proceeding, what is it you are suggesting it proves?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If the events in the video occurred after the time at which Chansley admitted to obstructing an official proceeding, what is it you are suggesting it proves?

FFS...literacy really is a dying skill these days. Also, I'm not suggesting it proves anything. Once again, read the post I was responding to (and quoted) and my response to it...but this time put forth some effort to actually comprehend it.

[Sarcastr0]

You are defending AL. Who said it was entrapment and maybe Brady.

Playing pedantic games like you aren’t is tiresome.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I think you're getting distracted by my casual reference to the sequence of events. That doesn't matter. Read it as "before" if you like (I don't know which it was, before or after, and don't care).

What does any of that video prove, if we already know that Chansley has admitted obstructing an official proceeding? Was he lying about that? Was he honestly mistaken?

[Magister]

Maybe the analogy is flawed. The apparently friendly conduct of the police may have occurred after the events I listed. But the police may have appeared friendly at that point because they thought acting like a librarian shushing patrons was more likely to end the riot without many dead police.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Even Magoo would have heard the ruckus and smelled the tear gas.

[Magister]

Maybe, but Magoo has a limitless capacity to misunderstand what is going on.

[shawn_dude]

++1 for the Mr Magoo reference.

Oh Magoo... you've done it again!

[AmosArch]

The 'insurrection' narrative is falling apart quite nicely.

[apedad]

The people sitting in prison will be glad to hear that.

[Brett Bellmore]

They may have denied the evidence to the defense long enough to make things stick, but I see some pardons coming in the next Republican administration.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Will they prosecute the prosecutors who used such deceitful tacticts?

[hoppy025]

Hopefully, the D.C. district court judges who had the nerve to speak the way they did to the defendants, as if they had any moral high ground.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Prosecutors don’t even get bar discipline if they put someone on death row in bad faith. And you think the prosecutors will be criminally prosecuted by other prosecutors for Jan 6th stuff?

[Randal]

I'm having a hard time understanding this logic. In what way is the insurrection narrative falling apart? Is this like how showing a lot of footage of "urban" protesters just standing around chanting somehow excuses the looting and arson?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who has been charged with "insurrection"?

[Magister]

Al Capone was never charged with murder, so the whole murder narrative has fallen apart. Just a peaceful tax cheat, I guess.

There have been charges of seditious conspiracy, which seems to be at least as serious as charges of insurrection.

[Frank Drackman]

Ted Kennedy wasn't charged with murder either, or Charles Manson, although at least Charlie didn't leave a young woman to asphyxiate (not drowned, there's a difference)

[Dr. Ed 2]

NO -- Charles Manson WAS convicted of murder!
January 25, 1971

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/manson-and-followers-convicted

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I’m having a hard time understanding this logic. In what way is the insurrection narrative falling apart?

For starters, there was no "insurrection" to begin with.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Then how is it "falling apart"?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Then how is it “falling apart”?

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

[M L]

Right from the very start, using the word "insurrection" was a complete joke and nobody doing so should be taken seriously.

[Randal]

Ah ok. Tucker's resonating with the people who've already deluded themselves. I mean, I guess that was obvious in retrospect.

[M L]

"Bye honey, I'm off to overthrow the U.S. government. No, I'm leaving all my guns at home. I'm bringing my camera phone and twitter app. Grandma is coming and we'll get some nice pictures. See you after dinner."

Sure buddy. *pats you on head*

[Randal]

Why do you think people didn’t have guns? There’s video of it. People admitted it in court.

Oh… because Tucker said it. No need to keep repeating Tuckerisms to me, I’m familiar with his “take.”

[Bob from Ohio]

"There’s video of it."

There is no video of anyone with a gun except the police.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I dunno about video, but we know it happened:

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of Columbia
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, June 17, 2022
Indiana Man Pleads Guilty to Carrying a Gun and Assaulting Law Enforcement Officers in Jan. 6 Capitol Breach
Firearm Was Loaded with Shotgun Shells and Hollow-Point Bullets
WASHINGTON – An Indiana man pleaded guilty today to carrying a loaded gun on Capitol grounds and assaulting law enforcement officers during the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. His and others’ actions disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the presidential election.

[etc.]

[Mr. Bumble]

Got a link?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Capitol grounds"

Outside.

Nor did he use it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

[etc.]

With part of that "etc" being the facts that he did not carry into the capitol building and never used the firearm.

[Randal]

Sounds like the "insurrection narrative is falling apart" narrative is falling apart.

[M L]

A funny hat with horns is not a gun, Randal.

[Randal]

Oh please. Are you guys even fooling each other? It's so stupid.

"There's no video of anyone with a gun" says the guy humping universal concealed carry.

"They had guns on the capitol grounds" and then what, left them at coat check on the way inside?

"He didn't use it" nor, I suspect, did he set of a dirty bomb. WTF?

On the other hand we have

Alberts was arrested after he tried to flee police officers while leaving the Capitol grounds. Investigators said that three officers tackled him and found he was carrying a loaded 9mm handgun, 25 rounds of ammunition, a gas mask, pocket-knife, first aid kit and one military meal.

and testimony like

I had every constitutional right to carry a weapon and take over the Congress, as we tried to do.

I did bring a weapon on property that we own. Federal grounds or not. The law is written, but it doesn't mean it's right law. The people around me were all carrying too.

That doesn't even address weapons other than firearms.

"Grandma is coming" rofl.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The "Indiana man" example was literally the first one that popped up on Google. It could be the only one, but that would still be sufficient to disprove the rather improbable allegation that no one came to the J6 events armed.

"Insurrection" is not simply the name of a specific federal crime, it is also a term which more broadly includes "a violent uprising against an authority or government", which the J6 riots obviously were. Their point was explicitly to disrupt the transition of power from Trump to Biden. Even if one acknowledges that the J6 rioters sincerely believe that the recent election had been "stolen", their actions that day had a specific, violent purpose, which was to disrupt the operation of government.

[Frank Drackman]

No

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the impeachment of some DC judges along with a re-writing of the DC Self Governance Act.

There was a reason why DC was not part of any state (remember that the first capital was in New York) and it was exactly to prevent the sort of thing we have seen over the past 2 years, (a) a locally-elected politician (the DC Mayor) subverting the President and (b) partisan DC juries & judges.

Imagine how much *fairer* the Jan 6 trials would have been if there was a right of "random removal" -- the right of any defendant to have his case transferred to a truly randomly selected Federal judge somewhere else. Maybe Baltimore, maybe Bangor -- ME or WA, do it truly randomly based on the month & day of the judge's birth, like we did with the Vietnam draft. It would be a local jury picked however the Federal court does in Boise or Beloxi or Boston, etc.

The same thing with the Trumpster trials -- I don't know if those guys were guilty or not, but I'm quite certain they didn't get a fair trial which leads to my other point:

Circa 1970, what did the system do with the Black prisoners who had plead guilty in the 1950s and 1960s to avoid execution in what we all know were not fair systems -- there had to have been some and there had to have been idealistic young lawyers (NAACP and elsewhere) trying to do something for them.

Governors like Jimmy Carter might have pardoned a few, but I doubt that Governors like George Wallace did -- so what happened?

And the other side of this is -- politically -- imagine if the next *Democratic* President were to do a Gerry Ford and pardon all the Jan 6 folk "for the good of the nation." Kinda like why George Washington pardoned Daniel Shays & Co.

And one other random thought -- could Congress require that the jury for all DC trials include all of DC & VA? Or perhaps a 50 mile circle around DC? 50 miles is small compared to some of the Districts -- and how do they pick juries in Montana or Wyoming?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

So, yes, Congress is perfectly entitled to do something like that, since DC isn't a state.

[Frank Drackman]

what is it? A county? fiefdom? Parish? Province, dammit, I know that "D" stands for something

[not guilty]

"And the impeachment of some DC judges along with a re-writing of the DC Self Governance Act."

The January 6 defendants have not been tried before DC judges; the trials have been before U.S. district judges for the District of Columbia.

[Mr. Bumble]

Picky, picky, picky.

[David Nieporent]

There was a reason why DC was not part of any state (remember that the first capital was in New York) and it was exactly to prevent the sort of thing we have seen over the past 2 years, (a) a locally-elected politician (the DC Mayor) subverting the President and (b) partisan DC juries & judges.

What the fuck are you talking about? The insurrectionists have been tried in federal court by federal judges; the mayor of DC has as much to do with it as she does with the Salem witch trials.

Kinda like why George Washington pardoned Daniel Shays & Co.

A second "what the fuck are you talking about" in the same post. George Washington did not pardon Daniel Shays & Co. George Washington could not have pardoned Daniel Shays & Co., because George Washington was not president. George Washington could also not have pardoned Daniel Shays & Co., because they were charged with crimes under state law. Governor Hancock pardoned Daniel Shays & Co.

[M L]

Calling this an "insurrection" is destructive to your credibility.

[Sarcastr0]

You are not really the general arbiter of credibility, so um...no one cares what you think. The law and the American People agree Jan 06 was an attempted insurrection.

[Bob from Ohio]

"law and the American People agree Jan 06 was an attempted insurrection"

Funny, the "law" has not charged anyone with "insurrection"

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The law and the American People agree Jan 06 was an attempted insurrection."

You're suggesting that people who don't agree aren't American? Classy.

[Commenter_XY]

Wait, Sarcastr0….I am confused. Literally upthread, you called it a violent protest (BTW, I agree with you about that; also, I helpfully pasted in your comment). Now it is an insurrection.

Hiding behind what they are charged with is some low nonsense. What they are charged with is of course not the same as what they did.

This poor guy was not in the Capitol to hang out and look around. He didn’t think he was on a tour – entrapment will not work as a defense.

He was in a violent protest. This tape does not establish otherwise. It also doesn’t really show how he got into the Capitol, as part of said violent protest.

Your sympathy for this poor guy while you slaver for the blood of just about every other person who has touched the criminal justice system says a lot about your morality system.

Make up your mind. ????

[Sarcastr0]

It’s an insurrection.

I was arguing with Bob about violence, and didn’t care to get pulled into a semantic argument.

Don’t be a pedant Commenter. Especially not in defense of the Jan 06 assholes. It’s not like you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What the fuck are you talking about? The insurrectionists have been tried in federal court by federal judges;

Do you think that the Jeffersonians would have tolerated their people being tried in Boston or Hartford by Federalist juries?

A DC jury will be no fairer to a Republican than an all-White Birmingham jury would have been to a Black man 60 years ago.

Governor Hancock pardoned Daniel Shays & Co.

Not legally, and not on his own initiative.

Washington was aware of the situation, Knox (and others) were writing to him about it, and the US Armory was Federal property, like Fort Sumter. And yes, while Governor Hancock had replaced Governor Bowdoin, the encouragement of the mass pardon came from Washington...

Regardless of this, look at the actual reason for the pardon...

[David Nieporent]

Do you think that the Jeffersonians would have tolerated their people being tried in Boston or Hartford by Federalist juries?

What the fuck does your hypothetical question have to do with your lie about the mayor of DC?

I have no idea who "their people" are, or what they're being tried for in your hypothetical, or what a "Federalist jury" is, let alone why these imaginary people are being tried in Boston or Hartford in the first place.

But yes, I imagine that over the decades plenty of people who were generally supportive of Thomas Jefferson were tried for crimes in Boston or Hartford.

Governor Hancock pardoned Daniel Shays & Co.

Not legally, and not on his own initiative.

Yes legally, and I don't know what "not on his own initiative" even means.

Washington was aware of the situation,

I imagine he was, given that he was not illiterate and that Shays' acts were covered by newspapers. That does not change the fact that he was a private citizen rather than the governor of Massachusetts, and therefore had no ability to pardon anyone.

What obviously happened here is that you confused Shays' Rebellion with the Whiskey Rebellion, and rather than just saying, "Oops" you decided to invent even more fake facts.

[bernard11]

Which would prove nothing except how corrupt the Republican Party is.

[Bored Lawyer]

Has anyone actually been convicted of insurrection, as opposed to some other crime?

[OtisAH]

Do all the people convicted of seditious conspiracy count?

[Commenter_XY]

No they do not. Different charge.

[OtisAH]

Well hopefully that’ll keep all the seditionists comfortable and safe during their lengthy prison terms.

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't believe anyone has been charged with "insurrection".

[hoppy025]

It fell apart the moment it was put forth.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is convinced by Tucker but people already deep into the bullshit swamps of the insurrection loving far right.

[Frank Drackman]

You eat your mother out with that mouth??

[OtisAH]

You’re a douchebag.

[Frank Drackman]

takes one to know one

[Jmaie]

I've heard it said that the quality of the Conspiracy commentary has declined with the moves to WaPo / Reason. But then people be saying crazy shite all the time...

[OtisAH]

Oh, and a clever and witty douchebag at that!

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Any updates to share on that “civility standards” project that (you claimed) precipitated your censorship of liberals, Prof. Volokh? If you remain mute, some people could get the wrong idea, and conclude you are a disingenuous hypocrite.

Or you could acknowledge error and apologize.

[M L]

No one was ever convinced by people saying "insurrection" but people already deep into mental illness.

[Sarcastr0]

Mental illness!

[SimonP]

If the insurrection was "mostly peaceful chaos," then so too were the George Floyd protests.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure. Except with more arson.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and deaths.

[SimonP]

Though less, "potentially murdering members of Congress."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Potentially, we're sitting on two million dollars...

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And somewhat less, "violent attempt to take control of a government" (unless I missed that part).

[TwelveInchPianist]

Did you miss the violent mob burning down a police station?

[Randal]

Do you think police stations are the seat of government? That's pretty telling!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Okay, then I suppose the plan was to use that impenetrable fortress to project overwhelming power over the entire country?

How did that work out?

[Nige]

How so? They were still trying to overturn an election result based on the lies promulgated by the loser. That's never going to change.

[not guilty]

A bill before the South Carolina legislature would authorize the death penalty for a woman who obtains an abortion. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/south-carolina-becomes-the-latest-gop-led-state-with-a-bill-to-make-the-death-penalty-a-punishment-for-abortion/ar-AA18dx6u?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f1eaa274856c40a199cb0767a685ba5b&ei=12

I suspect the sponsor has the temerity to call himself "pro-life".

[Brett Bellmore]

Kudos to Business Insider for actually linking to the legislative page for the bill, rather than requiring people to hunt for it.

Let's see. Is it accumulating sponsors? Yup, so it can't be dismissed as a solitary kook.

So, what does it actually do? It makes abortion the crime of murder, just as though the baby had already been born, subject to the defense of medical necessity or unintentional error.

I think they're getting out ahead of public opinion here. I don't expect it to get very far, because they'll know that, too.

[John F. Carr]

A potential change in tactics because the focus has been on going after supply (doctors) rather than demand (women).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, we made a similar change in prosecuting prostitution.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts the courts ordered the change.

[Bob from Ohio]

State Rep. Rob Harris is a first term back bencher. It won't even get a hearing in committee.

You are just nut picking.

[Nige]

I think it's Republoicans that are picking deeze nuts, actually.

[not guilty]

I agree that bills like that in South Carolina and a similar measure in Texas are unlikely to pass. But the disparity in punishment between the performance of an unlawful abortion (which by its nature is intentional, premeditated and deliberate) and that imposed for a more traditional first degree murder illustrates the rank hypocrisy of those who bleat that abortion is murder.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, at worst it illustrates the rank hypocrisy of the person who introduced the bill. You want to tar every pro-lifer because of a few isolated publicity seekers.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, not really, The priority here is saving the lives. If demanding punishment for their killers gets in the way of saving lives, I certainly know which takes priority.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But the disparity in punishment between the performance of an unlawful abortion (which by its nature is intentional, premeditated and deliberate) and that imposed for a more traditional first degree murder illustrates the rank hypocrisy of those who bleat that abortion is murder.

Disparity in punishment? What the hell are you babbling about? The bill in question is about treating abortion THE SAME as other homicides by removing exceptions for abortion in existing homicide laws.

"enforcement is subject to the same presumptions, defenses, justifications, laws of parties, immunities, and clemencies as would apply to the homicide of a person who had been born alive"

It's a shitty bill, but not for the imaginary reasons you're citing.

[M L]

I think not guilty's argument is that those who oppose abortion and say it is tantamount to murder are hypocrites if they don't support a bill like this. And perhaps many or most of them don't.

This is a pretty common talking point, but basically, some protection for unborn humans is better than none.

It may be somewhat difficult to maintain justifications for treating unborn humans differently than born humans, including by having lesser punishments for killing them. I think there is room for compromise and contextualizing. But to whatever extent the logic here undermines an anti-abortion position, it only undermines the pro-abortion position to a much greater extent.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I think not guilty’s argument is that those who oppose abortion and say it is tantamount to murder are hypocrites if they don’t support a bill like this. And perhaps many or most of them don’t.

If that’s the argument then it’s still a stupid one, since there are good reasons to not support the bills in question even if one does support treating abortion as murder (for instance, the absence of exceptions…or at least defenses to prosecution…for abortions performed after rape or to safeguard the health of the mother) with no hypocrisy required.

[Randal]

How does an exception for rape work? Rape justifies murder? Of someone other than the rapist?

Even "health of the mother" doesn't justify murder. If I murder you for your kidney and stick it in my mother to help her with her diabetes, that's not a murder defense.

[shawn_dude]

How does this undermine a pro-choice position, especially given the pre-Dobbs compromise that largely limited abortions to the first trimester when the fetus was unable to survive outside the womb?

A law that treats a fetus as a legal person with the same rights as someone who's been born is exactly what the pro-life rhetoric calls for. That it doesn't have a chance in heck in passing, even amongst so-called pro-life voters demonstrates that their rhetoric and their intent are not the same. Whereas, for pro-choice voters, who segment out into tiers willing to accept some but not all abortions depending on timing and other factors, the emphasis is on the woman's future in the beginning and shifts to the fetus' future later in the process--a practical approach.

[Randal]

Like shawn, I don't see how it undermines the pro-choice position.

[apedad]

Gone With The Wind was on this past Sunday.

A romp-a-minute, laugh-out-loud, happy-ending film as there ever was.

Say, when are you good ol’ boys going to start that shooting war?

GWTW came out over 80 years ago and after we totally kick your ass (again), that would be a good time to issue a re-mastered edition.

Maybe add a scene where Big Sam beats the shit out of his master.

I see that some of you have at least started planning: Ian Benjamin Rogers and Jarrod Copeland sentenced for conspiracy

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/two-far-right-trump-supporters-who-sought-war-over-2020-election-sentenced-for-conspiring-to-blow-up-democratic-headquarters/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Back in the 1930s, as part of his lets-spend-lots-of-money plan, FDR sent researchers out throughout the then-rural South to interview elderly women who had been born as slaves and much to everyone's surprise, were told that "things had been better under slavery" (which had ended 7 decades earlier).

Yes, there is a halcyon view of youth -- but you might want to look into this data.

[Sarcastr0]

How’s about we enslave you and your can enjoy the good times they did,

[Frank Drackman]

I bet you say that to all your slaves.

[apedad]

FFS Dr E....

The people being interviewed would have been between newborn and five years old in the 1860s.

How would they know that, " things had been better under slavery."

[Dr. Ed 2]

a: A person 90 years old in 1935 would have been 20 years old in 1865. I think this is who they interviewed.

b: A person between newborn and five years old in the 1860s would have grown up with parents comparing things to slavery.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.loc.gov/collections/slave-narratives-from-the-federal-writers-project-1936-to-1938/about-this-collection/

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai/emancipation/text8/institutionwpa.pdf

He’s full of shit. There were only a few interviewees who thought slavery was better.

Jacob Manson sums up the tenor of the views:

“I think slavery wus a mighty bad thing, though it’s been no bed of roses since, but den no one could whup me no mo.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

There may be a distinction between men and women, I don't ever recall hearing of female slaves being whipped. Raped, yes, but not whipped.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This fucking guy.

[Frank Drackman]

at least he didn't say he was in a Philosophy Class when he didn't recall ir.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t ever recall hearing of female slaves being whipped.

Maybe you weren't talking to the right truckers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ok, NAME ONE CITATION....

Just one historically accurate citation that indicates that a female slave in the US was whipped. Ever....

Not holding my breath waiting...

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh wow that was difficult:

https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47da-752c-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99

https://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/bibb/bibb.html

Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Henry Bibb, An American Slave, Written by Himself

Published in 1849.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also it’s truly amazing that you would think that the violently enforced enslavement of millions of people in America over two centuries wouldn’t include even one example of a woman slave being whipped.

Like what an incredibly stupid hill to die on.

[StellaLink_the dog]

You are certainly going to try to claim that all the recorded accounts of female slaves being whipped are not "historically accurate". But, you will no longer be able to claim that you "don’t ever recall hearing of female slaves being whipped."

Robert E. Lee is credibly alleged to have ordered the whipping of a female slave. https://www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historyculture/an-unpleasant-legacy.htm One account of this event is by a witness who was whipped at the same time.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/whipping where you will find several citations to acounts of female slaves being whipped.

[David Nieporent]

Frederick Douglass also discusses it in his memoir.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is a blog by disaffected misfits for antisocial, delusional malcontents. With plenty of bigotry all around.

Carry on, clingers.

[John F. Carr]

I'd like to see a survey like that in post-colonial Africa.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A few countries are actually more or less OK, and it's because everyone respects the system and there is an expectation everyone follow the rules.

Then there is South Africa and Zimbabwe/Rhodesia where they've gone from exporting food to starvation.

[John F. Carr]

Like most post-colonial regimes the South African government is not doing a good job. Its predecessor was not so hot either. I want to know if you ask somebody, "are you better off now than you were forty years ago?", what answers will you get? You will find some who upgraded from a shantytown to a slum, some who got decent jobs they couldn't have before, and some who got beat up by government-supported security forces who now take orders from blacks instead of whites.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, you'll also see reports of "necklacing" which I don't believe the White government ever did.

That's horrific! -- and worse than when it wasn't being done.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai/emancipation/text8/institutionwpa.pdf

Well someone is full of shit. While there were some who looked back more fondly on there days in slavery that was not the common view.

And when there was equivocation on what was better it was mostly in the context of slavery being replaced by the Jim Crow system where freedom still wasn’t truly free.

[Nige]

That's quite the condemnation of Southern society post-Emancipation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And?!?

And it isn't accurate???

[Nige]

All sounds suspiciously CRTish.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What a waste of pixels this entire thread is.

Apedad starts it with a hateful screed directed at people that have been dead for well over a century. Holy hell, dude, it’s a fucking movie. And trash talking dead people doesn’t accomplish anything. You might need to go piss on their graves or something to clear out your mind.

Then Ed comes in with “things were better under slavery”. Not for the slaves it wasn’t. That’s the fucking point.

[apedad]

HEY ERRYBODY!

Beev's the new content reviewer/rater so please pass all comments thru him prior to posting.

Mucho beaucoup!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Is there a point here? You hate the long dead rebels? How are you in the Incas or the Vikings?

Personally, I detest Cardinal Richelieu for oppressing the Huguenots.

[Stephen Lathrop]

bevis, not for nothing do we have the term, Irish Alzheimers, where you forget everything but the grudges. I have extended family of Irish extraction, who from time to time get vociferously pissed off by mention of Oliver Cromwell, and who remain edgy about the Vikings. Mrs. Lathrop finds herself bemused sometimes that she decided to take on a name reflecting Norman heritage.

It’s all puzzling to me. I was raised by parents who were each outcasts from their own families, and who taught their kids to shun even immediate extended family contacts, let alone ethnic heritage. I was stunned to discover when I was already in college that my mother had spoken only Czech until she entered school in Minnesota, where she had been brought up in New Prague.

[OtisAH]

It’s early yet but I cannot see anyone else putting out anything funnier than Bevis stepping in to defend the honor of Clark Gable and Vivian Leigh. So, this is the Comment of the Day!

[Frank Drackman]

Nobody tell him they were actors

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Then Ed comes in with “things were better under slavery”. Not for the slaves it wasn’t. That’s the fucking point."

It's not that slavery sucked but that sharecropping sucked worse.

While slavery reduced human beings to the status of, say, horses -- horses have value and hence you need to care for them lest they die and you have to go buy another one. What sharecropping did was remove the expense of replacement and hence the incentive to be concerned about the wellbeing of the sharecropper (who could be replaced with another without expense).

It's not that things were good under slavery, but that they were less bad than they were later. This is an important point....

[Krayt]

"We got fed regularly as slaves. Curse modernity and freedom, horrible horrible freedom, where we are responsible for ourselves!"

Freedom, horrible horrible freedom!

[bevis the lumberjack]

An’ dem happy happy slave songs we sung. I shore do miss dat sangin’. It made dat whelp from masa’s whuppin’ feel better.

Workin’ fo’ de massa is more gud than workin’ fo’ myself. Massa Linchpin din do me no favor.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s not that slavery sucked but that sharecropping sucked worse.

Not what you posted.

[Stephen Lathrop]

"I am your retribution," Trump declared at CPAC. Previously, he said, "If I run, and if I win, we will treat those people from Jan. 6 fairly. And if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons, because they are being treated so unfairly."

Reportedly Trump renewed that promise of pardons privately this week, to insiders the Justice Department may target in connection with Trump's Mar-a-Lago documents theft, and for the January 6 insurrection planning.

There can be no question Trump remains a continuing threat to overthrow American constitutionalism. He telegraphs that intent repeatedly, with an eye to create a public profile high enough to obstruct and intimidate investigators. Trump understands that his audacious plan to seize power depends on presenting himself as already a match for America's existing government power, and a soon-to-be superior, with capability to shield henchmen from justice.

The moment Trump set in motion his plot to circumvent a foreseeable election loss—and later, and continuously until this moment—to deny the legitimacy of the 2020 election result, he commenced a rivalry with the American People for the sovereignty of this nation.

How long will the Justice Department permit Trump to ballyhoo his walk on a tightrope toward treason? How much damage, to the next election, to America's system of justice, and to the People's sovereignty, will the nation suffer before Trump is called to account? How soon will sufferance of Trump's defiance put him beyond any account? When will the Justice Department act to protect the nation from Trump's ongoing existential threat?

Aaron Burr was tried for treason and rightly acquitted. Persuasive documentation of his alleged crime was undermined by unpersuasive witnesses, who perjured themselves in support of the documents. But Burr's actions were consistent with guilt. Chief Justice John Marshall read the constitutional definition of treason so narrowly that almost nothing short of a successful war against the US could qualify. Which Burr needed, because Burr had described in writing (with transparent circumspection, but also with some of the writing encrypted) a plot to seize sovereignty in the southwest, and to recruit military assistance from foreign governments to do it. Burr had recruited confederates, and put the plot in motion. The plot was thwarted when President Jefferson ordered Burr's arrest in the midst of his planned attack, with the result that Burr's supporters scattered.

After acquittal at his treason trial in Virginia, Burr went into self-imposed exile in Europe for several years. He later returned to America, and shortly thereafter died, without doing anything further of national consequence.

One lesson which has been drawn from the Burr fiasco is that the treason clause is all but ineffectual. I draw a different conclusion. Where convincing evidence showed that actual treason was in process, resolute and energetic enforcement proved protective.

Now—before feckless inaction empowers Trump to wreck the next election—is the time for energetic enforcement to interrupt what remains Trump's clear and continuing plot to overthrow American constitutionalism. Delay will only complicate and weaken indispensable counter-measures, while every tick of the clock nudges Trump's plot closer to an uncertainly timed future crisis.

Trump should be arrested and tried for treason. There is a two-fold reason to do it:

First, when the Capitol was attacked, Trump's crimes went farther toward completion than Burr's did. Salient in that comparison is the fact that the nation's capital city in 2021 was a target of incomparably greater significance than remote Louisiana was in 1806. Also, Trump acted as a sitting President, wielding the powers of that office. Burr, though a former Vice President, had trivial power in comparison. Trump has mobilized notable armed force on his behalf, including at least tens of thousands who continue to menace the nation with violence. Burr had not achieved the foreign military support he tried to organize, and Burr lacked even a tiny fraction of the violent domestic support Trump has already achieved. As historical threats to America, Trump is incomparably the greater.

Second, because that imposing charge of treason acted so effectively on the guilty consciences of Burr's supporters, who scattered to the winds. Trump's embittered, heavily armed, and lavishly financed co-plotters will not be so easily turned aside. That is why it will be a mistake to try to subdue Trump and his plotters with less energy and lesser charges than were brought against Burr.

Trump is bent on treason. It is time to say so, and back it with that charge. The alternative at risk is, "retribution," wielded dictatorially.

[hoppy025]

One man's treason is another man's freedom fighting.

[apedad]

Except winners write the history books.

So winners are freedom fighters, and losers are traitors and terrorists.

And we know who the losers are.

[hoppy025]

I don't know who the winners are, but I do know who the winners are not. And the winners are not the Democrat Party's parasitic base, consisting of blacks, mestizos, homosexuals, Moose-lims, whiny reform Jews, and stoner Gen Z members who want student loan "relief."

[Frank Drackman]

you left out the trannies, who want guv-mint to pay for their dick-ectomies and add-a-dick-to-me surgeries

[hoppy025]

Shit, you're right. It really should be all sexual deviants, of which they are a part.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And mainstream America’s un-American jackass (Eastman) is a right-wing blogger’s hero.

[DaveM]

“Trump is bent on treason. It is time to say so, and back it with that charge.”

Nope. You are not a mind reader, you don’t in fact know what anyone is “bent on” doing. Furthermore, what an awful standard that would make even if followed! If belief in someone’s bent is all that is required to bring a charge, no doubt everyone would eventually be locked up.

Mere belief is an excellent basis for an opinion and a vote, but it is a woefully inadequate basis for a matter of law.

[Sarcastr0]

Without telepathy, how can we tell the Confederacy we’re traitors, and not just violently enthusiastic Constitutional innovators?

Don’t be silly. Trump tried to overturn the election like 5 different ways. And admitted he knew he had lost the election. Don’t need to be a mind reader to see what he wanted.

[DaveM]

I, for one, am glad that the standard for being charged with a crime is a whole lot higher than a bunch of yahoos sitting around a bar telling each other that they can "see what he wanted".

[Sarcastr0]

Yes a treason charge is hard. Which means there is plenty of room between thinking Trump was and is bent on treason and charging him with that.

You took issue not just with the charges but the bent on treason charge.

[not guilty]

I yield to no one in my disapproval of Donald Trump's criminal conduct, but a charge of treason is not supportable.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, what part of the treason definition do you think Trump has failed to meet?

I insist that organizing an armed attack on the Congress, and organizing and inciting a mob to kill the Vice President, both of which actions were actually carried out, however ineffectually, were acts of war against the United States.

It was the objection of Chief Justice Marshall, of course, which stood in the way of convicting Burr. Marshall's reasoning was deliberately weighted to be protective of liberty for Burr, and cogently reasoned on that basis. Marshall found that treasonable actions by Burr had not occurred, because whatever he did intend, he had not accomplished an act of war against the United States.

Marshall was firm that conspiracy without warlike action could not be treason. Marshall extended the principle farther, saying that participants in a conspiracy that went on to treasonous action, did not implicate in treason conspirators who were not implicated personally in taking warlike actions. Marshall insisted that only participants in warlike actions could be guilty of treason. But for those, he held out no saving exceptions having to do with scale, with the plausibility of the plot, with success, or any other kind of mitigation. Marshall said that had Burr used his force to attack the government of New Orleans, that would have established treason against the United States.

So Marshall set forward standards for what did constitute treasonable actions, including this, upon which Marshall relied, from, Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout:

The opinions given by Judge Paterson and Judge Iredell, in cases before them, imply an actual assembling of men, though they rather designed to remark on the purpose to which the force was to be applied than on the nature of the force itself. Their opinions, however, contemplate the actual employment of force.

237
Judge Chase, in the trial of Fries, was more explicit.

238
He stated the opinion of the court to be, 'that if a body of people conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war; and the quantum of the force employed, neither lessens nor increases the crime: whether by one hundred, or one thousand persons, is wholly immaterial.' 'The court are of opinion,' continued Judge Chase, on that occasion, 'that a combination or conspiracy to levy war against the United States is not treason, unless combined with an attempt to carry such combination or conspiracy into execution; some actual force or violence must be used in pursuance of such design to levy war; but it is altogether immaterial whether the force used is sufficient to effectuate the object; any force connected with the intention will constitute the crime of levying war.'

On that basis I do not see how the acquittal of Burr has any saving power to excuse the treasonous crimes of Trump, who did assemble a body to attack the government, and who did actually put that body in motion with violent intent, and as the intended violence did actually occur, did sit complacently without any prompt attempt to call it off, to the horror of almost everyone around Trump.

Can you explain why you disagree?

[not guilty]

Consistent with Article III, § 3 of the Constitution, treason is defined at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 as "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason."

However heinous it may have been, breaching the Capitol on January 6 was not an act of war, and those who carried out the incursion were not enemies of the United States.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, what do you make of this?:

In the case now before the Court, a design to overturn the government of the United States in New Orleans by force would have been unquestionably a design which, if carried into execution, would have been treason, and the assemblage of a body of men for the purpose of carrying it into execution would amount to levying of war against the United States; but no conspiracy for this object, no enlisting of men to effect it, would be an actual levying of war.

Marshall meant that to apply as a hypothetical to Burr, not some invading foreign enemy. His point was that the violent attack was what was missing from the charge against Burr. What defines being an enemy of the United States is the warlike act against them. There is no need for a more general war, or for a foreign enemy. Given his role in the trial of Burr, I take Marshall to be the leading authority on the question.

Can you explain why you think I am mistaken, instead of just repeating an assertion to the contrary? Or maybe go ahead and assert to the contrary, and explain why Marshall was mistaken?

[Stephen Lathrop]

When you read John Marshall's Burr opinion, you get extensive analysis about what constitutes levying war against the United States. Many pages of it, slicing and dicing in the minute and discursive style that became Jefferson's despair.

I am unable to find anything in all that analysis that does not inculpate Trump as having levied war. Point by point, every issue resolved seems to deliver another point to reinforce an argument to charge Trump with treason. Given what is already known publicly about what Trump did, it seems an obvious conclusion. I am surprised not to have heard more from legal experts to make that point. Prosecutors look to have been extremely cautious.

I should note that I also read the Wikipedia article on the Burr trial. There I found a contrary interpretation, which seems to have been derived from some source unfamiliar with Marshall's opinion. That Wikipedia article is also the source of other more blatant historical errors which have made their way into comments here, so I distrust that Wikipedia article.

There is however, one point made by Marshall that could be relevant to Trump, and constrain prosecutors' ability to charge him with treason. Although a decision that Trump was physically present at the Capitol attack could be a contested one, I think the balance of the argument would decide that he was. The scope and time-frame of treasonous war-making done on January 6 was sufficiently extensive to include Trump's address which sent the attack on its way to the Capitol. Communications between Trump and the attackers at the Capitol, including the infamous Tweet against Pence, reinforce the connection.

But what I had not suspected is that there may be a formal legal problem in the way of charging Trump with treason. As a non-lawyer, it had not occurred to me that there would be a doctrine that someone not a principal to a crime, but who organized and instigated it, could not be charged with any offense more severe than the principals themselves were convicted of. But so there is, at least according to Marshall in his Burr decision. Thus, because no one yet convicted of offenses at the Capitol has yet been convicted of treason, or even charged with it, perhaps Trump could not be charged that way either.

What seems remarkable to me about that now—after reading Marshall's Burr opinion, and Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout upon which the Burr opinion partly relies—is that none of the paramilitary members who marched in military formation to force their way into the Capitol, have been charged themselves with treason. There is nothing in Marshall that I can see that would make that even a close call.

It makes me wonder what has been happening behind the scenes. Maybe prosecutors have been getting guilty pleas to lesser crimes, by threatening a treason charge if the accused elect to go to trial.

Of course these are all inferences, made without access to information about what the Justice Department has actually been doing. I suggest them because I think they are interesting, and seem plausible—mere plausibility being a standard which I sometimes mock, but sometimes entertain cautiously when nothing else is available.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump encouraged those who breached the Capitol. It is arguable that he conspired with others. That, however, is not levying war on Trump’s part.

To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the court have been committed, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, the distinct offenses.

Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. 75, 126 (1807).

Article III, § 3 prescribes limitations on what conduct can be defined as treason. Mere advocacy does not suffice. As a matter of strategy, I am skeptical of charging Trump with vicarious liability for the acts of those who breached the Capitol. I don't want to give the clowns on SCOTUS an opportunity to rule that Trump's enticement of the crowd was First Amendment protected speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

Trump's culpability for other crimes leading up to January 6 (most prominently 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) and (k)) is a slam dunk. There is no need to muddy the water by charging more attenuated offenses.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thank you, not guilty. I now understand your reasoning.

I do wonder if you fully credit the meaning of the text you bolded. It does not imply that a person implicated in actual violence which satisfies the constitutional requirement for levying war is somehow excused by a claim of mere conspiracy. Of course, it would be up to a finder of fact to sort out any particular person's connection to violence. Elsewhere in Marshall's opinions, I see what I take to be examples directly on point to implicate Trump in the January 6 violence. And otherwise, the nature of the offense itself fully qualifies as treason. But on that I think we understand each other.

Where I think we disagree, is that I do not advocate conviction of Trump as the best final outcome of an effective legal response to the January 6 challenge. I am more concerned about Trump's supporters and acolytes, and any continuing tendencies they cherish, which may fulminate almost in perpetuity—as the catastrophic end of post-civil war reconstruction has demonstrated.

Thus, I think one of the most important functions of a government is to protect jealously the power of its sovereign, and if necessary to do that by means of suppression so imposing that it will effectively end challenges permanently, or at least in all cases specific to a particular instance. I do not think the Justice Department's charging policies as we see them now are likely to accomplish that. For one thing, they leave room, as we have seen, for Trump to campaign on what amounts to a pro-treason platform, by dangling promises amounting to near-impunity for co-conspirators. Trump seems determined to continue on an actually treasonous path, and apparently means not to be stopped.

For that reason, I think if the law can justify it, and I think it can do so without stretching, Trump should be charged appropriately, with treason. My inclination is to suppose that doing it that way will be a far more effective deterrent to others—even if Trump is eventually acquitted—than anything else the Justice Department can do. People who are happy to risk a brief term of imprisonment on a high stakes gamble for wealth and power almost unlimited, may nevertheless quail at the prospect of committing a capital offense.

[Frank Drackman]

Third, you talk to much.

[Commenter_XY]

Seriously, you are right.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're fucked up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is this the right time to wheel out the, "but we don't want to make him a martyr" plea to righteous inaction?

The only thing possibly saving Trump from having at least half-attempted an insurrection against the United States is that he very well may actually believe his own bullshit.

[Mr. Bumble]

And in other news, the Senate is considering convening at Walter Reed to accommodate the increasing number of Senators needing medical care.

[Krayt]

I remember back in the Soviet Union days, the humerous factoid that the Soviet "legislature", of a one party dictatorship, had a higher turnover rate than the US Congress.

[John F. Carr]

They can arrange to vote remotely. Either officially or not. There was an incident in the Massachusetts legislature where unauthorized people were said to be pushing lawmakers' voting buttons.

[Mr. Bumble]

"They can arrange to vote remotely. "

Are you sure that is right? I thought they had to be present to vote.

[John F. Carr]

They are supposed to be present but there is a proposal to change the rules to allow proxies, like the House did during COVID.

[Mr. Bumble]

Great, government by zoom. Think it is time to get back to regular order. Show up and do your job!

[Brett Bellmore]

FYI: They violate the quorum clause routinely, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course no one actually fillibusters anything.

[Frank Drackman]

with those 80 year old Prostrates?? (OK probably 1/2 of them have had Prostatectomies)

[Mr. Bumble]

Including Feinstein?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Is the Biden Administration screwing over Ukraine?

Ukraine continues to fight for its existence against a Russian Invasion. But surprisingly, only 17% of the "aid" sent to Ukraine has actually been for immediate weapons deliveries. The rest of the aid has been for "other items." US troop movements, State Department Aid, and weapons purchases that may get there in 3 years...far too late.

What Ukraine needs is weapons and ammo...and lots of them. They don't need to be the fanciest, newest toys. What they do need to be is hundreds of thousands to millions of howitzer shells and mortar shells. Hundreds of new howitzer guns. And more "basic" weapons like these, in a conflict reminiscent of WWI. These aren't the most expensive weapons systems in the world either.

We need to ask why the Biden Administration isn't prioritizing these weapons deliveries to help Ukraine.

[mse326]

Probably because he can only provide so much aid without congressional approval and the far right republicans (by that I do mean the far right minority of the party, not the whole party) are pushing hard against most help for Ukraine

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe he should appeal to the Taliban to send some of the $7.2 billion in material we abandoned in Afghanistan to the Ukraine.

[Frank Drackman]

Good one

[Kazinski]

Word is that the Taliban is selling it to the Russians.

[Mr. Bumble]

Another Biden success story.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Congress has approved a vast amount of aid.

However, the exact details of the spending and acquisition of materials are up to the executive. As I mentioned, just 17% of the aid has been for actual, immediate weapons. That's a sadly low percentage.

This really is on Biden and his administration.

[Sarcastr0]

You have declared it low based on….wanting to attack the Biden admin and thinking this could work.

You are so bad at this!!,

[Armchair Lawyer]

And based on past history of the US supporting a nation with arms.

[Krayt]

All because Trump probably wants easy platting for towers in Moscow...

[Jason Cavanaugh]

We need to ask why you come here without a shred of evidence for the shit you want people to believe.

[Sarcastr0]

Lo coming out against humanitarian aid to own the libs.

Good luck taking that tact with half the right loving Putin.

[Commenter_XY]

AL, the bottom line is Ukraine is not a vital US national interest. This is a European problem, not a NATO problem. The US is getting inexorably pulled into that maelstrom, and we not have to be. If the Europeans are serious about the threat posed by Russia, they'll belly up to the bar and pay whatever has to be paid to supply Ukraine with whatever they are looking for.

The US is on the hook to defend NATO, not Ukraine.

[Frank Drackman]

Putin will grease the treads of his tanks with OK, at this point probably the Intestines of his own troops, wouldn't count the Roosh-uns out.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a European problem

Where have I heard that before?

[bernard11]

"A quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing".

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, I'm not exactly rushing to help the people whose ancestors were notably unhelpful to Jews during WW2. Tell me the vital US national interest at stake.

[Sarcastr0]

So this is some grudge for you???

Global stability in the US interest. What this entales is complicated, but letting Russsia reconstitute the USSR is pretty clearly bad.

[Commenter_XY]

Tell me the vital US national interest is at stake in Ukraine, Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

I just did.

But tell me vital US interest was at stake in the UK in the 1940s, Commenter.

Don't be doomed to repeat awful lessons.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0....global stability? That is a meaningless phrase.

I said vital US national interest. Name it.

[Sarcastr0]

No, dude: "letting Russsia reconstitute the USSR is pretty clearly bad."

Also, you sound like an American Firster in WW2, which is no way to be.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You’ll be switching tunes when America is ready to stop subsidizing Israel’s deplorable right-wing activities. You should prepare to accept something you will dislike in that context.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Commenter,

If Ukraine was a vital US interest, then US troops would be on the ground defending it. Ukraine is not a "vital" US interest. I don't support US troops on the ground.

What Ukraine is however, is an extremely valuable buffer state between Russia, a militarily aggressive nation, and states which are vital US interests. Towards that goal, keeping Ukraine intact as such a buffer state is important, as it reduces the risk to vital US interests.

Moreover, supplying Ukraine with weapons to fight is far, far cheaper in the long run. Supplying it adequately with weapons however is important, and not misapplying aid. Aid which delivers 30 tanks in 2024 maybe...versus 100 howitzers and 1,000,000 howitzer shells now. The later is far prefereable.

Misapplication of aid is a problem.

[Nige]

'What Ukraine needs is weapons and ammo'

There are probably about a hundred other categories of things Ukraine also needs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, we should send blankets like Obama did. They can then smother the Russians.

[Nige]

Someone doesn't know how to use a blanket.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, blame Obama for Russia invading.

Do you realize how toolish this sounds in TYOL 2023? After what Trump did?

[Bob from Ohio]

"blame Obama for Russia invading"

Why not? He did zero after they invaded Crimea, so they thought his VP would do the same.

"After what Trump did?"

Delayed a few weapon shipments a short time?

[Sarcastr0]

Why not? Because you need to be a truly sad Obama-obsessive to create a but-for causal chain from 2016 till Putin invaded.

But then you never care about how foolish you look or how untrue your posts are.

[Bob from Ohio]

Do you deny that Obama did nothing about Crimea? Ask theFrench if they should have done something about the Rhineland Re-occupation.

I shall cry myself to sleep about how foolish you think I am. I so value your judgments.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I do deny he did nothing. He worked with the other G8 countries to kick Russia out of the G8 and also imposed other sanctions. Trump immediately tried to get Russia back into the G7 and, if you'll recall, said basically Crimea belonged to Russia anyway so what's the fuss. Also, if you'll recall, the whole Flynn episode was in part going behind the Obama administration's back to tell Russia not to worry about the sanctions because the Trump administration would lift them.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"He did zero after they invaded Crimea,"

Wrong. Obama worked with other countries to kick Russia out of the G8 and impose other sanctions.

Trump promptly tried to get Russia back into the G7 and openly said Crimea really belonged to Russia anyway.

While I am very sympathetic to the idea that Obama did not do enough, it's pretty clear who, between Obama and Trump, was weaker on Russia vis a vis Ukraine generally and their taking of Crimea, specifically. (Plus, Biden has worked masterfully to build a coalition to support Ukraine while Trump and DeSantis are fighting over who wants to abandon them more. There is no comparison between Obama/Biden and Trump/DeSantis on this. The former are much, much stronger than the latter two.).

Trump basically green lighted the annexation of Ukrainian territory. At least Obama said it was bad and tried to impose some cost, though, in retrospect, not acting nearly forcefully enough. Whatever Putin thought about Biden, he was quite obviously very, very wrong.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's pretty clear who was weaker, yes. It was Obama, by far.

Remember, Obama was caught on a hot mike asking the Russians for "space" and that he could be more "flexible" after the election. The Russians understood this easily, and used Obama's second term to invade Crimea without a problem, as Obama stopped any lethal military aid from going to Ukraine.

Trump actually delivered lethal military aid to Ukraine, including all those anti-tank weapons which were so critical to Ukraine in the opening months the second conflict. Trump pressured Putin not to invade further when Trump was president. When Biden took over, it was clear the road was open for Putin again.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/12/04/trump-to-seek-250m-in-new-lethal-aid-to-ukraine/

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair,

Notice how you didn't address the points I made. At all.

Trump, as President elect, reassured the Russians that his administration would undo the sanctions that the Obama administration had imposed due to the Crimea invasion.

Trump, as President, said Crimea historically belonged to Russia anyway.

Trump, as President, tried to pressure the G7 into letting Russia back into the club, though Russia was kicked out because of the Crimea invasion.

What signals did those actions send?

(Against that, you give a hot mic example that had to do with negotiating the nuclear arms deals, which had nothing to do with Crimea and everything to do with U.S. politics, particularly how the GOP would paint anything Obama did vis a vis Russia as a problem.)

And what is going on now? Biden was instrumental in putting together the coalition to support Ukraine. Biden is pushing for aid to Ukraine and trying to keep everyone, including the wobbly GOP, on board. Meanwhile, Trump is tweeting that we are doing too much. That we should do less.

DeSantis is even more clearly against helping Ukraine.

But you ignore that, because you have a narrative to push. The frontrunners for the GOP want to abandon Ukraine, to let Putin have what pieces of Ukraine he wants. And if they succeed in tanking our support of Ukraine, they send a clear signal to China that they can take Taiwan whenever they want, because the U.S. is going to go wobbly when it counts.

[NOVA Lawyer]

To be clear, Trump on Crimea:

President Donald Trump told world leaders at the G7 summit that Crimea, a contested territory south of Ukraine, is part of Russia because everyone there speaks Russian.

The diplomatic source also said Trump told world leaders at the dinner that "Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world" and wondered why leaders sided with them over Russia.

"Whether you like it or not, and it may not be politically correct, but we have a world to run," [Trump] said. "And in the G7, which used to be the G8 — they threw Russia out — they should let Russia come back in."

Trump is strong, alright, in favor of Russia dismantling its democratic neighbor.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Yes, blame Obama for Russia invading."
Did nothing of the sort. Comment was with regard to Obama's response to Russia's takeover of Crimea.

[Sarcastr0]

Congrats on your irrelevant comment then.

[ragebot]

I am not as convinced as you seem to be that 17% is an unreasonable number (and that is granting the fact that we should even be doing anything in the first place). Any military science guy will agree that an army travels on it's stomach. Getting stuff to a shithole country rife with corruption on Russia's border is a tall order. Even a libturd like yourself surely has seen the term 'supply chain problems' thrown around almost daily and that is for stuff peeps are paying cash on the barrel head for far away from a war zone.

There is also the issue that some of the things you are describing are suffering from real shortages. Look at how all the 2A guys are bitching about how hard it is to get ammo, not to mention the high prices being asked. The US military use to have three or four places where they made small arms ammo but not they are down to one in Lake City, Mo.

Bottom line is getting stuff into a war zone is a tall order even with no political opposition; and don't kid yourself there is a lot of opposition to giving away stuff to Ukraine when the economy in the US bites big red donkey dicks.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Libturd?

But yes, getting stuff to a warzone can be difficult. Of course, Ukraine has a large open land border with major US allies, including Poland, Hungary, and Romania. So it's not "that" hard. Certainly not harder than getting weapons to the UK or Soviet Union during WWII was.

[Armchair Lawyer]

More Biden Documents found...this time in Boston.

https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/nara-removed-9-boxes-documents-biden-lawyers-boston-office

[apedad]

Just to be clear, the story might be new but the boxes were retrieved in November when other documents were retrieved AND it was Biden’s assistants who notified NARA that the documents were in Boston.

[Armchair Lawyer]

But oddly enough, those facts weren't revealed until March 7th. And the contents *still* haven't been reviewed?

[apedad]

And yet you chose to focus on the 'documents found in Boston' and not those facts weren’t revealed until March 7th.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I provide links for people to review evidence, and note the headlines.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You sure didn't provide any evidence for your 17% aid claim, above.

[Mr. Bumble]

There has been nothing "clear' about this story from the beginning.

[DaveM]

"...AND it was Biden’s assistants who notified NARA that the documents were in Boston."

Those of us who have worked with classified materials know that this clause is irrelevant at best and a misdirection at worst. The real question is how the documents got to Boston in the first place. That is the crime.

The sad truth is that when it comes to following the rules of secrecy, there are two standards, depending on your level of influence. If you have no influence and you break the law, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent. If you have influence and you do the same, you are not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What about the BBA rules?

Say the lawyer doesn't have a clearance but is a lawyer....

[David Nieporent]

Those of us who have worked with classified materials know that this clause is irrelevant at best and a misdirection at worst. The real question is how the documents got to Boston in the first place. That is the crime.

Why are you talking about classified materials? Nothing in the story says that any of the documents identified in Boston were classified. The linked material expressly says that NARA has not reviewed the documents and does not know that.

[EscherEnigma]

You do remember that the entire reason Trump has legal problems over his Mar-a-Lago docs is because he didn't cooperate with NARA and the FBI, right?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Looks like Rupert Murdoch is trying to play clever defense, to limit inevitable losses in the Dominion case. Murdoch seems almost in a hurry to be forthright about Fox lies, and his own informed participation in them.

My guess is that Murdoch has mentally prepared himself for more than a billion dollar judgment against Fox, but wants to use cooperation to try to limit more in punitive damages, and maybe to head off attempts to target him personally.

Murdoch lied to make money. Looks like he may know how to tell truths to escape some of the consequences of lying.

[apedad]

Got to keep the stockholders happy so good decision.

Fox Corporation has a market cap of $17.88 Billion.

[shawn_dude]

It looks like his defense is to try and claim greed isn't malice.

[apedad]

Woman slams SUV into Popeyes because her order didn’t have biscuits: Deputies

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/woman-slams-suv-into-popeyes-because-her-order-didnt-have-biscuits-deputies/

I prefer Popeyes over KFC; I like the crunchier skin at Popeyes.

But there’s a KFC much closer to our home so we usually get KFC.

[Moderation4ever]

On of the true disadvantages of living in the north, in my case Wisconsin, is the lack of good fried chicken. We have KFC and a few Popeyes but the choice available to those in the southern states.

[Brett Bellmore]

I keep hoping a Nashville Hot place will open here in Greenville. That stuff is great! Visiting Nashville in a couple of weeks, and that's something I'm really looking forward to.

[Frank Drackman]

you want real N-word Fried Chicken you gotta go to Church(s)
https://www.churchs.com/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No need to hold back. This is Eugene Volokh’s blog. Slur away!

[Brett Bellmore]

Back in the 90's I attended a Worldcon in New Orleans. Put my foot down a post hole running a few days before the convention, so I attended on crutches. The Popeye's next door was the only restaurant I could easily reach, so I ate there a lot.

By the last day of the convention, I was so sick of biscuits I told them I didn't want a biscuit with my order. Then had to stop them from putting one in the bag anyway. As I left an employee chased me down with you know what held in tongs, shouting, "Sir! You forgot your biscuit!"

Must have taken real work to avoid getting that biscuit.

I was delighted when a Popeye's opened near my house last year. KFC wasn't so delighted, their nearby outlet just closed. Honestly, KFC has been going downhill for years...

[SRG]

Never been to an American Worldcon, but I've been to three British Worldcons. Who was there?

[Brett Bellmore]

Looking it up, that was actually 1988, the 46th Worldcon.

Can't really recall much of it, honestly, aside from the talk by Vernor Vinge, and finding out that a girl I'd had a crush on in college really liked me. Pity I didn't know at the time, the arc of my life would have been hugely different...

[Mr. Bumble]

Be sure to tell your wife.

[Brett Bellmore]

You think she cares? It was decades before I met her, and she's not under the illusion I never had a crush before I met her.

[SRG]

I was at the one the year before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45th_World_Science_Fiction_Convention

I didn't get any babes, but at various times I had coffees with David Brin, Poul Anderson, and Norman Spinrad, who after I'd praised one of his short stories, said, "I haven't been paid for that!", and briefly exchanged jokes with the Strugatsky bros. And in the lounge, sat one table over from the ridiculously delectable Caroline Munro.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't get any babes, either: By the time I found out the crush had been mutual, she was married.

At the Worldcon in Phoenix I got to meet L. Neil Smith, (Fun guy!) Larry Pratt, (Been friends since.) and Erik Drexler. Got to hear Julia Eklar playing that guitar of her’s live, too.

Actually, I was part of an effort to pre buy copies of Engines of Creation, so that he could get a larger print run. Fun times!

I do kind of miss going to conventions; My first wife wasn’t interested, and left me poor enough the next year when she divorced me that I could no longer afford it. But following the fandom news, I suspect I wouldn’t enjoy the convention scene nearly so much these days; The SMOFs went woke before anybody else.

But I think I’ll take my son to Comicon the next time it’s in town.

[SRG]

I've not been to a con since Glasgow 1995 - where I ended up being on two panels, one with Gregory Benford and one with Harry Harrison. Highlight of that con was having drinks with Harry and Brian Aldiss at a lunch party given by Annie McCaffrey and standing guard while Brian found a discreet place to urinate into the river.

Once I moved here, I kinda disconnected. Forgetting about wokeness, where I suspect my tolerance is higher than yours, nowadays they seem to be all about comics and cosplay.

[Nige]

I think ‘woke’ means new books kept getting published and young readers grew up to become fans of those books.

(Harry Harrison and James White were regulars at Octocon in Dublin until they each passed - absolute gentlemen raconteurs.)

[SRG]

James White occasionally used to do a great talk at Novacons in England. Harry used to live in Avoca, Co Wicklow. He swore that on one occasion some local, chatting his daughter up, asked, “are you Protestant or Catholic?”, and when she replied, “neither, I’m Jewish”, responded, “are you a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew?”

[Nige]

He also used to talk hilariously about Little Green Men and Little Orange Men.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Woke" means to the point where the author of Ethan of Athos is thought to be homophobic.

[Nige]

That sounds... obscure.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's an SF novel by Lois Bujold that positively portrays a whole planet of homosexuals. Misogynic homosexuals, mind you, but still anything but homophobic.

[Nige]

No, I know who she is and I'm a fan of her work, I've just never heard anyone suggest she's homophobic, so whoever did was pretty obscure.

[DaveM]

FTA: "The manager told deputies that prior to this incident, Miller had made threats to her staff, then drove away. A few minutes later, Miller called the Popeye’s and said she was “already on ‘papers’ and would drive her vehicle into the building,” the report states."

I have no idea what "already on 'papers'" means. A local slang term, maybe?

And what state does a person have to be in, to call a fast food restaurant and threaten to ram it?!

[Brett Bellmore]

According to Urban Dictionary, it's slang for being on parole. She was saying she was a badass criminal, so better take her seriously.

[DaveM]

Wow. “I’m on parole and have to check in with the police to prove that I’m not committing any further crimes or else I’ll get thrown back in the slammer” as a justification to ram a restaurant with your car.

Gotta love the South. ‘MERIKA!

[Frank Drackman]

I knew what that meant from watching "Law & Order"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m92tuqthJw

[Kazinski]

Life's too short to eat fast food. Although I have to admit it is a bonus when you're on the road to have an idea about what the food will taste like when you get it.

I was on the road a few days ago, and it was about dinnertime with still about a 2 hour drive ahead of me. So rather than fast food I looked on Google for Mexican food, the first place looked great, but they only took cash, and I only had cards. The 2nd place was a family Mexican restaurant and I really couldn't fathom how you could screw up a carne asada burrito that badly. And it's not like this was South Dakota, I was in southern California.

I would have been better off at McDonald's, and I hate McDonald's.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The 2nd place was a family Mexican restaurant and I really couldn’t fathom how you could screw up a carne asada burrito that badly."

We had a Mexican restaurant in my home town in Michigan, run by Mexicans, and the food was terrible. OTOH, the old Mexican lady down the street who taught my mom how to make tortillas from scratch with a piece of broom stick for a roller? She could cook.

I've concluded that if you want good Mexican restaurant food, you need to avoid restaurants run by Mexicans. Don't ask me why, but that's my experience.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Woman slams SUV into Popeyes because her order didn’t have biscuits"

She should have just called 911.

[Moderation4ever]

A common response to criticism of President Trump was to pull out the old "TDS" and to suggest that the original commenter was motivated by hate. Thanks to the Dominion suit we are finding out that many of those supporting President Trump really hated him, perhaps more that the critics. The critics could say they were honest. The supporter had to accept they were selling their souls.

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought they didn't have souls to sell.

[Dr. Ed 2]

MFE is actually right — the reason I am no longer a Republican is because I know too many RINOs who are in it just for themselves. Who hated Trump but prostituted themselves for political advancement, all the while being willing to give him the shiv when it benefited them.

[Nige]

But that's just emulating Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, at the same time, anybody who thought the GOP might have been sabotaging Trump behind the scenes was just paranoid, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Sabotaged how?

Yes, you taking someone liking or not liking something and weaving a whole plot is indeed being paranoid.

And worrisome about your own self control.

[Randal]

Huh? You are so weird. Parts of the GOP have been blatantly, transparently undermining Trump all along, There's nothing even unusual about that. Some Democrats are undermining Biden. There's always intra-party stuff.

Now you're paranoid about being paranoid? You're really losing it Brett. I'm worried about you.

[David Nieporent]

Was, and still is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Much as the ’60s radicals created Reagan, much as the left created Trump, the left today is creating DeSantos and it will come back to bite them.

Maybe he is going to far in education reform, maybe he is stomping on academic freedom and even replacing one kind of political bias with another — we don’t care…

That’s the dark side of populism, and I don’t think that the left has studied enough history to understand that. So yes, death penalty for having an abortion — or, more likely, denial of medical care to those having complications from the abortion pill. (Remember Paul LePage’s proposal to deny a second dose of Narcan to those who hadn’t paid the state (of Maine) for the first?)

And what everyone has missed is that CPAC has both imploded and largely been replaced — it went into the toilet when it abandoned DC for a Maryland resort (that is NOT on the Metro) and started being more about the money than the message. (Admission alone went from $60 to $300, etc. RINOs don’t understand that pay to play doesn’t play well in Peoria.

Trump and DeSantos are actually moderates when compared to what you might see in the party (and national leadership) in the coming decade. This is what Ronald Reagan was like before he got shot — he never was the same afterwards — https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sc0VIRY4W2E

[OtisAH]

Pity the poor “conservative.” He has no thoughts or beliefs of his own. His every belief, his every action, is determined by what someone else does. On the upside, he cannot be held responsible for any word or act. On the downside, he cannot think or act without the influence of others. It’s the “conservative” yin yang’s yin yang.

Don’t blame the “conservative” for what he says and does. Blame the people who make him say and do those things. They’re the true villains here.

[grb]

Well put. But there’s another irony here as well: Many on the Right finally got weary & embarrassed of Trump. If only, they say, we had a normal human being as leader. So what do we see emerging?

They’re trading in a sleazy huckster phony for a sleazy huckster phony. DeSantis is barely anything more than a congealed glob of empty stunts. Clearly the problem runs deeper than Trump. The rot is at the very core of today’s Right. Trump was symptom, not cause.

[Brett Bellmore]

What we're seeing here is that, because Democrats and Republicans fundamentally disagree about a wide range of issues, (Not just on a policy level, but also a moral level.) there isn't actually anybody that Republicans might like, and Democrats respect. And visa versa. The parties' views are largely disjoint now.

it's been like that for a long time; Remember, if you cite Romney as 'a voice of reason' in the GOP, how he got treated when he actually was the Republican nominee. EVERY Republican nominee has been a monster so far as Democrats were concerned, going back to before I was born. Even the people you claim to respect become monsters the moment they become the nominee.

So, it was perfectly predictable, WAS predicted, that as soon as it looked like DeSantis might be the nominee, he'd become a shambling monster in the eyes of Democrats, the next Hitler.

So, you want to persuade Republicans not to nominate DeSantis? Don't tell us he's a monster, that you'd say that was overdetermined. Point out how he's bad from a Republican, conservative standpoint.

[Frank Drackman]

I like Marianne Williamson, and Tulsi Scabbard

[Brett Bellmore]

Tulsi isn't nuts, at least. I'd feel some hope for the Democratic party if she got the nomination. But, like I said, visa versa.

[Randal]

The question isn't whether Democrats respect the Republican candidate. Do Republicans respect the Republican candidate?

When the candidate consists solely of own-the-libs posturing, that might be appealing to Republicans, but it's not the "normal human being" that grb points out is what the GOP needs in order to regain its self-respect.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have to distinguish between the party's base, and the apparatchiks. Republican voters liked Trump, and still do to some extent. Republican apparatchiks hated his guts, because he didn't come up inside the party, he was an outsider, and thus a threat to THEM. If he took over the party, they'd be on the outside looking in. That's why, for instance, the party readopted the 2016 platform in 2020, unchanged: If it had been open to change, Trump would have had influence over how it was changed.

What makes DeSantis such a threat to the Democrats is that he's Trumpy in terms of appeal to the base, AND came up inside the party, so the party establishment doesn't view him as a mortal threat. He gets the nomination, they'll face a united GOP, not a nominee being sabotaged behind the scenes by the party establishment.

And with that executive branch experience in Florida, he'll likely be a very effective President, too.

[Randal]

Sure Republican voters like Trump. But do they respect him? A handful of hardcore crazies do, naturally, but on the whole, no.

I’m not scared of DeSantis in the slightest!

A, he doesn’t have Trump’s appeal. Trump is a charismatic cult of personality. DeSantis has the charisma of a grumpy rutabega (mental image courtesy of Rex Huppke).

B, Trump’s whole thing was destroying the system, i.e. the country and the Constitution. DeSantis’s whole thing is the culture war. He’s an institutionalist otherwise. That’s nothing to be afraid of. I don’t mind losing the culture war (we care about it way less than you do, it’s almost just bait at this point so we and McConnell can get things done while you squabble in the House). I do mind losing the country.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure what you mean by "respect". He's no Rand Paul, if that's what you mean. I thought he was a decent President, but a less than decent man. My opinion of him has declined somewhat in light of how he responded to his loss in 2020.

[Randal]

A decent man is certainly the min bar!

Even better would be intelligent, creative, and principled.

An ideal role-model-style candidate would have a positive, realistic, inclusive, clear, conservative vision for America.

[Brett Bellmore]

If a decent man were the minimum bar, we could just nuke DC and go home. I mean, are you under the illusion that the current President is a decent man? Seriously?

[Sarcastr0]

The lazy blanket cynicism of the Trump supporter.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “That’s why, for instance, the party readopted the 2016 platform in 2020, unchanged: If it had been open to change, Trump would have had influence over how it was changed.”

Rather that retreat into conspiratorial gibberish, why not consider two more likelier explanations (or a combination thereof):

1. The GOP doesn’t care that much for policy. After all, their record in the post-Trump midterms was equally vacuous. They didn’t advance new policy goals then as well. Why do you think your handlers have told you, Brett Bellmore, to work yourself into a frenzied tizzy over the tiny number of people who are trans? Newsflash: Because they have nothing to say on real issues.

2. And if the GOP was indifferent, Trump was indifference squared. Would any sensible & responsible person want the Donald to throw together a “platform” out of addled whims of the moment, grade-school talking points, fact-free rants, and incoherent ramblings ?!? He’d just run for president on “lock her up” and “make Mexico pay for the wall”. As president, his aides would have to make briefing books out of cartoons to have any hope of getting his attention. Any platform written by Trump would have been an embarrassing shit-show – if he even bothered to care.

You really need to give your conspiracy tendencies a long vacation, Brett…

[Brett Bellmore]

The only thing that makes that seem likelier is viewing the GOP from a hostile perspective, so that the worst possible interpretation always seems the most plausible.

[grb]

1. The criticism the GOP ran on nothing in the midterms is common from the Right. I didn’t make it up, just pointed out their actions in ’20 were no different than their actions in ’22. That makes your conspiracy theory superfluous, doesn’t it?

2. And it doesn’t take any “worst possible interpretation” to note Trump’s total indifference to policy. Also, please remember: The whole point of a party platform is to record details of political principles and objectives. So give us your opinion, Brett: Do the words “details” and “Trump” ever belong in the same sentence?

Because if Trump is indifferent to policy, he’s 10x more indifferent to details. Do you really think an anti-Trump conspiracy is needed to explain the 2020 platform thing?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I grew up in a country where a tranny was the thing between the engine and the drive shaft, and pot was the thing you boiled your lobsters in.

I want that country back.

[Randal]

Then vote against DeSantis and stop watching Fox. They're the ones with the transsexual obsession. I too would love to stop having to talk about it.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “….. EVERY Republican nominee …..”

Sigh. Four Points:

1. Give up the martyr shtick. Every politician of all parties in any election is demonized. To sell this as Democratic perfidy is silly.

2. DeSantis is – in fact – grotesquely phony. He does – in fact – rely on empty cartoon stunts more than any pol this side of Marjorie Taylor Greene. We warned you Trump was a walking train-wreck and what did you do? Pull into your shell and whine about the Left being awful meanies. Maybe you should listen this time….

3. And why is the Right addicted to this garbage? Answer: Because politics has become cartoon theater for your side. You’re in it for the entertainment.

4. What I would like to persuade the Right to do? Grow the fuck up. Aim higher than carney-grade sideshows, faux-outrage over pretend issues, and your own little hot-house world of phony facts. This country does best with two functional political parties and right now it only has one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We had Michelle Bachmann and your side destroyed her.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "We had Michelle Bachmann....."

Why do I read this as someone recounting a contracted disease?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She was a graduate of the Oral Roberts law school, one of the few institutions that could have been worse than South Texas College of Law Houston.

The demise of that one was a substantial improvement in American legal academia.

[Nige]

‘EVERY Republican nominee has been a monster’

An actual cult grew up around opposition to Clinton based on the conviction that she was pedophile and Satanist and child murderer and exploded into a messianic quasi-religion that still believes Trump will save the world from the pedophile Satanist child murderer Democrats. (Who will, incidentally, hate DeSantis with the heat of a million suns if he supplants Trump.)

[bernard11]

EVERY Republican nominee has been a monster so far as Democrats were concerned, going back to before I was born.

Fucking joke. Do you claim the Republicans don't demonize the Democratic nominees?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett,

“How Romney got treated?” Like the opposing party nominee. Like he had bad elitist ideas about some things (which he was secretly recorded expressing, so yeah). But I did not and most reasonable people did not say he was a monster. McCain was an honorable man and I said so at the time, though I much preferred Obama. After all, McCain had the decency to correct a woman spouting gibberish about Obama being an America-hating Muslim. Romney similarly held himself to a high standard of personal decency, as did Obama. And in the recent past there were non-douche bags like John Kasich, Jeff Flake, and (to a lesser extent) Ben Sasse. But they are unelectable in a Presidential primary in today’s GOP precisely because they are decent human beings who refuse to spout the sort of garbage and engage in the antics of a Trump or DeSantis. And all three of them are far, far more politically conservative (in the Reagan-conservative sense) than either Trump or DeSantis, both of whom are populist, pro-authoritarian douches.

As for reasons a conservative should shun DeSantis:

What actually conservative values does he support? Free market? Nah. Free speech? Nope. Robust national defense? No. Pro-democracy? Not here. DeSantis wants to pick winners and losers, tell cruise lines whether they can have vaccinated only cruises, punish Disney for speech DeSantis doesn’t like, dictate to teachers what they can say (what happened to local control of school curricula, etc.?), tell private corporations what training programs they can have. Where Reagan told Gorbachev to “tear down that wall,” DeSantis tells Putin go ahead and build it back because he thinks it’s not in America’s interest to protect a democratic Ukraine. Whereas Reagan aspired for America to be the shining city on a hill, DeSantis wants us to turn the lights out and hide behind our own wall.

DeSantis has realized that today’s GOP thinks “conservatism” is anything a “liberal” disagrees with. And so endless press conferences and unconservative policy proposals to "own the libs". That’s not what conservatism is. At its best, it is a coherent political philosophy that cautions against rapid change and advocates for limited government. Today’s GOP has never seen a government lever it doesn’t want to use to stifle the speech and the freedom, including economic freedom, of those who disagree with them.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re fooling yourself.

I don’t like DeSantis on speech either (although I agree with him trying to clean up the school stuff) but he’s much more capable and formidable than Trump. And Biden too.

[Nige]

'Much as the ’60s radicals created Reagan, much as the left created Trump, the left today is creating DeSantos and it will come back to bite them.'

'The party of personal responsibility' was always as much a crock as 'family values,' 'tough on crime,' 'fiscal responsibility' and 'small government.'

[not guilty]

"Much as the ’60s radicals created Reagan, much as the left created Trump, the left today is creating DeSantos [sic] and it will come back to bite them."

It seems to me that DeSantis is channeling another 1960s governor: George Corley Wallace. Each targeted a despised minority -- DeSantis's hatemongering regarding LGBT folks brings to mind Wallace's hatemongering toward "nigras." Each has whipped up culture war fury into a frenzy. Each has known better -- Wallace was once a well-respected state court judge, while DeSantis is a Yale and Harvard educated lawyer. Each was/is destined to fail.

Governor Wallace in later life repented of his race baiting. Time will tell whether DeSantis will abandon his demagogy.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah. I think the video of DeSantis blocking the schoolhouse door yelling “Don’t say gay today, don’t say gay tomorrow, don’t say gay forever” was my first hint.

You’re not a serious person with this nonsense. But credit to you, at least you didn’t compare him to Mussolini over a bill he didn’t support.

[Nige]

Yeah if he doesn't say those exact same words it doesn't count.

[bernard11]

Wallace was likely never all that serious about his racism. It was mostly a very cynical political ploy (not that he was any sort of liberal on the issue).

When he lost to Patterson in 1958 he famously swore he would "never be out-n*****ed again." And so it was.

For all those who think Jim Crow was an artifact of "statism," note that southern elections in those days generally turned, as Wallace knew, on who could be the bigger racist.

[Frank Drackman]

Wallace won his last election to Governor in 1982, getting 95% of the Afro-Amurican vote, because Duh, he ran as a DemoKKKrat.

[EscherEnigma]

Actually, as has been revealed recently, DeSantis was "created" by Fox in a deliberate ploy to pump up a contender to Trump so they could finally dump him completely.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As someone who enthusiastically looks forward to President DeSantis’s inauguration in a couple years—please stop trying to help.

[not guilty]

A plethora of lawyers have filed a disciplinary complaint seeking disbarment of Stefan Passantino for misconduct in his representation of Cassidy Hutchinson before the House January 6 Investigating Committee. https://ldad.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Ethics-Complaint-against-Stefan-Passantino.pdf

It's about time!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspirators (and their fans) wish you had not mentioned this issue, let alone linked to that document.

[John F. Carr]

Why did it take ten weeks to get the complaint written? Because 36 lawyers can't get anything done quickly, I suppose. Some of the job titles in the signature list: "Former DC Bar President" (x 3), "Former Chair, ABA Standing Committee on Professional Discipline", "former President, American Bar Association". There's a Walter H. White among the signatories. And a name I haven't heard for a long time, former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger.

It's worth noting that the complaint specifically recommends disbarment, not discipline in general.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There was a lot of misconduct, and evidence of misconduct, to process.

Would you -- or anyone else -- object to disbarment if the accusations are vindicated?

Does anyone wish to offer anything in defense of the described , unprofessional conduct?) conduct? Anyone ever tell a client who has requested an engagement letter -- and who you who you cold-called, on behalf of undisclosed clients with conflicting interests -- not to worry about an engagement letter?

Unlike most MAGA operatives, this guy seems to have been a legitimate professional before he started cashing checks from and renting his credibility to Trump World. Now he is reduced to hoping he can avoid justice and accountability.

[John F. Carr]

The document didn't need to be detailed or well researched because its goal was to report misconduct to the authorities. The essence of the misconduct was summarized by bloggers back in December without months of wordsmithing. The DC Bar will write its own memorandum in support of charges.

If the disciplinary committee concludes that there was subornation of perjury or obstruction of Congress there is no alternative to disbarment. In my opinion. Some may disagree. We had a case here in Massachusetts where a well-connected lawyer initially received only a suspension for obstruction of justice before the punishment was upgraded to disbarment on appeal. In the matter of Thomas M. Finneran. Like Passantino advised his client to do, Finneran refused to disclose relevant testimony under oath. And like Passantino's client, Finneran committed a kind of perjury that usually goes unpunished. He got unlucky. The First Circuit called out his testimony in the underlying civil case as implausible. The Speaker of the House claimed he was not involved in redistricting. Who believes that? After that the US Attorney had to prosecute.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wasn't it a Voting Rights Case involving a minority set-aside district?

I loved the part when one of his flunkies didn't know which river the Mystic River Bridge crossed and the jury concluded that yes, he really was that stupid.

But everyone knew that Finneran lied -- all the time and about everything.

But the case I look at is Bill Clinton, who I believe has his license back now.

[not guilty]

Bill Clinton agreed to a five year suspension of his Arkansas license to practice law. I haven't heard of him applying for reinstatement.

[John F. Carr]

An obstacle I see to disbarment, and to federal felony convictions, is the dependence of the case on a cooperating witness who has an incentive to throw her lawyer under the bus. This doesn't mean they can't do it, but a juror or bar committee member might hesitate.

If the DC disciplinary committee decides that the conflict of interest charges are sustained but the obstruction and perjury charges are not, what would be a typical punishment?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is abusing client interests -- treating your low-level "client" as a pawn to be sacrificed for your genuine (big-ticket) clients, flouting professional standards (dodging an engagement letter? refusing the identify the funder(s)? disregarding a client request to refrain from comment?) -- less severe than obstructing justice or promoting perjury?

Maybe the witness is disingenuous, and this lawyer can produce the engagement letter.

[not guilty]

Don't forget about bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2). Free legal services are a thing of value, not to mention the promise of employment opportunities to Cassidy Hutchinson.

I can recall the howls of protest when Vernon Jordan arranged a job interview for Monica Lewinsky.

[bernard11]

I'm still waiting for those Secret Service guys who swore (not under oath) to someone that Hutchinson was lying to say it under oath.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You mean the Secret Service guys who worked for Trump rather than for the government?

[David Nieporent]

The DOJ has just released an incredibly damning (and incredibly frustrating) report on the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department, commissioned in the wake of the murder of Breonna Taylor, revealing (shockingly to absolutely nobody) that LMPD routinely ignores the law and the constitution, searching people because they can, assaulting people because they feel like it, and just generally being cops.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vh_Q_-R7Ew5NPaBxl19T7East0l1-Syy/view

Prediction: none of the people complaining about the mild treatment of the J6 insurrectionists will say word one about it.

[Bored Lawyer]

When there are no consequences to bad behavior, people behave badly. Especially people with power. Some dead English judge once said something about power corrupting.

Abolish QI, and forbid municipalities to indemnify cops. That will solve most of the problem in a few years.

[Commenter_XY]

BL....You might know this; how much is private liability insurance for cops? I mean, would taxpayers need to pay their insurance premiums? What would we Taxpayers be on the hook for?

Yeah, do away with QI, but what's the cost?

[Bored Lawyer]

I have no idea about insurance for cops. I do know that, generally speaking, intentional torts are not covered by insurance, and in many (all?) states such insurance violates public policy. Insurance only covers negligence.

[John F. Carr]

In my state, there are two provisions.

For public employees in general,

Public employers may indemnify public employees, and the commonwealth shall indemnify persons holding office under the constitution, from personal financial loss, all damages and expenses, including legal fees and costs, if any, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 arising out of any claim, action, award, compromise, settlement or judgment by reason of an intentional tort, or by reason of any act or omission which constitutes a violation of the civil rights of any person under any federal or state law, if such employee or official or holder of office under the constitution at the time of such intentional tort or such act or omission was acting within the scope of his official duties or employment. No such employee or official, other than a person holding office under the constitution acting within the scope of his official duties or employment, shall be indemnified under this section for violation of any such civil rights if he acted in a grossly negligent, willful or malicious manner.

(General Laws chapter 258 section 9)

For state police

If, in the event a suit is commenced against a member of the state police or an employee represented by state bargaining unit five, by reason of a claim for damages resulting from an alleged intentional tort or by reason of an alleged act or failure to act which constitutes a violation of the civil rights of any person under federal or state law, the commonwealth, at the request of the affected police officer, shall provide for the legal representation of said police officer.

The commonwealth shall indemnify members of the state police or an employee represented by state bargaining unit five, respectively, from all personal financial loss and expenses, including but not limited to legal fees and costs, if any, in an amount not to exceed one million dollars arising out of any claim, action, award, compromise, settlement or judgment resulting from any alleged intentional tort or by reason of an alleged act or failure to act which constitutes a violation of the civil rights of any person under federal or state law; provided, however, that this section shall apply only where such alleged intentional tort or alleged act or failure to act occurred within the scope of the official duties of such police officer.

No member of the state police or an employee represented by state bargaining unit five shall be indemnified for any violation of federal or state law if such member or employee acted in a wilful, wanton, or malicious manner.

(section 9A)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hmmm -- did that get changed? I thought it was "must" indemnify.

Interesting it's $1M when the limit for tort claims is $100K

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't bounty hunters have to have their own insurance?

[David Nieporent]

Of course, forbidding municipalities from indemnifying cops will serve to effectively immunize cops. How many lawyers are going to be willing to bring § 1983 claims when there are no assets available to pay judgments? (In my ideal world, I'd take the sums out of the police pension fund, but I don't think that would be legal.)

And while I certainly want to abolish QI, the problem identified by the report includes an awful lot of criminal acts by the cops. About which the department itself did nothing — not even administratively. Indeed, they often didn't even bother to investigate.

IMO, any time a police department says that the cop followed procedure or didn't violate any rules, Monell liability should be automatic. But our cop-friendly federal courts have created a system in which you can't sue a city for a cop's bad acts because you can't show those bad acts are a policy or practice of the city, even though the city has formally endorsed those acts.

Abolishing QI will get compensation for a few more victims of the police, and that's a good thing. But it will not be preventative. For that, we need a cultural change. And that will only happen when people care about abuses of the legal system regardless of who the victims are. If Tucker Carlson were talking every night about this rather than the J6 people, it at least has the potential to be ameliorative.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do cops have no assets at all? Really? No homes, no cars? Why can't they be treated like a guy going through a divorce, with grand indifference to whether he's left indebted for the rest of his life?

Sure, their pockets aren't as deep as the city's, but they HAVE pockets, and we're aiming for direct deterrence here.

That said... You're looking at the consequences of two really, really bad policies: The war on poverty, and the war on drugs.

The war on poverty created ghettos. It paid people to stay in hopeless situations instead of picking up and moving. It eventually made single motherhood the dominant mode in our cities, and all the statistics say that being raised by a single mother practically dooms you to poverty. The exceptions are just that: Exceptions.

The war on drugs created a fantastically lucrative black market. That market can't use the courts to settle disputes and the police to provide protection, so it hires urban gangs to provide muscle. This made joining a gang a very attractive move in communities where real jobs were few and far between.

And practically nobody actually involved in drug crimes WANTS the law enforced. That short circuits the whole basis of law enforcement, victims notifying police that the crime happened.

So you have poor communities with high levels of organized crime, and a lot of the crime is of a sort where witnesses are scarce, and ordinary, legit police techniques such as actually work in the burbs are futile.

Either the police give up on trying, and become corrupt, or they really try, and become corrupt, because there's no honest way of getting things done.

We'll never get it fixed until we address the root causes. And address them honestly, not put it down to some bullshit like "structural racism".

I think we need to give the people trapped in these ghettos a way out, and stop encouraging them to stay there. Condition public assistance on moving to a place with low unemployment, so the kids grow up surrounded by people who work for a living, and jobs are actually available.

The cities won't like that, though: Those live bodies count for apportionment and distribution of state-wide taxes...

[David Nieporent]

Do cops have no assets at all? Really? No homes, no cars? Why can’t they be treated like a guy going through a divorce, with grand indifference to whether he’s left indebted for the rest of his life?

Of course cops have some assets. But not the types that make most suits worthwhile. (Especially after the cop has to pay lawyers to defend the suit!) A used car? Come on.

In most states (I won't say all without being sure), one cannot collect against the home of a married person. One can win the lawsuit and get a judgment lien against the home, but can only collect in the event of death, divorce, or sale. So the home equity is untouchable for a long time.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Of course, forbidding municipalities from indemnifying cops will serve to effectively immunize cops. How many lawyers are going to be willing to bring § 1983 claims when there are no assets available to pay judgments?"

But cops already don't pay if the municipality indemnifies them.

Your idea of the pension fund is a good one. Perhaps cops and police depts. should be required to set up a victim compensation fund, from which Section 1983 defendants may collect. If there is anything left over after a certain time, the cops get to split it. Nothing like financial incentive to encourage good behavior.

[David Nieporent]

But cops already don’t pay if the municipality indemnifies them.

Right, cops don't pay if the municipality indemnifies them: the municipality pays. So the plaintiffs can collect, so they have an incentive to bring the claims. No, the cops don't get individually punished if that happens, but at least the plaintiffs get compensated.

On the other hand, remove indemnification and the suits will largely not be brought at all. Cops don't get individually punished and plaintiffs don't get compensated.

[bernard11]

Plus, it's an incentive for the municipality to pay attention to police misbehavior.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its also an incentive for police to quit and people to never apply.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I fail to see the issue of people worried about having to pay for violating the constitution and committing criminal acts being discouraged from becoming police.

It’s actually remarkable what a low standard you and other right-wing tough on crime types hold cops to. In fact it’s pretty insulting to them. At least liberal police critics consider them intelligent moral agents who are capable of making good choices but choose not to. You seem to think they need QI because they just can’t help themselves from shooting children on the ground, having dogs tear out the chest of a non-threatening homeless man, forcing a teenager to perform sex acts, throwing a flashbang into a crib with a baby, tasing a man covered in gasoline, shooting the caretaker of an autistic child, etc. etc

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not just police who do such things who will be sued.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Removing QI means these victims get justice and compensation. The effect on police morale and employment is immaterial to that question. You and your ilk are more worried about police feels and municipal coffers than the assaulted, tortured, murdered, and abused. You want to kill child rapists but if it’s a cop doing it you want to give him QI.

[not guilty]

"Abolish QI, and forbid municipalities to indemnify cops. That will solve most of the problem in a few years."

I don't think so. While I agree with abolishing qualified immunity, a prohibition on indemnification would make it well nigh impossible for a civil rights plaintiff to find a lawyer. An uncollectable damages judgment is merely wallpaper.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Abolish QI, and forbid municipalities to indemnify cops. That will solve most of the problem in a few years."

Yes, no police, no police misconduct. Yeah!

[EscherEnigma]

If having police be liable for their wrong-doings would effectively abolish the police, then our police are committing way too many wrong-doings and should be abolished.

[Bob from Ohio]

People with any other options won't risk the constant risk of being sued, at losing everything they have.

[EscherEnigma]

To the contrary, other who are currently in "other options" already face "constant risk of being sued, [and] losing everything they have".

Losing qualified immunity would be taking away a sweetheart deal, but not make police worse off then others.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Everyone else in the world can get sued for simple negligence in their day to day lives. Police are given the ability to kill and are held to a much lower standard.

[OtisAH]

They will have something to say about it once they’ve taken a fine-toothed comb through the lives of each victim though. And that something will be “They all deserved it.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maybe they did -- and maybe damages would be more politically acceptable if a good chunk of them were to be subrogated to pay off the national debt.

[OtisAH]

You are such a sad and lonely person.

[Frank Drackman]

and you have stupid hair and your mom dresses you funnt.

[OtisAH]

Oh look, it’s douchebag. Cool cool.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look: I am realistic and I want to stop police abuse.
And if this would do it (explain why not) then that is a good thing.

Except not in your myopic world.....

[Commenter_XY]

The police guilty of crimes should be prosecuted. Full stop. I read a few articles about that; I was shocked. WTF is going on in Louisville?

[David Nieporent]

Which brings me to my second complaint: the DOJ identified with specificity a sampling of bad acts. (That is, they didn't merely say "cops sometimes use excessive force"; they described specific cases where they did so.) And yet… they just said, "An officer did X." Why not name the officer?

But if you think this is just "in Louisville," you're being naive. Perhaps some departments are slightly better managed than others — LMPD appears to be particularly dysfunctional — but the same incentives and lack of disincentives occur everywhere.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are there DOJ rules that preclude that? Maybe rules relating to access to personnel files (maybe union rules)?

I'm thinking they promised to do that in exchange for access to the information. It's not unheard of in research to do this.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're being naive: Once you're outside dense urban areas, no, the same incentives and lack of disincentives does NOT occur everywhere. Most police departments are pretty cleanly run.

Outside cities, anyway.

[John F. Carr]

Historically, my town's police have targeted blacks but did not beat them up.

[Sarcastr0]

Most police departments are pretty cleanly run.

Outside cities, anyway.

Um, where do you get that idea??

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's another 'fact' that Brett just 'knows' absent any study, education, research, or experience.

[jb]

Reading the weekly Short Circuit roundup will disabuse you of that notion pretty quickly. Lots of evidence of police abuse and cities covering up for it from all sorts of departments.

[Commenter_XY]

David, I am def not naive, LOL. Thanks for the informative follow up posts. I did not know about Monell (something for Commenter_XY to learn in his on-going, ad hoc legal education).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I read a few articles about that; I was shocked.

What is, something a clueless White guy -- who apparently never heard of a single relevant consent decree -- says?

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, be nice. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Try to be less naïve. This is important.

[Frank Drackman]

Arresting bad guys, it's not always as clean cut as on TV

[LawTalkingGuy]

I disagree with your prediction. They'll say plenty of words: mostly along the lines of "its part of Biden/Dems woke war on cops." Or as Otis said, "that the victims deserved it."

It is important to be clear when that portion of the Right complains about the treatment of Jan 6 defendants while ignoring or even supporting police misconduct and other bad aspects of the criminal justice system it is not an example of their hypocrisy or inconsistency.

Rather it is an illustration of their worldview that a "criminal" is a distinct and identifiable class of person who must be suppressed and not a description of someone who violated a criminal statute or who has been charged/convicted of a crime. When the criminal justice system turns towards those it believes broke the law but that this portion of the right believes are not "criminal" it is a perversion of the natural social order and is therefore wrong.

The same is true when officials or others point out that the police have broken laws, including criminal statutes, when interacting with "criminals." Police by their nature cannot be criminals when they are suppressing "criminals" under this system no matter which statutes they actually violate. Of course, on January 6th, the police there became criminals when they decided to subvert the natural order and enforce laws against those who were not, and never could be, "criminal."

[David Nieporent]

I don't disagree with your comments in general, but what makes this report particularly powerful is how often it shows misconduct against people who aren't criminals. It's not just "police used excessive force while arresting this guy"; it's "police used excessive force just because." (This is not news to me; I'm not naive.) And not all of the victims were even black!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I blame Earl Warren.

When clearly guilty men walk free it is very easy to conclude that the whole thing is a game with rules, and not worry about if the rules are right or not.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Right-wingers say this a lot, but other than Miranda, Mapp, (and the few ghouls who complain about Gideon) they never really say what Warren Court criminal law precedents they want to go away. Probably because they would sound like an absolute lunatic if they did and wouldn't want to live in that world at all. I mean seriously who is going to come out and say: yes I would like police to be able to wiretap me without a warrant and then have the prosecutors hide and destroy exculpatory evidence? And really, they also wouldn't want to live in a world without the exclusionary rule either. They'd be pretty mad if the government was introducing illegally seized documents to prosecute them for the white collar crimes for instance.

And FWIW the Warren Court greenlit stop-and-frisk which is the complete opposite of letting guilty people go free.

TL;DR: complaints about Earl Warren are dumb.

[David Nieporent]

TL;DR: Dr. Ed is dumb.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Dr. Ed, and Bob from Ohio, and BCD, and that hoppy guy are the Volokh Conspiracy's target audience. You can't blame them any more than you blame the moth for being attracted to a lightbulb.

[Bob from Ohio]

"incredibly damning (and incredibly frustrating) report on the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department"

Minor leagues, the suburb of East Cleveland around here has 40% of its police under current indictment.

[Bored Lawyer]

Why are the Jan. 6 tapes released only to Tucker Carlson and Fox? I agree they should be released, but to the general public. My strong suspicion is that both sides are spinning things, and National Review apparently has the same opinion.
In this, as in many things, Brandeis' famous quote about sunlight applies. The tapes should be released to everyone.

[OtisAH]

How are both sides spinning the tapes that only Tucker Carlson has access to?

[Bored Lawyer]

The Committee had access, right?

[OtisAH]

So the truth of the event you likely watched unfold live and that happened 14 months ago is somewhere in the middle between “attempt to overturn the results of an election” and “totally nothing to see here… EXCEPT ENTRAPMENT”?

[Bored Lawyer]

Do I have to draw you a diagram in crayon? Each side is pushing a narrative about what happened on Jan. 6. The fact that there are videotapes is relevant to that, and should be made public, not limited to one side or the other.

[OtisAH]

Yes, the tapes should be released. And they will show exactly what we already know.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like Queen of Hearts thinking.

[bernard11]

So wait, B.L.

We have clips that show criminal behavior, and we have clips of the same people doing (stretching it a little, but OK) non-criminal things.

And somehow the claim is that the second set somehow means the stuff on the first set doesn't count? That's bizarre logic.

It's not "spinning" to show a video of someone committing a crime. It is spinning to show a video of the same person walking innocently in the park and acting as if that proves the crime didn't happen.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The un-American clingers hear an argument from Fox that resembles 'this analysis of Bryan Kohberger's activity on Nov. 13 establishes he had a mostly peaceful day' and think 'that sounds like a winner!'

[Frank Drackman]

Uncle Remus lost the remote

[Mr. Bumble]

They apparently didn't view them if this is true:

https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/09/top-democrat-on-j6-committee-we-actually-didnt-review-any-of-the-surveillance-video/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That can't be true. The J6 Committee was formed for that long and never watched any of the videos to see what actually transpired?

Is there any question that these Democrats and their Republican comrades are genuinely vile and evil monsters?

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I have to agree. Make it all public, without any redaction whatsoever. Nor am I sympathetic to the government arguing 'national security, we cannot show that part of the recording' at all; sorry, the potential for mischief is simply too great.

There may also be a documentary film maker who also received unfettered access to the 40K+ hours of recording in addition to Fox news. I am not 100% certain about that, but it would not surprise me.

[OtisAH]

“There may also be a documentary film maker who also received unfettered access to the 40K+ hours of recording…”

According to whom?

[Illocust]

Nancy Pelosi's daughter was given access so she could make and profit off a documentary.

[OtisAH]

No, that’s a lie.

[Bob from Ohio]

"My strong suspicion is that both sides are spinning things,"

Such an insight! My 100% certainly is that both sides are spinning things.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why would want the people who distributed COVID vaccines along racial lines to control the rest of your healthcare? Why wouldn't they also distribute other healthcare resources along racial lines?

If you're White, why would you put your life in the hands of people who hate you?

[Ben_]

They think their elite status will give them special access to the best, and they might even get it at lower cost.

It’s the same story with education. Elites move to rich neighborhoods with ok schools or send kids to elite private schools. They can afford to turn a blind eye towards the destruction of children in poor neighborhoods.

Same story for crime. Live in a rich neighborhood behind a gate. Maybe it has private security. Rail against police and donate to bail out criminals. Elites will be safe behind their walls.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How should a faculty hiring committee at a legitimate law school consider a candidate who operates a blog that attracts and flatters an audience of Bens, Bob from Ohios, Brett Bellmores, and BravoCharlieDeltas.

A plus, a minus, a 'no fucking way?'

[Randal]

I don't know, you poor people keep voting for Republicans. I agree, it is a mystery.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do Republicans want to distribute scarce resources based upon skin color and not need like the Democrats do?

[Nige]

No, no. ALL resources.

[Randal]

The Republicans hate you guys the most aren’t going to distribute any resources to any of you, so why does it matter?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Unlike you, I don't want the State to take resources from people, rake off their corrupt vig, and then redistribute them back to me in an amount they deem is fair for my skin color.

That's what you people do. I'm a Maker not one of you Democrat Takers.

[Ben_]

"I’m a Maker not one of you Democrat Takers."

You actually create value instead of moving around and fighting over value that other people created? Me too.

[Randal]

No I get it. Just pointing out that you're voting for people who hate you. A lot. They like your votes though.

[Randal]

And your money.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I stopped voting and donating to federal Republicans.

I stopped voting because they are Democrats.

I stopped donating because I got sick of being harassed by the Democrats in the IRS.

[Nige]

So Democrats and Republicans are interchangeable, so when you say 'Democrats' you actually mean 'people.'

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Federal Republicans and Democrats are interchangeable.

[Nige]

So you're a political party of one with absolutely no constituency.

[Ben_]

Same story for Covid. Elites sitting at home with their laptops, never missing a paycheck, getting anything they want delivered. They decided to let the lockdowns drag on an extra six months or a year, turning a blind eye to the destruction the lockdowns caused.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Federals paid themselves an extra $5k a month in COVID hazard pay while they sat at home too.

Remember that?

[Nige]

Join a union.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So I can rip off taxpayers too?

My moral and values system keeps me from being a Federal evil piece of worthless shit.

[Nige]

I didn't say join a Federal union.

[Ben_]

It’s your fault for not stealing the money before they stole it. That’s how criminals think.

[David Nieporent]

Same story for Covid. Elites sitting at home with their laptops, never missing a paycheck, getting anything they want delivered. They decided to let the lockdowns drag on an extra six months or a year, turning a blind eye to the destruction the lockdowns caused.

There were no lockdowns lasting six months in the first place, let alone "an extra six months," or "a year." Unless you live in Shanghai or something.

Do you even listen to your idiocy? Who was delivering stuff to the "elites" if everyone was locked down?

[Ben_]

Ackchyually it wasn’t that precise length of time.

Citation needed. Post the exact length of every lockdown of every type in every locale.

[Sarcastr0]

Burden is on you, asshole.

[Ben_]

Is not. The "citation needed" game is won by saying "citation needed" first.

I will acknowledge that lockdowns differed in length and "six months" may be an exaggeration when combined with "lockdown". It’s Ackchyually beside the point.

[Ben_]

Same story for illegal immigration. Elites see cheaper domestic help for themselves. Rapes and sex trafficking, deaths from drunk drivers and fentanyl overdoses only affect others. Wage stagnation isn’t an elite concern. Burdening schools in poor neighborhoods doesn’t matter because the elites don’t live there.

[Ed Grinberg]

And when the "others" complain, they can call them names (Xenophobes! Racists!) and feel good about themselves!

[EscherEnigma]

... did you just cast farmers as "Elites"?

Or did you forget the huge swaths of illegal immigrants that are employed seasonally as farm workers?

[Ben_]

Big land-owning farm corporations wanting cheap labor and turning a blind eye to the spillover effects are heroes to you?

[EscherEnigma]

How odd, my ability to parse your admittedly-non-nonsensical sentences makes you think I have an oddly specific opinion about farmers.

Which is to say, no, and it's weird that you would jump to such a conclusion.

But want to know who does lionize farmers? Republicans and conservatives.

[Ben_]

Like government health care schemes, elites love government transit schemes. If you’re on the train, you’re not in front of elites in their luxury cars on the freeway. No way are they riding it themselves.

Here’s a story about how one Democrat legislator learned what the train is really like and his ridiculous response:

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/03/03/the-new-transit-hotness-social-workers-n534636/amp

Bonus on rail transit is elites can invest in land around the train stations before the stations are built.

[Nige]

‘Like government health care schemes, elites love government transit schemes’

Which elites, the ones in thehealth insurance industry or the ones in the automobile industry or the ones in the fossil fuel industry?

I mean, if you’re mad that someone might make profits out of expanding public transit systems, you’re actually mad at capitalism.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The CA government is $100B over budget on their corrupt mass transit highspeed rail to nowhere scheme. Who is banking profits off that government boondoggle? Political patrons.

I don’t think there is a company in the entire history of capitalism that fails as bad as a government can.

[jb]

When you look at health care in particular, it's really hard to make the case that private industry is doing a great job. Worse results with less coverage for more money than anywhere else in the world! No price transparency whatsoever, so a completely ineffective "market"!

[ragebot]

"When you look at health care in particular, it’s really hard to make the case that private industry is doing a great job."

It is impossible to make the case that health care is anything close to a private industry. The libtards have passed laws requiring health care for anyone who walks into an emergency room (which is the most expensive health care) knowing that a huge number of those peeps will never pay a dime. So the poor suckers who have paid their hard earned coin of the realm for insurance are stuck with picking up the bill for the leeches who don't pay.

There are some small groups that do provide what you call market based care. Problem is that these groups who often charge about $US100 a month (last time I checked) are selective in who they provide care for and do a lot of preventive stuff. So an over weight minority crack head who would drive up the cost is excluded.

[Nige]

It's true, everyone who pays insurance is stuck with massive unnecessary middlemen sucking all their money up.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The people in government are just a different middleman.

If the middleman at Bozo, Inc. screws me over I can go to Jerkoff, Co. or seek retribution in court.

If the middleman in the government screw me over, then there is no recourse what so ever.

[Nige]

The insurance middlemen screw you over by existing. Head off to court about that! There aren't any government middlemen in a public healthcare system.

[jb]

Ah yes, that famous libtard Ronald Reagan and the 51 Republican Senators who passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

[Nige]

Oh, I dunno, there have been a few stock market crashes that governments had to pick up the pieces after that were pretty bad. Then there's Enron. Recent crypto shenanigans have been epically farcical.

It's true that the US has become utterly shit at infrastructure, which doesn't bode well. I expect the elites like it that way, because they are the elite, and it's always the elite's fault.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Enron's failure was tagged at a cost of about $19B.

That's 1/5th of the failure of the Democrat Train to Nowhere.

[Nige]

More than Trump's wall, though.

[jb]

What fraction of vaccines were allocated according to skin color? I'm quite certain it's a significantly lower than the fraction of the current healthcare economy that doesn't get allocated based on need today.

[Ben_]

A young law student finds out that everyone around him is soulless: https://brownstone.org/articles/what-happened-at-georgetown-law-with-covid/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another dispatch from the misfit orbit of the Epoch Times.

[Brett Bellmore]

That sounds like a good plot for a horror movie.

[Ben_]

It’s worse because it's real and ongoing.

If anyone wonders how a manager or administrator at an internment camp just goes about his day, with full knowledge of what goes on there, this story has insight on that.

How did Harvey Weinstein's acquaintances and enablers not say anything? Read this guy’s story and you’ll understand it better.

[Ed Grinberg]

You say (presumably re: Dean of Students Mitch Bailin):

If anyone wonders how a manager or administrator at an internment camp just goes about his day, with full knowledge of what goes on there, this story has insight on that.

I think a better description of the function / mindset of Mr. Bailin (and others like him) is that of political commissar.
John Derbyshire explains:
The phrase that comes to my mind here is “Political Commissar.“ The most familiar examples of Political Commissars were those in the Red Army of the USSR. They were experts in the Soviet ideology assigned to all units of the army, down to the company level, to make sure that the unit stayed politically correct. I’m not very surprised to learn, looking the term up on Wikipedia, that the job title of Political Commissar originated in the French Revolution.
As communism developed, Political Commissars were planted all over, not just in the military. The Party Secretaries I got to know at my own work unit in communist China performed the same function. Schools, colleges, business companies, sports leagues,… in a communist country any kind of organization gets stuck with Political Commissars to keep the organization on the ideological straight and narrow.
Our ruling class is aiming for something similar. In business corporations the Human Resources Departments are now, in effect, Political Commissariats. Employees known to harbor anti-regime opinions can be reported to HR for correction; or, if they persist in defiance, can be fired.
Now the federal government has its very own cadre of Political Commissars, with Susan Rice in overall charge. So the noose tightens; so our liberties fall away.
What’s that? You don’t approve? Correct your thinking, comrade!

[Ben_]

It’s not just the officials. They are training the next generation of the same sort of people.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“…suspended me from campus, forced me to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, required me to waive my right to medical confidentiality, and threatened to report me to state bar associations.”

He clearly tangled with the Behavioral Assessment Team — the secretive star chamber where students are tried in absentia.

My guess is what Georgetown realized is that ED-OCR has ruled that once an IHE defines a student as disabled, they become fully obligated under ADA to provide the students accommodations for that disability, which in this case would be a mental illness.

They might even have been bright enough to think one step beyond that to realize that “accommodation” would mean exempting him from the mask ban…

These BITs are dangerous -- and Brett, I personally know of far worse stories....

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I meant Ben's quick summary. Young law student finds out everyone around him is literally soulless, students at the college are selling their souls for higher grades in secret ceremonies, and if you don't undergo the ritual your soulless teachers will give you bad grades no matter how hard you work.

It would make a great movie.

[Ben_]

It could be any ritual initiation, like a gang initiation. Actually making it too literal would probably be a worse story.

I don’t know when the people in the Georgetown story lost their souls. How do you become someone like that?

[Ed Grinberg]

Some are opportunists. Others are true believers. I am not sure which are worse...

[M L]

I actually read the article, it was pretty good.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It would make a great movie.

Call the guys who made the Left Behind movies, or the movie studio that hired Santorum. Those guys are always looking for stories that sell tickets to the "end times" kooks.

[M L]

Incredible.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts v. National Real Estate Information Services is a very interesting case for anyone who has anti-trust concerns about the legal profession. See:
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/459/459mass512.html

The SJC stated that: "REBA is a Massachusetts bar association with approximately 3,000 real estate attorneys as members. REBA was formerly known as the Massachusetts Conveyancers' Association, Inc., and the organization has a long history of attempting, through both legislation and litigation, to confine conveyancing activities in the Commonwealth to Massachusetts attorneys."

The anti-trust issue is a corporation attempting to restrain trade -- the SJC rather explicitly stated that they have, and while the Sherman Act wasn't raised here but I ask why it wouldn't be applicable.

The history of the case is that the defendant removed to Federal court and filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 counterclaim on the basis of the dormant commerce clause. The Federal judge found that NERIS was not practicing law and also found in favor of NREIS on its counterclaim and ordered REBA to pay attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $904,076.17

REBA then appealed to the First Circuit, who then went to the Mass SJC for an explanation of Massachusetts law, which this is -- and they go through how a lot of stuff lawyers do aren't restricted to lawyers, e.g. "title examinations and the preparation of title abstracts generally do not constitute the practice of law."

The SJC continued Drafting and preparing documents for others, including documents with legal implications, does not automatically constitute the practice of law....Whether such activities constitute the practice of law depends to some degree on the type of document, whether legal rights and obligations are being established, whether the document involves providing legal advice or a legal opinion, and whether the document is tailored to address a client's individual legal needs."

Hence "Because deeds pertaining to real property directly affect significant legal rights and obligations, the drafting for others of deeds to real property constitutes the practice of law in Massachusetts."[Emphasis added].

And then the SJC continued " On the other hand, NREIS's preparation of settlement statements and other mortgage-related forms for its lender clients clearly does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law....Filling out standard government forms for others is not necessarily the practice of law.
.... Neither reviewing documents to ensure valid execution nor delivering documents to the appropriate registry of deeds for recording constitutes the practice of law. These activities do not themselves require the provision of legal advice or legal opinions, or the application of legal judgment to meet the individual needs of a client.

The SJC goes on to conclude that in Massachusetts an attorney is required for the closing, but that it is not true in all states.

My point: In addition to the anti trust concerns I have, based on the language of this case (albeit in another state), I don't think that the robotic lawyer was practicing law. Filling out forms -- with a typewriter or .cgi script -- is defined above as *not* practicing law.

Thanks to John F. Carr for pointing out the case to me.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why is the Q-Anon Shaman rotting in jail for 4 years now that we've seen the video of him being given tours by Capitol Police?

Did the prosecutors withhold that video? Or did the DC judge and jury see that video and found him guilty anyways?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators.

And the reason your faculty and administration colleagues hope you leave.

[Nige]

He pled guilty.

[Mr. Bumble]

Think the conditions of his pre-trial confinement had anything to do with his plea?

[Nige]

No more so than any other defendant.

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, the SCOTUS literally doubled-down on "innocence doesn't matter" last year, but you don't have to agree with them.

[Nige]

It’s a pity all this outrage doesn’t break the dam of conservative insularity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

At what point is that an 8th Amendment issue?
If they literally beat the plea out of him?

[David Nieporent]

At no point is that an 8th Amendment issue. Beating a plea out of someone doesn't make any sense, but assuming you actually meant beating a confession out of someone, it would violate several constitutional provisions, but not the 8th amendment, which is about sentencing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, like innocent people never plead guilty.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The people who have been saying the Justice System is biased for a generation now think it's pure and perfect.

[Nige]

If you don't think the system is biased what's your problem?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you think I don't believe the Justice System is biased?

Of course it is, it's filled with Democrats. It's evil and rotten just like everything that's filled with Communists and Marxists like your beloved CCP.

[Nige]

So, fantasyland biased.

[Ed Grinberg]

Like the Free Speech Movement, it's all about whose ox is being gored.

[Randal]

I'm super happy you guys are suddenly on board with this! Us Democrats have a long list of pro-defendant criminal justice ideas that y'all keep blocking! Let's stop bitching and fix stuff! For example, here's a few pre-trial ones:

1. No cash bail
2. No punitive pre-trial detainment
3. Better enforcement of the speedy-trial right
4. Some sort of plea-bargaining reform
5. No pre-trial fees / fines / mandatory "donations"

Let's do it!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Apply them to the J6 political prisoners? Yes, I'm on board!

[Nige]

Why just them?

[Sarcastr0]

Apply them to *everyone* including J6 people in the justice system.

[Randal]

Apply them to everyone. Duh.

[Nige]

Are you suggesting the US criminal justice system suffers from widespread systemic problems? Oh dear.

[apedad]

"I am pleading guilty because I am in fact guilty of the offense(s) identified in this agreement."

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1430991/download

[BravoCharlieDelta]

haha yeah, innocent people kept in gulags for years never plead innocent!

[Nige]

Better let everyone in US prisons out then, the durn Marxist Communist Democrats stitched 'em all up.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

haha yeah that's exactly the conclusion normal Americans would draw from my comment!!

That's totally not what some Pro-Democrat CCP shill would say, haha yeah!

[Nige]

No, I expect their actual conclusion would be that you're a crank.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What would happen to you if you made a comment making fun of Xi Jinping, aka Winnie the Pooh?

Do you think your children would get murdered?

[Nige]

There's about as much chance of that as of your children getting turned trans by a kid's book.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If my kids were going to government schools, the odds that they would be groomed to be LGBTQP would be about 40%.

[David Nieporent]

But incels don't have kids, so that's all hypothetical.

[Nige]

The odds of them being LGTBQ are 100% if they are LGTBQ. The problem is how much their father will hate them for it.

[Ben_]

It’s an example to people like you. You thought you lived in a free country with laws. Many of us were told that and believed it. They need clear examples like him so that Americans know those times are over.

[Nige]

Shoulda listened to BLM.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you think BLM ignores the top two killers of black males in America?

Other black males and Planned Parenthood (statistically speaking)?

[Ben_]

"Why do you think BLM ignores the top two killers of black males in America?"

No way to grift on that.

[Nige]

Oh, so, now it’s wrong to question US law enforcment if you’re black?

[Nige]

You're hardly an authority on whether they're ignoring either, are you? I get it, though. White peoples’ priorities have to be taken seriously. Back peoples’ priorities get patronised and mocked. You acknowledge that the laws of the US are enforced badly and unfairly, but you don’t want to have anything to do with black people who think the same.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you think "black people's priorities" are focused on the handful of police shootings each year and not the tens of thousands of black-on-black shootings?

[Nige]

Again, you're not the authority on black people's priorities, but the major DIFFERENCE is that one are crimes committed by US citizens against other US citizens and the perpetrators will be tried and sent to prison, if apprehended and found, if the cops are doing their jobs, the other are crimes committed by law enforcement officers who are incredibly difficut to hold properly accountable.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What do you think happens more?

A cop shooting an unarmed black man and not being held accountable.

-or-

A black man shooting another black man and not getting caught?

[Nige]

What do you think happens more: a white person getting charged as a Jan 6th insurrectionist or a white person getting turned trans by a book?

'and not getting caught?'

Are you saying the police are shit?

[David Nieporent]

Why is the Q-Anon Shaman rotting in jail for 4 years now

He isn't, lunatic who believes what Tucker Carlson tells him.

[OtisAH]

Shaman was arrested two years ago and was sentenced to 41 months in prison a little more than a year and a half ago. Dumbass.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

24 months + 41 months - 18 months = how many years?

[OtisAH]

So damn pathetic.

“Why is the Q-Anon Shaman rotting in jail for 4 years now that we’ve seen the video of him being given tours by Capitol Police?”

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Take out the “now” and it’s perfectly accurate statement.

A typo, who gives a shit on a casual forum filled with bootlickers, buttlickers, gaslighters Marxists, CCP shills, and the assorted Patriot or Normal.

[David Nieporent]

It's not even remotely accurate. Chansley was sentenced to 41 months. 41 months is not, and will never be, "4 years."

[David Nieporent]

24 months + 41 months – 18 months = how many years?

It’s not 24+41, dumbass. There’s credit for time served.

Actually, your comment is even dumber than that, because OtisAH's statement about "24 months" was not about Chansley's time spent in pretrial detention, but about the time between his acts and now. Chansley was sentenced in November 2021 — 10 months, not 24 months, after his crime.

[SRG]

Because the cop who accompanied him said that as the cops were grossly outnumbered, they thought it better just to move them rather than arrest them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another bad day for Trump Election Litigation: Elite Strike Force.

How long before accountability reaches John Eastman (the Volokh Conspiracy heartthrob and un-American insurrectionist)?

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know Jerry, took them a while to catch you.

[grb]

The Nord thing just gets stranger. When the sabotage occurred I opted for the Russians as culprits – for lack of a better candidate more than anything else. My reasoning:

1. The risk/reward calculation was way out of wack for the U.S. or Ukraine, particularly the latter. Why cause repairable damage to a pipeline not being used when exposure might wreck international support for Ukraine?

2. There are other European countries who really loathe Russia (like the Poles), but I didn’t see them taking the risk either.

3. That left the Russians, who regularly do stupid self-destructive things. Motive was an obvious problem, but they might cause repairable damage to a pipeline not being used if they could convince Europeans that the U.S. or Ukraine did’t.

But Russia didn’t launch a major propaganda campaign to sell U.S. culpability, so that (already tenuous) theory took a hit. Now we’re back to the Ukrainians.

That said, I understand the pipes are at plus-minus 75 meters depth. It’s a bit much for me (my deepest dive is 152 fsw), but the world is full of technical divers who could easily do it using trimix and (possibly) rebreathers. Staging would be interesting, as I doubt you’d just pull-up and tie-in to the pipe, but it wouldn’t take an elite group of military divers. Further developments will be interesting.

It’s looking like Sy Hersh will see his reputation take another hit. When the media didn’t give his account much attention many of the usual suspects from both ends of the political spectrum cried foul. Fact is, the man’s recent work has been a bit dodgy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I opted for "Russian maintenance". I'm still betting on that.

[Jmaie]

"It’s looking like Sy Hersh will see his reputation take another hit. "

Among those who believe our security apparatus' pronouncements, maybe. For those already inclined to believe it was the US what done the deed, I'd guess not so much.

[David Nieporent]

I agree that we need not take the current leaks as gospel truth. The problem is that Hersh's story is obviously false. I don't know whether he lied or is just gullible, but there are so many indicators of falsehood in there that it's ludicrous. Not to mention that taking it at face value, Hersh made no attempt to even corroborate it.

[OtisAH]

“But Russia didn’t launch a major propaganda campaign to sell U.S. culpability, so that (already tenuous) theory took a hit.”

So the major propaganda campaign attempting to sell US culpability was a domestic operation?

[grb]

There was no “major” campaign, Russian or domestic. I often check the Russian propaganda outlets because I like to note how liars operate. Plus you learn interesting things, like the degree of anti-Semitism from commenters on Russia Today is off the charts. Not only have I learned the U.S. secretly caused the invasion, but that it was a Jewish conspiracy as well.

So, yeah, I’ve seen the Putin government roil the waters with accusations about Nord. But nothing major. Nothing to convince me they could have blown up the pipe hoping to create a wedge issue between the U.S. and Europe.

[OtisAH]

Oh, so when Tucker et al. were pumping the “US did it” stories for weeks on end it was a *minor* domestic propaganda operation. Probably because it only ran for a couple weeks. The Russians were just one of the target audiences for it. I see where you’re coming from.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nord-stream-russian-tv-tucker-carlson-claim-united-states-sabotaged-2022-10

[grb]

Point taken. I don't pay Tucker any mind, so missed that altogether.

[EscherEnigma]

But you just said you check the "Russian propaganda outlets".

[grb]

Touché

[Dr. Ed 2]

That’s 37 fathom — prime depth for catching lobsters this time of year, if anything a little shallow. And I never understood why they don’t get the bends — they are pulled to the surface in 3-5 minutes.

I’m wondering what kind of damage the salt water (and marine growth) inside the pipe will do.

As to who did it, neither Russia nor Ukraine are stable, both have dissident groups, and I think that’s who did it. Someone wanting to see one of the two leaders toppled. I'm leaning toward one of Putin's rivals.

[grb]

Well, maybe lobsters do get DCS. After all, it’s not like they get much chance to complain about neurological maladies caused by the bends. I’ve dove with guys hunting for lobster, both in Florida (where they have no claws) and off Jersey. I’ll never done so myself though. Being a visitor & guest down there, it always struck me as rude.

As for the pipes, news accounts were a bit all over after the event. Some said salt water damage would would extend far beyond the explosion site. Others downplayed that. There was a recent news story saying the Russians had “mothballed” the pipes, whatever that means.

It may be some non-governmental group did the deed. It’s pretty hard to see how any of the countries involved could judge the sabotage worth the risk.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Fact is, the man’s recent work has been a bit dodgy."

Isn't that pretty much what what the mainstream consensus on every one of his major stories has been, going back to My Lai - until he was later proven correct? Has he actually been proven wrong about anything recently? Genuinely curious.

[grb]

Aunt Teefah : “Genuinely curious”

1. His previous big story concerned the killing of Osama bin Laden. He claimed Pakistani Intelligence handed over OBL and every part of the official account was “one big lie, not one word of it is true”. But there are serious common sense issues with the Hersh account. Pakistan could have shot bin Laden and had the U.S. dispose of the body using any story they want for cover. Why the U.S. and Pakistan would have gone with the official account – embarrassing to the Pakistanis on several different levels – is difficult to explain.

2. The next one back was on the Syrian Civil War. Hersh said the infamous Sarin gas attack wasn’t by Syria, but launched by an Al-Qaeda affiliate with Turkish assistance instead. He started with the claim Obama was looking for a pretense to launch attacks against Syria (as I recall, the exact opposite was the case, and Obama was criticized on that ground). It grew into a wider theory Erdoğan was trying to trick the U.S. into war. Then there was a side branch conspiracy about the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff passing secret information to Assad behind Obama’s back. There was more, but the entire theme seems a muddled mess to me.

3. He also dipped into the Seth Rich conspiracy mongering, questioned whether bin Laden had any involvement with 9-11 and claimed the Skripal poisoning wasn’t the work of the two Russian suspects identified.

[Michael Ejercito]

Any comments on this Quora answer?

https://www.quora.com/A-violent-mob-attacked-Secret-Service-agents-on-May-29-2020-None-of-them-were-prosecuted-for-treason-or-insurrection-Why-Thats-outrageous/answer/Sean-Layton-3

[Ed Grinberg]

Ben's comment above seems to apply:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/09/thursday-open-thread-126/?comments=true#comment-9960358

[M L]

The Corporate Transparency Act seems like one of the more intrusive things the federal government has done lately, in terms of actual direct intrusion into American life. Aside from certain COVID-related actions. Is it just me?

Of course, it was championed by members of the “conservative” “small government” party like Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell. And enjoyed bipartisan support.

Enacted with scarcely any public attention at all, over a presidential veto, in a moment of upheaval and distraction, this law requires owners of every small business entity to register with the federal government! This article has a nice summary:

The CTA, simply described, mandates the principals behind virtually all small business entities to register with the federal government. The stated purpose? To provide a clearinghouse of information that the government can use to find money launderers, terrorism funders, crime kingpins and other bad people.

The devil, of course, is in the details. And the details are pretty devilish.

First issue: the definition of entities covered by the CTA. The definition is not yet final, but it looks like it will include all Limited Liability Companies (LLCs), Limited Liability Partnerships, Limited Partnerships (LPs, including Family Limited Partnerships), and closely-held corporations. Sub-chapter S companies? You bet. All are covered by the Corporate Transparency Act.

Second issue: who has to report? All “beneficial owners.” And that definition is very broad. It boils down to anyone who has management control or directly or indirectly owns more than 25% of the entity.

Next up: who gets all these reports? Not the FBI, or the NSA, or the Defense Department. There’s a 30-year-old agency under the Department of the Treasury you’ve never heard of. It’s the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and it expects to receive 30 million reports when final rules become effective. It anticipates 3 million new reports each year after that, too. They promise all that information will be protected, and it won’t be shared with anyone. Except law enforcement. And national security agencies.

Does every entity have to report? No. There are several exemptions. You aren’t on the exemption list, though. Most large companies won’t have to report. Why not? Apparently, they are more reliable.

Well that’s pretty scary It might be, if the penalties are severe. But it’s just an administrative filing, right? And your best effort will be good enough?

No. The consequences are draconian. If you are supposed to report and you don’t, or if you file an inaccurate report, you are liable for up to 2 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

And just like that, tens of millions of small business entities across the country, longtime creatures of state law, are suddenly federalized in this aspect overnight. But mostly just the mom and pop businesses, the family vacation home, etc – big biz are untouched.

Terrorism and bad guys – of course. All the best laws are about such things.

Fortunately, terrorists and money launderers will now be scared straight by the threat of a $10,000 fine and 2 years in prison. Who knew that law enforcement never had any tools to discover or compel the disclosure of information, without an act of Congress like this and sweeping up every single ordinary American citizen’s business interests in the effort?

[ducksalad]

Never heard of this, which makes one wonder how the people who will need to register would even find out about the requirement.

The document laying out the proposed rulemaking:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/08/2021-26548/beneficial-ownership-information-reporting-requirements

is liberally sprinkled with statements that this law is about terrorism. So when they're trying to break some guy who sells baseball collectibles on E-bay, the prosecutors will have an excuse to use the word "terrorism" over and over again in front of the jury.

[M L]

The guy selling baseball collectibles on ebay will probably be fine as long as he doesn’t speak up too loudly with a disapproved viewpoint.

I know of at least a few situations where authorities are still persecuting retail businesses on unrelated issues that were reported as being soft on mask wearing. They can just fail various inspections, deny permits and applications, revoke or suspend licenses, etc. It’s like a cold civil war.

[apedad]

Florida Republicans just gave Alito, Thomas, and Roberts another chance to punish child rape with death penalty

Florida Republicans doubled down on their plans to increase executions in the Sunshine State by introducing legislation that would expand the reach of the death penalty beyond limitations put into place by the Supreme Court.

Just weeks after legislators backed Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ plans to eliminate the unanimous-jury requirement for death sentences, two Sunshine State legislators introduced bills that would allow child rapists to be put to death.

The bills directly conflict with rulings by the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, but legislators declared those rulings to be “wrongly decided,” arguing that any prohibition on the right to sentence child rapists to death is an infringement on states’ rights.

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/florida-republicans-just-gave-alito-thomas-and-roberts-another-chance-to-punish-child-rape-with-death-penalty/

You know what the problem with cons is?

It’s not (solely) their positions; it’s that they’re living in the wrong century.

[M L]

The right side of history is sex with children. Thanks apedad, and congratulations to you.

[apedad]

This is about the punishment of the criminal act not the criminal act itself.

But keep up with those reading comprehension courses!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But keep up with those reading comprehension courses!

You mean, like the ability to understand that "two Sunshine State legislators" does not mean the more generalized "Florida Republicans"?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Child molestation cases are notoriously weird. Allegations decades after the fact. Allegations pushed by angry parents involved in divorced cases. Allegations pushed by unsettled teens. Interviews by “experts” who are notoriously biased and have absolutely led to the conviction of innocent people - so common it has a name, the satanic panic.

There’s no way the death penalty should be anywhere near this stuff.

[grb]

M L : “The right side of history is sex with children”

Speaking of which, Republicans in the West Virginia legislature just blocked a Democratic effort to ban child brides. One of the Republicans noted the practice was a state tradition. Another GOPer said his Mammie was 16 when she got hitch’d & he was birth’d just two months follow’n.

I don’t want to disparage the Mountain State, but I guess there’s a reason why it featured in the most scathingly obscene joke I’ve ever heard. And why its State House is full of Republicans…..

[Bob from Ohio]

"allow child rapists to be put to death"

Good.

[Bored Lawyer]

Presumably this means actual rape and not statutory rape.

[EscherEnigma]

When has DeSantis ever shown an interest in narrowly-tailoring laws to specific purposes?

[SRG]

Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman found to have vlolated a host of laws against vote suppression.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-says-jacob-wohl-jack-burkman-violated-voting-rights-act-kkk-act-with-2020-voter-suppression/ar-AA18q3Ct

In a 111-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman used thousands of robocalls in Ohio, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois to spread false and misleading information about mail-in voting in a “calculated” effort to “deter Black voters by exploiting fears and stereotypes.”

[Aunt Teefah]

Bad news for all the conservative activists whose genius political tactic is to label everything they don't like "woke."

"A GOP war on 'woke'? Most Americans view the term as a positive, USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds

By 56%-39%, Americans say 'woke' means being aware of social injustice, not being overly politically correct." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/08/gop-war-woke-most-americans-see-term-positive-ipsos-poll/11417394002/

Lmao

[OtisAH]

I figured the world was split between those who know what it means, those who don’t, and those who have no idea what everybody’s talking about. I am pleasantly surprised that it’s just the jackasses who piss themselves over it who have no idea what it means.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Of course the article doesn’t bother to tell you how the question was worded, which as we know can seriously skew the results. Interestingly, rom the same article:

“Overall, those surveyed overwhelmingly oppose the use of gender-neutral pronouns to describe someone, 61%-36%.”

“The clashing views are similar over whether people should be able to identify as someone other than “man” or “woman” on government documents such as passports and birth certificates. Overall, Americans oppose the idea by 61%-36%.”

“But in response to a different question asked of the other half of the sample, those surveyed oppose by 53%-41% the teaching of “critical race theory,” which holds that systemic racism is institutionalized in America to the advantage of white people.”

Given that all of those things are significant parts of what is generally referred to as “woke culture” by the GOP it raises some obvious questions about how the poll presented the question regarding what “woke” means to the respondents.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And what is it with the software here that changes where the user-supplied text formatting tags go after a post is submitted, and refuses to allow it to be corrected when the post is edited?

[David Nieporent]

Of course the article doesn’t bother to tell you how the question was worded,

Right. They only post a link to the survey, and we all know how difficult it is to click on one of those.

[ragebot]

Back when I was a grad student I took a course titled "Instrument Design" that addressed the subject of how to construct questions asked in a poll. Thing is when you give respondents two choices like this poll did it may skew the results. Putting aside problems like how those being asked to respond were selected I am not convinced giving peeps two choices about what woke means really reflects much at all.

Maybe a better choice for the question would be to rank the term 'woke' on a scale of 1-5 (put in other numbers if you like) with 1 being negative and 5 being positive.

But the real problem is that very few peeps share the same definition of woke so the real issue is getting to the bottom of how peeps define woke.

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh. My classes in instrument design were mostly about not creating ground loops through a patient's heart...

[LawTalkingGuy]

Here’s a fun thread of non-smart people being shocked that the government records jail calls and lawyer communications over those lines are not privileged!

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1633822781673553920?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

As you can see these people think this is a unique thing to Jan 6th when it’s just the justice system as it actually exists.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The person at the New York Times who made the decision to remove digital access to the Acrostic should be horse-whipped. I lose access to that so they can support Wordle? We are becoming a nation of morons.

I suppose I can understand that it's a lot of work to support the software that allows users to solve puzzles online. But all I (and many others) want to do is print it out and solve it with our spouses, just like the crossword. Digital puzzle subscribers also lose access to the other sporadically published puzzles, like split decisions or the cryptic crossword. Surely they have pdf files of these puzzles in the first place for print publication, why not just make those accessible to digital subscribers?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe you could try the Acrostic at Fox Nation?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Thanks, I'll check it out!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Oh, stupid me! Good one.

[Estragon]

Tired: acrostic
Wired: diagramless

[Dr. Ed 2]

My guess is licensing fees.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How long before South Texas College Of Law Houston announces that Jenna "Elite Strike Force" Ellis has joined the faculty?

How long before Jenna Ellis talks herself into another (or at least a reopening of her) disciplinary proceeding?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What, lawyers can't lie???

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you think the Federals aren't investigating any corporate malfeasance with the obesity epidemic?

Do you think it's because they don't want to upset their Big Tobacco patrons?

[David Nieporent]

Is this right wing delusion mad libs? What are "federals"? What "obesity epidemic"? What "malfeasance"? What "Big Tobacco patrons"? Did you just randomly throw words together?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Reason moderates my comment with links so you're just gonna have to deal:

wtf, are you really this ignorant?

OBESITY: OVERVIEW OF AN EPIDEMIC
Despite growing recognition of the problem, the obesity epidemic continues in the U.S., and obesity rates are increasing around the world. The latest estimates are that approximately 34% of adults and 15–20% of children and adolescents in the U.S. are obese.

(That was 2012, it's > 40% now).

Highly processed foods can share the addictive qualities of tobacco, researchers say

Foods such as sugary soft drinks, baked goods, chips, burgers, and fries can cause compulsive consumption, have mood-altering effects, and trigger strong urges, according to scientists from the Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC and the University of Michigan.

Cigarette Giants Bought Food Companies, Used Cartoon Characters, Colors, Flavors to Boost Sales of Sweetened Beverages
- March 15, 2019
- Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Is this why you’re a liberal Democrat? You don’t know anything?

[Randal]

Having been a smoker and an eater of processed foods, I have first-hand experience that this is total bullshit

Highly processed foods can share the addictive qualities of tobacco

unless by “share” it means “pale in comparison to,” as in “highly processed foods can share the carcinogenic qualities of eating uranium.”

And given that the “federals” utterly destroyed Big Tobacco in the 90s, what makes you think they’re in Big Tobacco’s pocket now?

I would like to do something about processed foods, they are a menace, but it helps to understand the problem in order to solve it. You seem to assume every problem is caused by the federal government, and then you concoct some conspiracy scheme to justify your priors. It’s very predictable, very stupid, and very pointless.

Reason never “moderates” my links, so I can only imagine what you’re linking to that even Reason is like… computer says no.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The UN says it will take spending $90T over the next 7 years to save the planet from climate change.

Could imagine how rich those bureaucrats and their families are gonna get?

[ragebot]

CC companies are suspending the effort to track purchases at firearm stores; what ever that means.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/payment-giants-suspend-work-on-code-that-would-track-gun-purchases/ar-AA18pS7R?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=cb2add7dadcc496bab89c89b98906009&ei=40

[Brett Bellmore]

It means they're going to do it covertly instead of openly.

[ragebot]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/egypt-withdraws-from-un-grain-treaty-prompting-sadness-and-concern/ar-AA18qbcF?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=da14e02cf5794bc583988d441300b2b5&ei=32

Everyone who knew there was a UN Grain Treaty raise your hand... and then slap yourself in the face with it.

[Sarcastr0]

You pro famine?

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't get the impression he was pro-UN, so, no, probably not.

[Sarcastr0]

The UN has plenty of ways to make fun of it, but it's hard to argue that it's not helped with avoiding famines.

Though I'm sure your counterfactual where global markets suddenly step up when they never did before is in the offing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, there IS the UN's involvement in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which is the primary reason golden rice never got adopted on a large scale. I suppose blindness and famine aren't quite the same thing.

[Nige]

I thought the primary reason was that it wasn't a suitable crop for the areas that were affected by or threatened with crop failures. Can't stop a famine with rice that won't grow. Lots of Indian farmers got a lesson in how well those GE crops do when presented as one-size-fits-all solutions.

[OtisAH]

Since you closed the door on markets I figured he’d come back with a list of famines the UN didn’t prevent. Close enough.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I like it when the UN sends in their blue helmets into these famine ravaged countries and they end up raping all the little children.

Good times.

[ragebot]

"The UN has plenty of ways to make fun of it, but it’s hard to argue that it’s not helped with avoiding famines."

I would argue that giving free food to peeps in areas where they can not produce enough food to feed themselves may help in the short term but only produces more peeps in the long term resulting in more famines later on.

Case in point is Rhodesia exported food but Zimbabwe is a poster boy for a shithole country that can not feed itself. Libtards love to talk about how things should be sustainable but then institute policies that are not sustainable.

[apedad]

"I would argue that giving free food to peeps in areas where they can not produce enough food to feed themselves may help in the short term but only produces more peeps in the long term resulting in more famines later on."

OH C'MON, you stole that from Sam Kinison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA

[Sarcastr0]

ragebot - people are not wild animals. Famines are not some natural culling of the population.

Jesus Christ.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Rep. Lauren Boebert announced she will soon be a grandmother. At 36. No word on whether the new father has been arrested as often as the proud grandparents have been. Or has dropped out yet. (Boebert got a GED in her 30s.)

Family Values Barbie, a train wreck from every perspective. Beloved by clingers, though. They can’t resist a half-educated, dysfunctional, gun-fondling bigot from the left-behind backwaters.

[apedad]

Meanwhile, folks in West Virginia are doing their thing.

Child marriage ban bill resurrected in West Virginia Senate

A bill to prohibit minors from getting married in West Virginia has been resurrected a day after its defeat in a Senate committee

Currently, children can marry as young as 16 in West Virginia with parental consent. Anyone younger than that also must get a judge’s waiver.

The bill's main sponsor, Democratic Del. Kayla Young of Kanawha County, has said that since 2000 there have been more than 3,600 marriages in the state involving one or more children.

Cabell County Democratic Sen. Mike Woelfel, an attorney, said he represented a girl who got both married and divorced when she was in the eighth grade. Woelfel said he was concerned about older men who court young girls “and the next thing you know, some young girl has convinced her parents to let her get married.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/child-marriage-ban-bill-resurrected-west-virginia-senate-97755765

And of course WV is in the top 10 (bottom 10?) of teen birth rates (with the expected list of other states):

Mississippi 27.9
Arkansas 27.8
Louisiana 25.7
Oklahoma 25
Alabama 24.8
Kentucky 23.8
Tennessee 23.3
West Virginia 22.5
Texas 22.4
New Mexico 21.9
South Carolina 19.3
Missouri 18.8
South Dakota 18.7
Indiana 18.7
Georgia 18.2

[Brett Bellmore]

With the exception of New Mexico, those states are all in the top 25 for overall fertility, or just a rounding error away from it. I wonder if that's due to NOT discouraging women from having kids at their most fertile age?

[Nige]

Teenagers? Is 'NOT discouraging' the same as shitty sex ed and lack of access to birth control?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Where can kids not find condoms at a store?

[Nige]

In areas where teenage pregnancy rates are highest, obviously.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How do those states perform with respect to undergraduate degrees, election of Republican governors, church attendance, election of Republican U.S. senators, economic productivity, advanced degrees, election of Republican U.S.representatives, strong universities, election of Republican state legislators, number of nonsense-teaching schools, etc.?

[Frank Drackman]

Who gives a fuck?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not clingers.

One more reason the culture war is no longer very competitive.

[OtisAH]

Her son is 17. I saw one person claim the girl is 15 but I have no idea where they got that and have not seen any account that includes her age. At best she’s 17, maybe just turned 18 at most. But possibly younger. Regardless, she’s fucked because the numbers aren’t great for the futures of pregnant teens. He’ll be fine, of course.

(I suspect, based on nothing more than “seems like the type,” that behind the scenes the family thinks she’s a gold digger and got pregnant to get her hands on all that sweet sweet new Boebert money.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

She is a Federal politician after all. That’s the quickest and surest way to generational wealth in America these days.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He’ll be fine, of course.

Not even fucking close.

The smart money is on 'dead by overdose, incarcerated, or disappeared by 30.' The arrest-to-employment and unplanned pregnancy-to-graduation ratios of Boebert's children should approximate those of the Palin children.

[Frank Drackman]

Well fathering children with your preferred sexual acts has never been a problem for you, Jerry. (Thanks J-hova)

Frank

[ragebot]

Bet this results in more jobs going to China. Already GM sells more cars in China than in the US.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/gm-will-give-the-majority-of-its-us-team-cash-if-they-quit-in-the-next-two-weeks/ar-AA18qknl?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=700b27453781455b91c79b7a77f56c35&ei=22

[SRG]

Republicans find that conditions in US jails are not good, but only care about them in DC. From the party that elevated hypocrisy to a sacrament.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/09/us/politics/jan-6-prisoners-republican-investigation.html?smid=tw-share

[Mr. Bumble]

...as long as it isn't made from almond or oat milk.

[Krayt]

Of all IPs, the US doesn't recognize regional, which is big in Europe due to the ancient nature of everything.

Delft pottery better come from Delft, gouda Gouda, etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is the story false?

[Mr. Bumble]

Because as of now it is the only place to watch the material that has been hidden from the American public?

[Frank Drackman]

Same reason you watched Uncle Remus and Meathead's Ditzy Blonde daughter last Summer(and Winter)

[Mr. Bumble]

The Washington Post again. Masochism in its finest form!

[Brett Bellmore]

See, that's why you shouldn't "recycle" your plastics. Throw them in the trash and they end up safely in a land fill. "Recycle" them and they may get shipped off to China, ground up, and dumped in a river.

[John F. Carr]

And we still don't know if that's no biggie or an ecological catastrophe in the making.

[Frank Drackman]

and there's 352, 000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water in the worlds oceans, or one piece for every 2 gallons, doesn't sound as scary that way, does it. (and nobody drinks Ocean water anyway, except the Fishes, and peoples in Saudi Arabia)

[Kazinski]

The World Economic Forum researchers calculate that:
"Around 90% of all river-borne plastic that ends up in the ocean comes from just 10 rivers"
"Eight of them are in Asia: the Yangtze; Indus; Yellow; Hai He; Ganges; Pearl; Amur; Mekong; and two in Africa – the Nile and the Niger."

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluting-our-oceans-comes-from-just-10-rivers/

[Bob from Ohio]

"170 trillion pieces"

You guys will believe anything.

[Mr. Bumble]

Be that as it may you can't see this material anywhere else and if Chucky Cheese had his way you never would.

[Mr. Bumble]

Forget to install your sarc chip. Change "news" to opinion and you may be right.
Did Glenn Kesseler do the counting?

[Sarcastr0]

Where else will I get my white nationalist and yearning for sexy M&Ms content?!

[DaveM]

“Recycle” them and they may get shipped off to China, ground up, and dumped in a river.

You're just making this part up, I suspect. Un-recycled plastic would either get dumped in a landfill or burned. Those are the only two economically feasible options.

[Krayt]

Disruption as performance art is old hat in the US. Rise up, hurt businesses and maybe that'll apply leverage to move politicians.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nixon for Israel in 1973?

Nixon promised Israel a 1:1 replacement for everything they lost, and did it.

[SRG]

Lots of Americans seem to like being suckered when they pay up for "Kobe" beef.

[bernard11]

But I thought we did wrt to wine.

I remember big kerfuffles when lots of CA wines were labelled "Burgundy," and then started being called pinot noir instead.

Or was that just some sort of marketing/diplomatic thing?

[Brett Bellmore]

I just laugh at that. Like the Wagu burger at Arbies is really Wagu beef...

[Mr. Bumble]

Waiting for plant based "Kobe" beef.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Lots of Americans seem to like being suckered when they pay up for “Kobe” beef.

Well, that depends on the situation. While the vast majority of beef labeled as “Kobe” in the U.S. is no such thing, you can actually buy authentic Kobe beef here. Its availability is greatly restricted (IIRC, there are only 8 U.S. retailers that can sell it, and only 37 U.S. restaurants that are certified to serve it) and it’s insanely expensive, but you can get it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently they stopped that a few years ago, but, yeah, at one time if you put plastic in a recycling bin, it had a good chance of being shipped to China, where it often would be dumped in a river rather than actually recycled.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mutant 59 will come along any time now and deal with it. Nature doesn't let available calories sit around unused forever.

[Frank Drackman]

You've obviously never been to
https://www.sobpedro.com/

Frank "Every ones a Wiener!!"

[Voize]

You must have heard the rally song they sing at their Inca Revivals.

[Frank Drackman]

I love the fried watermelon

[shawn_dude]

Our local KFC is one of those blended Taco Bell/KFC outlets so we can burritos and nuggets in the same order.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given how hot oil and water react, that sounds dangerous.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is the bigotry the Volokh Conspiracy seems to strive to cultivate. Casual, crude, predictable.

[SRG]

It is already plant based. Grass is converted through a traditional organic process into beef 🙂

[Nige]

Better hurry up, microplastics have been in the food chain for a while now.

[OtisAH]

A “piece” of plastic for every 2 gallons of ocean water underscores the problem of plastic in our oceans. It does not diminish it. And people drink ocean water from over 20,000 desalination plants around the world.

[bernard11]

nobody drinks Ocean water anyway, except the Fishes,

And nobody eats the fish. Right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, a blink of the eye on any evolutionary timescale. A few decades.

[Mr. Bumble]

"A “piece” of plastic for every 2 gallons of ocean water underscores the problem of plastic in our oceans. It does not diminish it."

So what is the solution and alternatives to the widespread use of plastics?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Pieces". How big of "pieces" are we talking? There are a lot of particles in a sack of flour, too.

Looking it up, estimated 269,000 tons. Works out to 0.76 ug per gallon. Those "pieces" are practically individual molecules...

[Frank Drackman]

So technically a 2 gallon plastic bucket is "One piece of plastic for every 2 gallons" now if it was one of Jake's (soiled) Prophylactics, I don't care if it was 2,000 gallons, Yuck!.
War Story Time, during Desert Storm, sleeping in a "Medium GP" Tent 16' x 32' at the bottom of a hole in the Saudi Desert. After 3 days of rain we had a good 2 foot of water in the entire tent. One of the other doctor's 1.5 L Piss Bottles spilled into the mire, quick calculation determined, 16' x 32' x 2' = 1024 Cubic Feet x 62.4 Lbs/Cubic Foot Water= 63,897lbs of water/8.3lbs/Gallon or....... 7,698 Gallons of (dirty sandy) water in our tent.
So Knuckleheads 1.5L of piss didn't really matter,

Frank "don't drink that, it's not Gatorade"

[Frank Drackman]

dammit that was my answer

[SRG]

You can use it next time 🙂

[Nige]

Food chain's fucked, then.

[Nige]

There are ocean cleanups under way. Use way less plastic.

[Nige]

You do realise that those tiny pieces of plastic in the food chain are bad, right? They are a bad thing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol or we could be Democrats and give rich people trickle-up subsidies to green up their limo's and yachts.

[M L]

Not as misleading as WaPo or NYT, etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

Stop worrying Nige. Climate change will have killed us all before microplastics do.

[Brett Bellmore]

What I realize is that calling a particle under 1ug a "piece" is deliberately misleading, even if technically true. There are bacteria larger than these "pieces" of plastic.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was Pedro prescient in knowing the new location of the border?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I just laugh at that. Like the Wagu burger at Arbies is really Wagu beef…

Well, it is ("Wagyu", not "Wagu")...sort of. It's a blend of 48% regular ground beef and 52% "American Wagyu", with the latter being meat from cows that are generally 50/50 hybrid crosses between Japanese Wagyu cattle and breeds more traditionally raised in the U.S. (primarily Black Angus). So you could either say that the burgers are mostly American Wagyu, or they're 26% Japanese Wagyu.

Either way, they're at least 266.24 times as much Wagyu as Elizabeth Warren is Native American.

[Kazinski]

Waygu burgers anywhere, what's the point of the fine marbling if you are going to grind it up anyway?

Steak or nothing.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Waygu burgers anywhere, what’s the point of the fine marbling if you are going to grind it up anyway?

While I wouldn’t grind up true Wagyu (let alone Kobe) for burger, that’s because it is far more enjoyable in steak form, and too precious (from an availability and cost perspective) for use in a burger. On the other hand, if you’ve never had a burger made from 100% ground fatty brisket (I use the point for that purpose) you don’t know what you’re missing.

[Nige]

It's not either/or.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, the Climate will "Change" when the Sun exhausts it's Hydrogen supply some 100 billion years from now, until then "Chill" out (get it?)

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

I'll click on anything, but I pay attention to which has fact checkers and editorial standards, and which exists purely for propaganda.

[Nige]

Well, don't worry, there's more going in every day, soon it will reach a critical mass that will satisfy you.

[Frank Drackman]

if my Med School memory's correct, seems the average Red Blood Cell is 8ug (Google says 6.2ug-8.20ug!! Yay Amurican Medical Edjewmacation!)

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just another day at the Official Legal Blog For Disaffected Malcontents.

[Randal]

And as to the first one, they don't ignore it at all. BLM is almost entirely about the self-improvement of black communities. It's only tangentially about protests and police violence.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You mean "actual black birthing persons" right? Not "actual black woman" since not all black women are black birthing persons right?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

BLM is almost entirely about the self-improvement of black communities.

What are their results so far?

[Dr. Ed 2]

True, and in 1973 we also had a bleepload of stuff that had been built to go to Vietnam, so our inventory was full, which it isn't now.

The UKE mistake was giving up their nukes -- NONE of this would be happening if they still had Soviet-era ICBMs even if everyone knew half would never fly.

[jb]

There's a decent amount of other A5-graded Wagyu in the US at this point, though, which gets you in the same general flavor/texture ballpark.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are you suggesting that the Russian guarantee of Ukraine's 1993 borders ("to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine") wasn't worth the paper it was written on? [gasp!]

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you think the Democrats should subsidize luxury electric sports cars for rich White people?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually I think the accumulation is going to slow a bit now that China isn't importing waste plastic from countries that were pretending to care about the environment, but really just outsourcing their pollution. I mean, you do realize that the vast majority of it was coming from China, right? And still is.

I don't know what you expect me to do about China being a filthy polluter. It's not like they care what I think about it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I always avoid the lean beef when making hamburgers.

[Frank Drackman]

Hate to sound like the Reverend Sandusky, but life really does change (I didn't say better or worse) once you cross into South Cack-a-lacky.

[Frank Drackman]

those wooden condoms really suck

[Frank Drackman]

I don't

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I don't think the people in government should be manipulating consumer behavior and picking market winners and losers.

That's what differentiates people like me from people like you.

[bernard11]

She was fined $224?

Wow. Lawyers really look after their own.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Not really. We typically don't believe you, for instance.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy

[grb]

There has to be a planet somewhere in the universe where that is occurring!

[Randal]

That you're a dick.

[santamonica811]

I don't get it.

[Nige]

Yes I do. So what? Is it the now the standard conservative approach to serious problems to either deny they exist or admit they have absolutely no solutions to offer?

[Voize]

Although Burgundy, Beaujolais and Chablis are strongly associated with varietals (pinot noir, gamay, chardonnay respectively) they are actually names of regions rather than grapes, and 27 CFR 4.39(j) generally prohibits names for wines that falsely imply their origin.