Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[santamonica811]

Query One.
Elizabeth Warren. Why all the hate? No, seriously; why has the Pocahontas meme taken hold on the far right? Here is my understanding of the facts. I hope I'm being neutral and fair...please correct any errors I make here.

a. Elizabeth grew up in a home where she was told as a child that she had American Indian ancestry. She was told this by at least one of her parents...and maybe by others in her family.

b. As she grew older, she would hear this story repeated very very often. And, at no point, did any family member (or anyone else who heard this story) contradict it.

c. In high school, and in college, and in law school, and in post-school employment, she often would put down this information, when asked for her demographic information.

d. When the NY Times later did an exhaustive review, it could not find any examples of Warren receiving a benefit for her alleged American Indian affiliation. Other, right-wing, media do claim that she did receive some benefits.

e. Warren voluntarily chose to put this American Indian association on at least some occasions (eg, on her Bar Card, at some point in her life).

If all the above is true; I don't see that Warren did anything even the slightest bit improper. It seems to me that she was told some family history, and then she repeated that history. Isn't that totally unremarkable? I think about my own life story. I'm Jewish. I was raised in a very Jewish (but totally non-religious) home. All 4 grandparents were Jewish. At least 7 of my 8 great-grandparents were Jewish. (The 8th is shrouded in mystery, with absolutely zero information about him). They all came from Western Ukraine, and Russia, and Poland, and Germany...a typical Ashkenazi Jew. I've put “Jewish” on a thousand forms as a kid and up until today. Without a second thought. It's what I've been told my entire life, and there's been no reason to doubt it.

BUT...suppose I ran for president, and it turns out that I'm actually Not Jewish? Let's say that my maternal great-grandmother was Protestant, which made my grandmother non-Jewish...which makes my mom non-Jewish, which makes me non-Jewish. How on earth does this suggest that I've been the tinniest bit dishonest???

Is there any information that says that Warren was put on reasonable notice that she had (essentially) zero Indian blood, and that she then continued to go on to claim this?

I really have no interest in hearing from Warren lovers or haters, who have nothing helpful to contribute. I'm interested in deconstructing this whole “controversy.” When a person is told a family history; why ever blame that person for repeating that history? Isn't doing so entirely normal and expected and unsurprising? I feel like I'm missing something (or some things) that are really important . . . I just don't see how this was more than a 2-day story.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It illustrates Bernstein's point about racial classifications - how do you decide who's what race? Reputation in the community? Family tradition? The pencil test?

[Mr. Bumble]

Great fantasy piece. Now do Joe Biden.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Indian is different, tribal registry and govt issued card

[David Nieporent]

False.

[Frank Drackman]

Dr. Ed 2 Ladies & Germs, the World's Expert in everything!!!!!!!!!!

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (HT Borat)

Frank "Renaissance Man"

[Dr. Ed 2]

So this does not exist: https://www.doi.gov/tribes/trace-ancestry

[Frank Drackman]

It's on AlGores Interwebs, must be true,
But I don't see my tribe, led by Chief Mojorisin,

Frank

[David Nieporent]

It does exist. It does not define Indian status, or for that matter, tribal status, except for certain legal purposes.

[Kazinski]

Let's go over that a little, Warren listed her ancestry as Native American in 1986, on her Texas bar card.

Then she was hired at the University of Pennsylvania in 1987.

She says:
"At some point after I was hired by them, I … provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard," she said in a statement to the Boston Globe, acknowledging the designation for the first time. "My Native American heritage is part of who I am, I’m proud of it and I have been open about it."
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-native-american-heritage_n_1558838

Then in 1995 she became a professor at Harvard, and by 1996 she was Harvards highest paid professor, who wasn't an administrator.

So to recap, one year after claiming on her bar profile she was Native American, she was hired at Pennsylvania. While she claims she didn't list it on her application, she did tell them she was Native American after she was hired. Then Harvard hires her after she has told her previous employer that she's a minority, and she tells Harvard she is Native American.

And in 1996 a Harvard Law spokesman says she is the only minority faculty at Harvard Law:
"Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, [spokesperson Mike] Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American,” read the article, which was titled “Survey: Diversity Lacking at HLS.”

But that's all schadenfreude, I just don't like her nanny state socialist politics.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but those high cheek bones, don't you know.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.doi.gov/tribes/enrollment

[bevis the lumberjack]

I grew up in a home in which I was told that I had Native American ancestry, specifically Cherokee. Research done much later proved that in my case the family rumors were true, apparently unlike Warren’s.

The side of my family that had the Cherokee branch were all poorish country people, who rarely had a nickel to spare. Still, not a single one of those folks, or myself or my immediate family, ever tried to milk a penny out of the fact that we could be considered members of the tribe. Contrast that to Warren, who furiously milked every teat she could find to take advantage of an unfounded family rumor.

And of course, her response when her dishonesty was exposed would have had to improve a lot to even reach the level of appalling. Finally the fucking tribe had to publicly beg her to stop.

That’s why I hate her. Personally. My grandparents could have tried the crap that she did but unfortunately for them they were decent, honest people. Unlike her.

[Frank Drackman]

Well I'm an Indian outlaw
Half Cherokee and Choctaw
My baby, she's a Chippewa
She's a one of a kind
All my friends call me Bear Claw
The Village Chieftain is my paw-paw
He gets his orders from my maw-maw
She makes him walk the line
You can find me in my wigwam
I'll be beatin' on my tom-tom
Pull out the pipe and smoke you some
Hey and pass it around

Frank "is my Tomahawk still under warranty??"

[Kazinski]

I'll also say that it's pretty ironic that her oldest ancestral link to Oklahoma was a Tennessee Militia member who helped round up the Cherokee and send them on their death march on the Trail of Tears:

"In what may be the ultimate and cruelest irony, not only is it unlikely that Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great grandmother was Cherokee, it turns out that Warren’s great-great-great grandfather was a member of a militia unit which participated in the round-up of the Cherokees in the prelude to the Trail of Tears."
https://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/cruel-irony-in-elizabeth-warrens-cherokee-saga/

[Armchair Lawyer]

The short answer is this.

Native Americans have been historically discriminated against, and because of that, there are a number of programs designed to compensate for that.

Warren isn't native American, has never been discriminated against for being "native American" and has no real ties to the culture. But when useful, (and only when useful) she held herself out as native American in order to obtain those benefits for Native Americans for herself.

It's extremely hypocritical and deceitful to essentially "steal" benefits designed for a discriminated group when you're not part of that group.

[Michael P]

It's more than a 2-day story because Warren is more than a 2-day harridan. Rather than just stopping at publishing a dishonest study on "medical bankruptcy", she leveraged that to inflict vastly more dishonesty and bad policy on the American public. Most of that is hard to explain, but the emblematic Fauxcahontas aspect of her life is easy to grasp.

[Stephen Lathrop]

santamonica811, good luck with your Warren query on this forum.

I first discovered Warren existed when she was hired at Harvard. I was interested in a political topic which touched on bankruptcy, and found a link to a video of Warren speaking on the topic. The context she addressed included politics. She sounded brilliant to me, so I Googled her biography.

There was not in what I found at the time any mention of Native American background, but instead a striking picture of up-from-poverty blue collar-type personal history. That caught my attention. I thought that kind of background, plus political awareness, plus a clearly populist approach to economic issues, plus Harvard, suggested a political future that could provide the Democratic Party with pointers toward moving its agenda back in the direction of economic needs of ordinary Americans.

That was an approach I favored. Within a few years, that largely came to pass, as Warren’s continuing advocacy won her increasing political access and prominence.

It surprised me when movement conservatives turned so hostile—to someone on the left who was notably closer to the kind of populist economic agenda movement conservatives seemed to be touting. Then everything ran off the rails over the Indian stuff, which I tried to follow, but could not make sense of.

I concluded then that at least some of the attacks were lies about what Warren had said, and when she had said it, and in what context, and whether she had meant to profit personally. It seemed evident that Harvard intended to exploit its relation to a wisp of connection to Indian heritage, but that did not seem chargeable to Warren herself.

At about the same time I concluded that Warren lacked the political chops to be grass-roots persuasive politically, and certainly did not know how to defend herself against mass political attack. That convinced me to drop her from my list of interesting presidential candidates, without at all persuading me she was anything but a forthright and highly persuasive champion of better economic policy for ordinary American families.

I conclude tentatively that Warren was the victim of a massive dark money attack. The usual method of concerted lies orchestrated across paid-for media outlets seems to have worked to perfection. Warren’s inability to strike back effectively I charge only to political ineptness. I see nothing dishonorable in anything she did for which there was proof before the attacks began.

The usual suspects started sharing and believing lies so fast that, as usual, they convinced themselves, and thus drifted out of reach of the truth. You can see that reflected in today’s comments.

[Kazinski]

Lies?

I used mostly Warren’s own words and Harvard’s own spokesman above. It was the Washington Post which unearthed the Texas Bar card.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Only MAGAtics are allowed to grift.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Then Harvard hires her after she has told her previous employer that she’s a minority, and she tells Harvard she is Native American.

That is, at best, weasel worded. Not forthright.

To be fair you also quoted more accurately, that Warren denied she told Harvard anything about Native American heritage until after it hired her. The way you put it in the quote above, any but an unusually skeptical reader would read what you wrote as Warren claiming Native American heritage to Harvard before she was hired there.

Also, you did not mention that Harvard confirmed that she had not told them until she filled out a form that went to faculty generally, after she had already been hired. As far as any record I have seen can show, the facts of what happened, and when the various steps happened, make it clear that Warren did nothing on her own initiative to entice Harvard into hiring her based on Native American heritage.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The Indian issue came up when Warren ran for Senate in 2012. It got attention again in the 2017-2020 period because Fox New and Donald Trump decided to talk about it. I don't see anything to suggest a dark money attack.

I'd file the notion that conservatives support a “populist economic agenda” along side the notion that they oppose deficit spending, which they only do when they aren't in a position to do anything about it. “Tax cuts for the top 1%” is not a great campaign slogan to get the votes of the 99% who are not in the top 1%, so Republicans have to run on something else. Trump, for example, promised to eliminate the carried interest loophole, which lets hedge fund managers pay capital gains rates, rather than regular income tax rates, on their financial compensation. Needless to say, he didn't try to actually do that once he took office. No matter how much conservatives talk about supporting a populist economic agenda, I don't expect them to support Warren, Biden, or any other politician who would implement such an agenda.

[Nige]

Conservatives hate liberals. Conservatives hate Native Americans. Elizabeth Warren, a liberal, did something that turned out to be insulting to Native Americans, and arguably a fraudulent act, albeit a relatively minor one, and responded poorly when it became widely known. They will literally never let it go, and don’t care that Native Americans don’t like their nickname for her, because they hate them, too, as mentioned, so they get to have it both ways.

Meanwhile, conservatives elected George Santos. Also, Trump, of course. And Rick Scott.

[David Nieporent]

First, Warren did exploit her claim of being an Indian for employment purposes. (Whether it could be established that she would not have received some jobs if she weren't holding herself out as Indian is another question, but she tried.)

Second, Warren wasn't an Indian. The "family lore" story — which I will accept for the sake of argument to be true¹ — does not justify her claiming to be Indian. If she had described herself consistent with that lore — "maybe somewhere on my family tree generations back there was someone who was Indian" — she would not have been identified as Indian by anyone. She did not look Indian, was not part of an Indian community, was not treated as Indian. Her claim to Indian status would require adoption of the most aggressive applications of the viciously racist one drop rule.

That's not analogous to your Jewish hypothetical. Setting aside debate about matrilineal descent and Halacha (Reform Judaism would recognize you as Jewish), and setting aside the difference between religion and race,² you lived your life as a Jew. Maybe not an observant one, but a Jew nonetheless. You didn't adopt that label only when convenient. Warren is the opposite scenario: you claiming to be Jewish based on rumors that one great-grandmother was Jewish, even though you didn't appear Jewish, didn't affiliate with the Jewish community, were raised as Christian, etc.

¹That is, I accept that this was indeed the family lore, not that the family lore itself is accurate.
²Judaism isn't about blood quantum. Although people may talk about it colloquially, there's no such thing as "half-Jewish." It's binary; you're either Jewish or not.

[Life of Brian]

(Whether it could be established that she would not have received some jobs if she weren’t holding herself out as Indian is another question, but she tried.)

In an era of head-over-heels affirmative action, I rather think the burden should be on the false claimant to establish they still would have received the benefit sans golden ticket. It's beyond reasonable question that it influenced the process to some degree, so it doesn't really make sense to absolve the person gaming the system simply because nobody considering her application said out loud that A led to B.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Her claim to Indian status would require adoption of the most aggressive applications of the viciously racist one drop rule."

Right. Her history highlights the utter absurdity of what affirmative action has become. Even assuming her story is true, she grew up as a middle-class white woman, with all the privileges thereof. She needs AA like I need 10 cavities.

[Stephen Lathrop]

First, Warren did exploit her claim of being an Indian for employment purposes.

Nieporent, I do not rule out that could have happened prior to Harvard. It seems clear that with regard to Harvard that did not happen.

I am curious to know how you think that has been proved in her employment before Harvard.

[David Nieporent]

That does not in fact "seem clear." Are you basing that on anything other than the lack of ability to find something in writing saying, "Yeah, we should hire her because she's Indian," or someone willing to say, "Yeah, we did hire her because she was Indian"? Because, if so, that standard would revolutionize employment law.

("No, we couldn't find an email saying, 'Don't hire him; he's black,' so obviously this company doesn't discriminate.")

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, got it. You were making it up. You have no evidence with which to contradict denials from both Warren and Harvard, which did include reference to a survey which could be verified. You don’t want to say what steps your brain went through while you were making it up. And you decline to discuss any possibilities except at Harvard.

I am willing to be persuaded, but you are not trying.

By the way, in asking these questions, and reaching the conclusion I mentioned previously, I have been proceeding exactly as I would have if I were considering an article about attacks on Warren for publication in a newspaper. I do not think the context of this incident implicates libel, no matter how you look at it, but the process to vet for truth is much the same as the process to vet to avoid defamation.

If you are a publisher, and you care about publishing the truth, you don't vary the standard much, whether or not defamation is a threat in a particular case. With the standard you show here, you are wise to do as you have been, and demand laws to bestow impunity against defamation charges.

[John F. Carr]

I don't care much about her checking the victim box on the form. She shouldn't have done it but it was a minor mistake decades ago. This part is gets my attention more: "When the NY Times later did an exhaustive review". I saw a report in the Boston Globe, which could be the same one since the two papers share with each other. It was obvious the paper's goal was to rehabilitate her, not to report the facts.

Is there any evidence of a big swing in approval for Warren as a result? I think the Indian issue serves mainly to provide something concrete for people to argue about. It's more exciting than whether the CFPB violates separation of powers.

[TwelveInchPianist]

In the 1980's Warren, claiming to be Cherokee contributed to an Indian cookbook called "Pow Wow Chow" claiming to be a collection of family recipes of the 5 civilized tribes. Her contributions had been lifted from places like the NYT and Better homes and gardens.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey (man!) it was the 1980's, remember "The Sporting News" used to have a column with updates on the MLB teams, Cleveland/Atlanta's was always titled "Smoke Signals" or "Tribe Talk"

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

I think it was more the "I think I'm gonna get me a Beer!" Video
https://www.facebook.com/CBSPittsburgh/videos/im-gonna-get-me-a-beer-sen-elizabeth-warren-drank-a-beer-on-instagram-live-and-i/385106535629335/

C'mon (Man!) Poke-a-Hontas should know Injuns can't handle the Firewater

Frank "Ugh!"

[ragebot]

Disclaimer: I have spent way too much time, money, effort, blood, sweat, and tears researching my ancestry. Multiple sources like Facebook groups, DNA testing services, and very legit research groups all have warnings that way more peeps claim indian ancestry than is possible. To make matters worse official government status grants those who actually do have indian ancestry certain benefits; especially to tribes who have set up bookie operations which are basically a way to print money.

The powers that be (and only God knows how this came to be) have created official indian tribes with official rolls that are basically based on smoke and mirrors. None of the official tribes will have anything to do with DNA testing (DNA testing has it's own limitations in terms of ancestry but that is a different topic) and refuse to cooperate by providing DNA samples to establish markers for indian DNA markers. It needs to be mentioned that what constitutes a marker lacks a consensus and also is a moving target. Users of DNA testing services have complained that periodically there percentage of ancestry in a certain group has changed due to updating which markers mean what. In fact DNA researchers have an ongoing effort to go to specific geographical areas to get better data about the markers from those areas.

While DNA can be helpful in what I will call broad genealogy research it often times leads to more questions than answers. It should be noted that DNA alone is not dispositive but other evidence needs to be obtained for accurate results. Another huge issue is that very few peeps have what I will term "pure DNA". I have seen many peeps who's DNA break down will be something like 30% East African, 30% Southern Europe, and 30% West Asian; what the hell does that mean. There is also a consensus that below a certain percent DNA markers are noise (often 1-2%).

At the personal level I also had family stories about indian ancestors and looking at my grandfather you would swear he was Wes Studi's brother. But none of the DNA tests I took showed any indian DNA markers. On the other hand I was in a rather small group that had over 94% of my DNA markers as Northern European. Shipping records showed my ancestors arrived in America from England. Other medical markers like Dupuytren's Disease, also knowns as the Viking's Disease, and no lactose intolerance associated with Vikings (the claim is that the Vikings had a better diet than other Europeans because they could drink cows milk and other milk related products which provided protein and calories). Fair hair, light skin, and blue eyes are also Northern European traits. Like I posted earlier I have spent way too much time constructing my family tree using not only family stories but DNA testing, researching records, and general facts about populations.

As for Warren it was obvious to me early on that her claim of indian ancestry was bogus, but in genealogy circles claims of indian ancestry are usually viewed as bogus as well. On a personal note Warren's voice grates on me and she does seem to lack any abilities in retail politics. To make matters worse she espouses no political positions attractive to me.

[Ben_]

"I don’t see that Warren did anything even the slightest bit improper"

And I’ve never heard anyone say that Warren should be arrested for it. She might want to apologize for misleading so many people so many times, despite the excuses.

She should also apologize for doing bad and misleading (bordering on fraudulent) academic work. She should apologize to all the people she has treated unfairly as a Senator. She should apologize to all the Americans she has maligned. She should try to become a good person instead of a radical, shrill Senate Karen.

"Why all the hate?"

She gets back what she offers. She’s a typical leftist elite who looks down on and maligns everyday Americans. She makes our lives worse intentionally. She pretends to believe in principles in order to attack others (and she does a lot of attacking), meanwhile failing to uphold those principles herself.

Do you really not understand why people don’t like that?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Pocahontas meme "

Its Fauxcahontas.

Trump just screwed it up.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Too late now, Pocahontas it is.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Pocahontas had no relation to the tribe claimed by Warren. So you calling her that is more racist and ignorant than anything Warren did.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Of course the name "Pocahontas" has no relation to Warren; that's why it cannot possibly be "racist" (to her) to mock her by calling her by that name.

Or are you saying it would have been perfectly "non-racist" to mock her with a Cherokee name instead?

Damn, you guys and your rules!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

So, you're saying labeling someone with a racist term is completely fine, as long as you don't think the person is a member of that race. And furthermore, you don't seem to think that using the term Pocahontas to refer to any Native Americans anywhere in North America is racist? I guess you're entitled to your opinions.

[bernard11]

So the answer to your query seems to be that she has lied several times to gain advantages.

Never mind that the people who voted to hire her say that the alleged lie played no part in the decision.

Let that go. Once the right gets onto something facts don't matter.

What is interesting is how many rabid Trumpites are suddenly outraged that someone they consider a habitual liar has achieved high office.

What a joke.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm still not clear what Warren's lie was. She said there was a family tradition of Native American heritage. She had a DNA test which seemed to confirm that.

[bevis the lumberjack]

She put “Native American” as her race on her fucking bar card.

When exposed she doubled down several times to the point that the tribe begged her to stop

And I won’t even go into the insulting “pow wow chow” bullshit.

If someone not associated with the other side did any of those things the progressives would shit blue fire. As someone who actually qualified to be a member of a tribe, I’m personally incensed.

[Ben_]

"She put “Native American” as her race on her fucking bar card."

Same as George Santos saying he is Jew-ish.

[ragebot]

Same as George Santos saying he is Jew-ish.

Really setting a high bar Bennie Boy.

[Don Nico]

At the 0.1% or less less.
Sounds pretty bogus to me.
Her defense is that it was a family myth, not that anything her family practiced had anything to do with First People culture.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Right, that's actually my point. She said it was a family story, and the genetics seems to have indicated that there is some truth to it. I don't see why people should be all worked up about it, but I'm not Native American. I'm a full-blooded member of the Ashkenazi tribe. I find George Santos lying about being Jewish more amusing than anything else.

Seems to me that for partisan reasons, a lot of people who aren't Native American are outraged on behalf of Native Americans, and many of the same people would criticize similar outrage in other situations. Whatever weapon comes to hand, I suppose.

[Gasman]

At some point as a person grows up, they learn that truths told, retold, unquestioned, and absent any primary sources, should strain credulity.
I had been told that I had some relationship to Wild Bill Hickcock. As a child this was a source of fascination, even pride. I repeated it often and told peers of this personal family history.
But by junior high school I began to wonder if I could connect the dots, as surely it it were true, dots must exist to be connected.
Curiosity, and a reasonable measure of in-credulity crept in. Research into Wild Bill's family tree, and my family tree eventually proved no such relationship.

My point is, at some point, she had a duty for intellectual honesty to question every 'fact' she thought she knew about herself. To cling to bad data out of simple cognitive sloth is no excuse.
And she did gain something through her repeated untrue statements; a sense of moral superiority, otherwise why cling to such a story.

[Gandydancer]

The NYT claim is full of crap. There is no reason to think Warren got no mileage out of being a Fauxcahontas -- she was touted as such by Harvard and dishonestly escaped sharing the discrimination she could otherwise have expected to experience for being White. Being a Jew wouldn't do that for her. The truth was visible in any mirror. She gets the hate because she earned it.

[santamonica811]

Query Two.

Robert Costello. He is a former attorney for Michael Cohen. A few days ago, he spoke to the grand jury, and then held a big press conference, where he proceeded to rake his former client over the coals.

The press conference really surprised me. First, I get that Cohen waived attorney-client privilege in this case. So, I get that this freed-up Costello a great deal. But I've almost never seen a lawyer stab his former client in the back. (There are some edge cases, like where a client sues an attorney for, say, malpractice, which makes it more understandable.)

I get that Costello is a far-right, uber-MAGA, Trump loyalist. So, of course I understand the underlying motivation--why Costello wants to say anything possible to hurt Cohen and help Trump. But it strikes me as really unseemly to trash a former client. It's my understanding that attorneys still owe former clients some duty of loyalty, don't they? Or am I wrong about this? I see no problem at all with Costello (armed with Cohen's waiver of privilege) testifying in front of the grand jury, and with providing that jury with evidence that helps Trump.

But sticking the knife in, in a press conference? Where he compares Cohen to a wild animal, and where he shares Cohen's thoughts of suicide?

My question: Does Costello risk any (minor, I assume) punishment from his state bar about this? Or is this well within permissible boundaries for a lawyer who is dealing with a former client?

[I, of course, am not ignoring the irony that, to a large extent, this is sorta what Cohen himself did to Trump—his own former client. He's gone far past providing evidence, and he seems determined to stab Trump in the back—publicly!!!--at every opportunity. Just as unseemly, IMO.]

[not guilty]

Michael Cohen has reportedly denied that Costello had ever been his lawyer and that he had ever waived attorney-client privilege. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/20/former-attorney-to-michael-cohen-tries-to-discredit-him-in-grand-jury-testimony-00087982 If Costello was not his attorney, there was no privilege to waive.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey, not guilty, please confirm for us that DA Bragg is not among the blacks that are on your list of “house negroes”. We need to be sure we have it straight.

[not guilty]

I doubt that your inquiry is sincere, but FWIW, nothing in Mr. Bragg's history suggests he has gotten where he is other than on his own merit. https://prospect.org/justice/restorative-justice-new-york-da-alvin-bragg-interview/ He is no Stepin Fetchit.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Good deal. No slavery related insult for him then.

[Frank Drackman]

He's more like the "Kingfish"

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I doubt that your inquiry is sincere,"

Yeah, I doubt Bevis really cares which black people you think are house negroes or Uncle Tom's. No one else does either.

[Nige]

Except all the ones on the 'Democrat plantation.'

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you guys see the racism there. Astonishing.

[Nige]

The racism that most black people vote for Democrats and Republicans respond by essentially calling them slaves and wonder why they aren't winning them over? Except they don't wonder why, they just write them off as a sort of special interest group instead of seeing them as citizens? That racism?

[Gandydancer]

They ARE a special interest group and the GOP OUGHT to treat them as one owned by the Dems but in actual fact the Establishment GOP is very fond of promoting its Magic Negroes, few of whom deserve it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Did you see that letter to the FEC?

[David Nieporent]

Sure. A five year old document that Cohen admitted years ago was false when he pleaded guilty.

[Bored Lawyer]

Come on. That’s all fine when you are prosecuting Cohen. When you are relying on his testimony to convict someone else, it shatters his credibility. He told one story to the FEC, the opposite story to the prosecutors. So he lied to the government at least one time. On the very question that you are relying upon to convict.

As for five years old, we are talking about a six year old crime.

[David Nieporent]

I wasn't making any legal arguments with my comment. I was making the argument that the idiot MAGA talking point, "Look at this exculpatory evidence that was just discovered!!!!!!" is in fact idiotic. It was not just discovered and is not shocking. We know Cohen originally told one story and then changed his tune and pleaded guilty.

[Gandydancer]

BL's observation was merely that it is very relevant, not that it was either new or shocking. So just stop with the strawmanning already.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, Cohen denies it, in his Attorney Client waiver:

“Although I do not believe that any of my communications with Costello or other lawyers at DHC are subject to attorney-client privilege, I hereby waive whatever attorney-client or other privilege that might be argued have attached to such communications," the February 2019 declaration from Cohen stated.”

A very lawyerly waiver and denial in one sentence.

[Bored Lawyer]

BTW, there is one aspect of the privilege issue that many people, including many lawyers, miss. Communications with a lawyer are ONLY privileged if they are made confidentially. If client tells lawyer information to tell a third party, that is not privileged.

Which is very common. Clients tell lawyers all kinds of things they know and expect will be conveyed to a third party -- a court, an adversary in litigation, a government agency that is investigating them.

Which is why if Trump is indicted, I expect not only the FEC to be introduced by his defense counsel, but for them to subpoena Cohen's lawyer who wrote that letter, to testify what he said and how he said it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This is, in general, a really bad case to try to arrest Trump on. It has a host of issues.

1. It's really a misdemeanor crime, not a felony, and is typically just a fine.
2. That has a 2 year statue of limitations (which has passed).
3. But the DA is trying to pass it off as a felony, by "linking" it to another crime (Campaign finance laws). Which is really a federal, not state crime.
4. That has a 5 year statue of limitations. Which has also passed.
5. This whole "falsifying buisiness records -> Campaign finance law violation -> felony case" doesn't have a good track record (or any real track record of succeeding).
6. Which is why the feds have already turned down trying to prosecute such a case.
7. Then there's a whole other bunch of famous politicians who have done the same thing, but just been fined by the FEC, instead of felony prosecuted. Lots of selective prosecution issues there.
8. And then the star witness has a...questionable...relationship with the truth, and no one would ever want him on the stand.

In all, it's a really bad case to try to convict someone on (let alone a famous politician), and odds are even if it succeeds, it will be turned over on appeal. And it smacks of political prosecution.

[SimonP]

Yeah – I’m a New Yorker, this Bragg guy is my DA, and I’m deeply embarrassed by what he’s attempting here.

The reporting now doesn’t spend as much time focusing on the investigation Bragg actually inherited, which spanned much more broadly than just this hush-money thing. When he came into office, in early 2022, he promptly drove off the two prosecutors who were investigating Trump, apparently unwilling to risk a high-profile prosecution of the former president. They took the unusual step of issuing a public statement excoriating Bragg, and Bragg took some heat in the aftermath for appearing feckless and cowardly.

So, to me, the current hush-money bit seems like a too-little, too-late attempt by Bragg to save some face for his initial face plant. I wish the left would spend a little less time bragging about how “we got him!” on this charge. In my view, it just illustrates further what a clown Bragg has been.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Part of me wonders if this isn't all some Democratic ploy to boost exposure for Trump and sympathy among GOP primary voters.

DeSantis is a much better candidate, especially in the general election. And if it was just DeSantis versus Trump in the primary, without outside distractions, DeSantis should win.

But you throw out Trump there being a martyr, defending himself from clearly political-driven charges....and it's going to generate sympathy for him.

[Moderation4ever]

The case has pluses and minuses for the former President. It boosts sympathy and brings in money. It also reminds people that he is a serial adulterer and uses corrupt business practices. As we have seen the later will be used by his Republican opponents in their damning support for him.

Ask yourself if, " Paying hush money to a porn star to cover an affair you had while your wife was pregnant is a private matter", is expressing support Trump or not?

[Nige]

Announcing his own arrest, which turned out to be another lie, and demanding to be protected by his supporters, potentially with violence, is hardly going to endear him to the general electorate, and people keep musing if the Democrats are engaging in plots and ploys - as with the Mar A Lago search, Trump did this to himself.

[Brett Bellmore]

The impression I've gotten from all of this is actually that personal morals aside, Trump is cleaner legally than I'd ever have imagined. A whole platoon of Berias have been deployed against him, and this is all they could find? Amazing!

I don't like his personal morals. But I don't EXPECT politicians to be moral icons.

Given a conservative libertarian's view of government, why would you? It's like expecting Mafia dons to be moral.

I'd say that Trump isn't unusually immoral for a high level politician. Being a Republican, the MSM just put a lot more effort into publicizing his warts than they would for a Democrat like Biden.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If all his legal troubles are "witch hunts", then of course none are legitimate: Everyone knows there's no such thing as a "witch".

The (not at all self-serving) pre-judgement label tells you everything y'all need to know!

[Brett Bellmore]

How many of his legal problems have resulted in his being convicted of anything?

[SimonP]

I don't think it's n-dimensional chess, AL. I think it's establishment Democrats proceeding on "get Trump" inertia, without too much more behind it than that.

I think it's Republicans, actually, who are content to let the investigations and indictments come. They want Trump out of the way, to make room for DeSantis (i.e., the official establishment pick), but they have no desire to attack Trump directly. Much better to let the Democrats do the dirty work (just like McConnell wanted them to do, during the impeachments). I think that also explains why so much of the performative tantrum-throwing in the House has nothing to really back it up. (A House investigation of the NY DA investigation? De-funding the NYC police?) They're making a lot of noise to avoid admitting this is how they want things to play out.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree the hypocrisy of the Republicans was out in full force this week. Especially their own damning support for Trump.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Normally, I'd might agree. But you already mentioned that Bragg originally canned the case. Why bring it back now?

Best thing it does is, it wins another news cycle for Trump.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t care what happens to Trump. The Trump Circus is several years past its expiration date, but his supporters and Democrats generally and the media just can’t let it go.

The shame of this prosecution is that the DA is going to have to legally poke a hole in New York’s statute of limitations, which will then become embedded into its interpretation and will ultimately cause unfair treatment of thousands of not-as-rich-as-Trump people

But let’s get Trump on a minor charge, even if it screws thousands of ordinary folks, amiright?

[Moderation4ever]

We have seen this litany many times in the past week, and I would suggest a more interesting question is why is DA Bragg moving ahead. We know he passed on the business case which was seen as stronger. Perhaps a better intellectual exercise would be to take the list of why to not persecute the case and ask how Bragg will address the points.

I would also add that the former President's behavior, especially calling for protests, almost necessitates Bragg moving forward. Trump and Bragg are almost in a game of chicken now.

[Brett Bellmore]

"We know he passed on the business case which was seen as stronger."

Perhaps it wasn't seen as very strong by the people on the inside who would have had to prosecute it?

[not guilty]

"Perhaps it wasn’t seen as very strong by the people on the inside who would have had to prosecute it?"

I don't know about that. One of them wrote a book about it. https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1668022443/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Brett Bellmore]

And how strong exactly does a case have to be to write a book about it, instead of prosecuting it?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Pomerantz didn't have the final say on whether or not to proceed with prosecution. He resigned in protest over that decision.

[Gandydancer]

And how strong exactly does a case have to be to write a book about it, instead of prosecuting it?

That even this clown Bragg wouldn't do it isn't an argument for it.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He didn't write a book about it INSTEAD of prosecuting. He wanted to prosecute, was overruled, and so resigned. He wrote a book making the argument that the case was strong enough to prosecute. Perhaps he is wrong and perhaps Bragg is wrong too, I'm not qualified to judge. But your question doesn't make sense, because the person who wrote the book, Mark Pomerantz, thought the case was strong enough to prosecute.

[Gandydancer]

not guilty wrote: “Perhaps it wasn’t seen as very strong by the people on the inside who would have had to prosecute it?”

We don't know what Pomerantz thought the strength of the case was, merely that he chose to write and sell a book arguing that the case was strong. But it isn't so that he is either a liar or is badly subject to confirmation bias. And his name does not exhaust the list of those “who would have had to prosecute it”.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

We DO know what he thought the strength of the case was, because he wrote it in his book which you have not read. And his name does exhaust the list of prosecutors involved in the case who subsequently wrote a book about it. And your opinion stated as fact that the case wasn't strong enough to prosecute is less than convincing. At least one prosecutor involved in the case disagreed strongly, and has made his case publicly.

[not guilty]

“Then there’s a whole other bunch of famous politicians who have done the same thing, but just been fined by the FEC, instead of felony prosecuted. Lots of selective prosecution issues there.”

How so? How are enforcement decisions by the Federal Election Commission attributable to the New York County District Attorney? Do you claim that Mr. Bragg was aware of any politicians, whose conduct was known to be similar to that of Mr. Trump, whom Mr. Bragg declined to prosecute? If so, do you claim that the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification? See, Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962) (“[T]he conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation.”)

[Krayt]

Boy, I have never seen an ostrich’s head buried that facetiously deep in the sand. We wouldn’t be here if he wasn’t the president. We wouldn’t be here if he weren’t running again.

To extend your question, are there any other cases where the feds deliberately gave a state prosecutor info because talking heads worried that person would get a pardon, and they can GIT ‘IM, and the prosecutor opened the case just in case that happened?

The question isn’t was there wrongdoing. The question is political opponents pulling out all the stops using government’s power of investigation against a political enemy, loudly and openly.

Things like the 4th amendment aren’t to protect the innocent, really. They’re to stop The King from filching through powerful opponents’s stuff, looking for anything, including actual criminality, to hold against them.

Most of those will be rich people, and good luck finding one who has everything signed correctly in their massive dealings. Kings could rely on that.

[Krayt]

Yes, there is cosmic justice in Donald "Lock her up!" Trump suffering this. But two wrongs (millions of wrongs historically) don't make a right.

[not guilty]

Claims of selective prosecution are often bandied about by keyboard warriors, but successful assertions of that as a defense to an actual criminal charge are vanishingly rare. Whataboutism does not make out an equal protection violation.

[Gandydancer]

Prosecutions as blatantly political as Bragg's are what is vanishingly rare. Or have been.

[David Nieporent]

7. Then there’s a whole other bunch of famous politicians who have done the same thing, but just been fined by the FEC, instead of felony prosecuted. Lots of selective prosecution issues there.

John Edwards would like a word with you.

But, yeah, this thing requires a stretch as to legal theory (whether the facts can be established b.a.r.d. — whether it relies solely on Cohen's credibility — I will not prejudge), and it's a rather old and relatively petty offense anyway. This is not like getting Capone on tax evasion; it's like getting Capone on running a red light.

If Trump's other much more serious crimes can be proven, then this is a waste of time and resources; if they can't, it's vindictive.

[Bored Lawyer]

Well put. I would add it's like getting Al Capone on running a red light where your sole witness is a cop who was convicted of lying about traffic tickets to increase his monthly take.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Only, in that case, if he was working for Al Capone at the time and, indeed, handed him the money...

[Bored Lawyer]

And also testified in another forum that Capone did NOT run the red light.

[Bored Lawyer]

"John Edwards would like a word with you."

You mean the guy who was acquitted by a jury of his peers? That John Edwards?

[not guilty]

IIRC Edwards was acquitted as to one count. The jury could not reach a verdict on the rest, and DOJ opted not to seek a second trial.

[David Nieporent]

You mean the guy who was acquitted by a jury of his peers? That John Edwards?

I'm not sure what your point is. The topic was prosecution — specifically, selective prosecution — not conviction.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Edwards was not acquitted.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, Edwards is the one famous exception that is close to this. And even Edwards case was significantly different (considering it was a straight donation from a major donor to Edwards mistress).

This starts to look a lot more like Hillary's case, where Hillary's campaign paid a bunch of lawyers "legal fees" to actually do opposition research and dump the Steele Dossier out there. Or Obama's case where he misdated a whole bunch of FEC donor forms.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And if Biden's people ordered it, as is being alleged?

[Randal]

I allege that you raped your mom!

Now you're officially and forever an alleged rapist.

See how that works? It's fun!

[Gandydancer]

And if Biden’s people ordered it, as is being alleged?

[Michael P]

Shorter sm811, with apologies to Kubrick: "Gentlemen, you can't tell the truth here, this is the grand jury room!"

[David Nieporent]

[I, of course, am not ignoring the irony that, to a large extent, this is sorta what Cohen himself did to Trump—his own former client. He’s gone far past providing evidence, and he seems determined to stab Trump in the back—publicly!!!–at every opportunity. Just as unseemly, IMO.]

I think Cohen has kind of stabbed Trump in the front, not the back.

[bernard11]

I'm a bit dubious myself, but maybe we could all wait and see the details of the indictment and the full facts of the case before jumping in.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Or we could wait until Jim Jordan releases the results of his 'investigation.'

[Randal]

Just read Bad Spaniels. Sotomayor has a sense of humor. Kagan... doesn't? I sort of thought it would be the other way around given Kagan's cleverness and Sotomayor's self-seriousness.

Also, will this be a rare Alito pro-first-amendment case? Is that because it's corporations on both sides? Since it's pro-corporate no matter what, he can virtue-signal as pro-dog and anti-booze.

[Gandydancer]

I listened to the arguments. (Forbes put it on YouTube?) Not really seeing why the humor of having your dog play with a “booze bottle” (I get that that can be mildly humorous, particularly when sitting around with a drink of your own, even if Kagan doesn’t) gives you leave to to sell without agreement or compensation a simulacrum of an actual product rather than produce a bottle-shaped chew toy labelled “Booze”.

Remind me: What was this evidence of Sotomayor’s sense of humor?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an off the wall motion in Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta, seeking to preclude any State prosecuting agency from presenting or utilizing any evidence or testimony derived by the Special Purpose Grand Jury and seeking disqualification of the Fulton County District Attorney's Office from further involvement in the Trump matter. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23718113-ex-parte-fulton-county-grand-jury-03-20-2023-102331-37306996-f8b43da6-144b-4544-ab53-4095c1c5f36d

I must confess a grudging respect for the chutzpah giving rise to this filing -- a defense lawyer doesn't get relief that he doesn't ask for -- but the underlying legal theories are bizarre. As a threshold matter, the motion is not ripe. Trump may or may not be indicted by the regular grand jury in Atlanta. If not, he has suffered no injury remediable by this motion.

As of now, Trump has not been deprived of any liberty interest. The federal Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not require initiation of state court criminal proceedings by a grand jury. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).

Under Georgia law, the applicable grand jury statutes nowhere authorize either dismissal of an indictment or suppression of evidence as a remedy for a grand jury's overreach. State v. Lampl, 296 Ga. 892, 770 S.E.2d 629, 633 (Ga. 2015). In Lampl the accused had been indicted by a special purpose grand jury -- an action exceeding the authority thereof. He was subsequently indicted by a regular grand jury, whereupon he moved to quash the indictment. The Georgia Supreme Court opined that "Lampl has established neither a violation of his constitutional rights nor a structural defect in the grand jury process." Ibid.

[SRG]

It's not about what the law says or permits. It's about Trump making noise, which he finds to be a useful propaganda tactic.

[John F. Carr]

If one can prove that a Georgia (criminal) grand jury considered illegal evidence, does state law allow the judge to dismiss the indictment?

[not guilty]

No. The exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings. As the Georgia Supreme Court opined in Mitchell v. State, 239 Ga. 456, 459, 238 S.E.2d 100 (1977):

In Jordon v. State, 232 Ga. 749 (9) (208 S.E.2d 840) (1974), this court held (at p. 756): "`The evidence which the grand jury receives in finding a true bill is not subject to inquiry.' Farmer v. State, 228 Ga. 225 (3) (184 S.E.2d 647); Powers v. State, 172 Ga. 1 (3) (157 S.E. 195); Buchanan v. State, 215 Ga. 791 (2) (113 S.E.2d 609); Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 212 (149 S.E.2d 449)." The accused has ample opportunity at trial to defend himself in the presence of the court where questions as to evidence can be raised and resolved. Just as we will not consider the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury, Powers v. State, supra, neither will we consider the admissibility, confidentiality, relevance or prejudice of evidence which may have been presented to the grand jury.

That is consistent with federal practice. As SCOTUS opined in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344-45 (1974):

The grand jury's sources of information are widely drawn, and the validity of an indictment is not affected by the character of the evidence considered. Thus, an indictment valid on its face is not subject to challenge on the ground that the grand jury acted on the basis of inadequate or incompetent evidence, Costello v. United States, [350 U.S. 359 (1956);] Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245 (1910); or even on the basis of information obtained in violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Lawn v. United States, 355 U. S. 339 (1958).

[David Nieporent]

Not Guilty is correct, but just to make explicit one point: the Fulton County grand jury that is the subject of this motion didn't indict Trump anyway. It made recommendations. So there's nothing to dismiss. Any question about the grand jury relying on illegal evidence to indict Trump is purely hypothetical.

[Mr. Bumble]

So what exactly was the purpose of the "special grand jury"?

[OtisAH]

If you actually gave a shit, or had any capacity to understand anything if you did, you’d Google it and find the answer in less than a second. But you have no such capacity and you don’t give a shit about anything except prolonging these exchanges that are clearly the only socializing — “demented and sad, but social” — you get in any given day.

[Nelson]

Jesus, Otis. Dial it back about 3 notches. He wasn't being a dick, he was asking a queation.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks. Didn't realize asking a question required Otis's permission.
Not withstanding David N's answer below, I am still unclear as to the need or purpose of a special grand jury. I thought investigations and recommendations were done by police and prosecutors and if there was reason to believe a crime had been committed that information was presented to a grand jury to seek an indictment.

[David Nieporent]

I thought investigations and recommendations were done by police and prosecutors

I'm a bit surprised that you've never heard the phrase "grand jury investigation" before now. Grand juries are absolutely investigative tools — indeed, they're generally how prosecutors conduct investigations.

Most places don't have separate special grand juries for investigations and regular ones for indictments, as Georgia apparently does, but the process of conducting investigations is the same.

[OtisAH]

Mr. Bumble is always being a dick. It’s his only talent.

[Gandydancer]

On the evidence here that sounds like projection.

[Drewski]

Bumble is consistently one of the most prolific and poorly-behaved regular commenters here. He was doing both.

[David Nieporent]

To investigate and make recommendations.

[not guilty]

"So what exactly was the purpose of the 'special grand jury'?"

Are you asking why the special purpose grand jury was convened? As I understand it, a regular grand jury in Georgia does not have subpoena power to summon witnesses to appear, while a special purpose grand jury does have such power. Some witnesses, notably Brad Raffensperger, would not voluntarily appear before a regular grand jury, leading the District Attorney to request empanelment of a special purpose grand jury with subpoena power.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks to you and David above for your responses.

[Kazinski]

One of the big questions about the Chinese payments from CEFC to the Biden family is what were they paying for? Just introductions? Influence pedaling?

Now Gal Luft, an Israeli Professor and think tank executive says he told the DOJ in 2019 that Hunter was feeding confidential FBI information to his Chinese partners and warned CEFC's chairman Ye Jianming he was under investigation.

"Soon after that tipoff, Ye offered Hunter $1 million to be his “private counsel” and flew to China, leaving his wife, daughter, son, mother, and nanny in his $50 million penthouse at 15 Central Park West."

Patrick Ho another CEFC executive was set up to be CEFC's patsy:
"On Nov. 18, 2017, Ho flew into JFK Airport, where he was arrested by FBI agents on bribery and money laundering charges.

“Ho was the patsy … the fall guy,” says [Luft’s lawyer Robert] Henoch.

Ho was convicted in December 2018, without calling a single witness, served three years in jail, and was deported. Prosecutors placed the spotlight in his case on China’s use of foreign bribery to win contracts for its Belt and Road Initiative."

"CEFC gave Hunter $1 million to represent Ho, “which entailed contacting his FBI sources on Ho’s behalf and engaging another attorney to do the legal work, according to emails on his laptop.”

Hunter and James Biden got $4.9 million from CEFC in 14 months from August 17. We also know CEFC “funneled” over $1 million to Hunter, James, and Beau Biden’s widow/Hunter’s ex Hallie through an affiliated company to Robert Walker."

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/03/report-fbi-mole-known-as-one-eye-would-tip-off-hunter-about-any-china-probes/

Luft is now being held in Cyprus on a US issued arms trafficking warrant he claims is retaliation. But it's worth noting he went to the DOJ 4 years ago with these allegations, so it's hard to claim that he's trying to manufacture something to help him with his current legal troubles.

https://twitter.com/GalLuft/status/1627163772228861952?t=T-VxKjEhCKfPieh7BwSSaQ&s=19

[Commenter_XY]

Some of these informant names make me laugh...One Eye.

The subject matter however, does not make me laugh at all.

[Kazinski]

No, 'One Eye' is an FBI mole, not an informant.

I think there's a big difference between the two.

[Frank Drackman]

that would be "Brown Eye"

[Armchair Lawyer]

There's a lot of suspicious transfers. Hallie Biden getting money from the Chinese too?

https://www.newsweek.com/hallie-biden-payment-china-raises-questions-hunter-joe-house-oversight-1788434

[OtisAH]

Fascinating. Just one question:

From where would Hunter Biden have gotten “confidential fbi information” to pass on “to his Chinese partners” in 2019?

[Life of Brian]

Well, OP spelled out one specific example -- maybe you didn't read that far:

“CEFC gave Hunter $1 million to represent Ho, “which entailed contacting his FBI sources on Ho’s behalf and engaging another attorney to do the legal work, according to emails on his laptop.”

[OtisAH]

Did you forget to copy the part in that where it talks about the confidential fbi information he fed to his Chinese partners? Regardless, I guess the actual story is fbi agents passing confidential information to the Chinese through Hunter Biden. But there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of that either.

[Life of Brian]

Huh? You asked from where Hunter would have gotten confidential FBI info in 2019. OP gave an explicit example of emails describing Hunter getting info from his FBI sources in that era. That doesn't seem at all complicated.

[Sarcastr0]

Funny, the first sentence talks about confidential info. The second one the confidential part fell off.

Pretty lame.

[Life of Brian]

Almost as lame as someone who thinks (or, for my money, pretends to think) you would go to your own personally cultivated FBI sources for publicly available info. Come on, dude.

[Sarcastr0]

So all information is open to the public, or confidential.

A false choice.

Just jumping from fallacy to fallacy today.

[Life of Brian]

So all information is open to the public, or confidential.

Pray grace us with whatever cutesy third alternative you'd propose to public and non-public info. For bonus points, explain how it would apply here.

[Sarcastr0]

Come on, dude - knowing people on the inside is a good info source without any leaking needed.

Examples: a general sense of agency/office appetite for this or that action. Personal thoughts not offered as agency position. What the latest federal regs on point are.

[Life of Brian]

Federal regs are public. The rest of your little grab bag isn't even info -- much less info worth $1MM to someone -- but at the end of the day it's still stuff that the agency has opted not to make public, and thus you're pulling strings to get your own... erm, *confidential* whispering. Thanks for playing.

[Nelson]

So an FBI agent gave information to Hunter that he wasn’t supposed to and Hunter gave it to the Chinese.

What does thay have to do with Joe Biden?

Everyone knows Hunter is a sleaze. Years before most of you had any idea that Hunter existed we all knew he was shady and Beau was amazing. No one is surprised that Hunter is as much of a dirtbag now as he was when he was younger.

But there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence that Hunter’s shady and shameless trading on his father’s name has gained him any illegal income. Companies hired him because of his name, but companies have been doing that since Adam and Eve’s kid got a six-figure payday.

There’s negative evidence that Joe Biden benefitted in any way from Hunter’s grifting. If the best you have is a vague reference to “the big guy” in an email on a laptop that Rudy Giuliani controlled, you have nothing even remotely solid.

You may want it to be true, but wishing and wanting don’t count as evidence.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And this evidently occurred (if it occurred) in 2017. After 8-year ex-VP "Cheater" Joe Biden was emphatically run out of town by the Orange Sheriff. Exactly what sort of "influence" did they think they were buying?

Those inscrutable Chinese sure like to plan for contingencies...

[DaveM]

“There’s negative evidence that Joe Biden benefitted in any way from Hunter’s grifting.”

I like the way you’re framing this as “negative” evidence. Not “exculpatory” evidence, but negative evidence, as in “no evidence (yet)”. Pretty smart to leave yourself a way out like that.

It’s completely fair to presume the entire Biden family was in on the payoffs at this point. Probably the dog got a cut, too, for all we know. We can all see for ourselves that the money was sloshing around the entire cast of characters. It is clear that every penny of it was there because of one, and only one name: Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States.

So, not enough yet to convince a jury, but more than enought to warrant an aggressive, fulsome investigation. It’s silly to pretend like there’s nothing worth looking at here. That's just not a credible position at this point.

[Nelson]

"Not “exculpatory” evidence, but negative evidence"

I used "negative" tongue-in-cheek, to emphasize the complete absence of any evidence indicating Joe Biden was involved in his son's shenanigans. Innuendo doesn't become evidence by being repeated over and over.

What could possibly be 'exculpatory evidence' that 'proves' something didn't happened? Requiring someone to prove something didn't happen, while refusing to provide any actual facts to indicate it did, is called 'baseless speculation'.

"but more than enought to warrant an aggressive, fulsome investigation"

Hunter Biden does sleazy things. Companies allegedly paid Hunter Biden crazy money for no reason. Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's son. Therefore, Joe Biden is corrupt.

Do you see the problem with your "more than enough" claim? If guilt by association was a crime, we wouldn't have room on court dockets for anything else.

[Randal]

So an FBI agent gave information to Hunter that he wasn’t supposed to and Hunter gave it to the Chinese.

Not even that. Confidential information isn't necessarily classified (and I'm sure they'd've mentioned it if it were). FBI agents are empowered to reveal confidential information to anyone, if it could benefit an investigation. It seems like maybe it did here.

[Gandydancer]

It seems like maybe you're really determined to not use Occam's Razor when its logic points to something inconvenient to Joe Biden.

What "investigation" was leaking non-public FBI information to a Chinese agent in aid of? For it to "seem like" that happened you need more than baseless speculation.

[Kazinski]

I'm not claiming the Lift story lays out all the evidence of what specifically information Hunter's FBI informant gave Hunter and what he passed on to CEFC and it's executives.

The story is simply Luft personally attests, and his lawyer backs him up, that he when to the DOJ with the information in 2019.

The other part of the story is the 4.8m in payments that the Biden's received at the same timeframe as reported by other sources:

"CEFC China Energy, which has close ties to the Chinese Communist Party and People's Liberation Army, paid entities controlled by the then-cash-strapped Hunter Biden or his uncle James Biden $4.8 million over the course of 14 months beginning in 2017, according to The Washington Post."
https://news.yahoo.com/hunter-biden-paid-millions-chinese-172615419.html

[bernard11]

I love this "Biden family" business. Not Joe, just the "family."

As if relatives of influential people never cash in on family connections. Jared Kushner got that $2 billion from the Saudis because he's such a fucking brilliant real estate operator.

[Kazinski]

Well for one thing, Kushner's business is mega real estate.

2nd, 2 billion dollars is way to high for a bribe or a payoff.

And I'd say 4.8m to the Biden's for inside information and influence is more realistic.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

In 2017...

[OtisAH]

2 billion dollars for oil leases is too much for a bribe. 2 billion dollars for helping to sweep up a Saudi assassination of a legal permanent U.S. resident, arms deals, possibly nuclear secrets, and probably other things of which we’ll learn someday in the future is probably about right.

[bernard11]

Kushner is largely a flop at real estate.

The Saudi investment council, which evaluates these things from a business point of view, recommended against the "investment" on the grounds that Kushner lacked experience and had no great record of success.

I suspect they looked more deeply into his record than you did.

MBS ignored their recommendation. Wonder why?

[bernard11]

Here’s some information, Kazinski.

A panel that screens investments for the main Saudi sovereign wealth fund cited concerns about the proposed deal with Mr. Kushner’s newly formed private equity firm, Affinity Partners, previously undisclosed documents show.

Those objections included: “the inexperience of the Affinity Fund management”; the possibility that the kingdom would be responsible for “the bulk of the investment and risk”; due diligence on the fledgling firm’s operations that found them “unsatisfactory in all aspects”; a proposed asset management fee that “seems excessive”; and “public relations risks” from Mr. Kushner’s prior role as a senior adviser to his father-in-law, former President Donald J. Trump, according to minutes of the panel’s meeting last June 30.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Jared Kushner isn’t, you know, president of the United States. In fact, he’s never been elected to anything.

Other than that…..

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nor is Hunter Biden. Who, incidentally, was also not employed by the White House in a rather sordid example of nepotism.

It would be great if Trump had prosecuted Hunter Biden when he had the chance. I suspect he didn't because the evidence was too weak to support a conviction, or maybe because having Hunter running loose was even more advantageous for the presidential campaign against his father.

[Nige]

Hunter Biden hasn't been appointed to his father's presidential administration, hasn't come anywhere near a position of political power or influence. Jared Kushner was appointed to his father-in-law's presidential administration. There was a whole thing about his security clearance, and he was going to bring peace to the Middle East. Other than that.

[bernard11]

What ONS and Nige said, bevis.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hunter was obviously engaged in influence peddling Bernard. Kirshner was not.

And even if Kirshner did, you’re saying Biden corruption is fine?

[Nige]

'Obviously.'

People keep saying this, and yet.

[bernard11]

How do you know what Kushner was engaged in? Or what influence Biden peddled?

Kushner was deeply involved in US Middle East policy, and obviously close to Trump. His ability to manage a large real estate investment company was doubtful - see my comment above to Kazinski. MBS' investment advisers told him it was a bad deal, complete with "a proposed asset management fee that 'seems excessive.'"

So WTF do you think was going on?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t excuse whatever Kirshner did.

You’re the one defending influence peddling, not me. There is no other reason for foreign entities to pay an irresponsible, drug and alcohol addled, n’er do well like Hunter tens of millions of dollars. None. What expertise would he have provided for all that money - reviews of Russian prostitutes?

[Randal]

I don’t excuse whatever Kirshner did.

Jared Kushner isn’t, you know, president of the United States. In fact, he’s never been elected to anything.

In a thread about Hunter Biden.

This is called hoisting yourself on your own retard.

[Sarcastr0]

Failsons of rich people get high level positions. Have for centuries. It's not really evidence of influence peddling, but rather the light back-scratching aristocracy that comes with wealth.

Lots of things Hunter did are tabloid news worthy. Being named to some big company's board is not news. Unless you're like the Jacobin trying to take down Capitalism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It’s not really evidence of influence peddling, "

Because you say it's not? What are the people paying expecting to get for their money? People don't stay rich for long by writing checks and getting nothing in return.

[Sarcastr0]

Because it’s endemic. Being nice to a powerful man is a good idea, even if nothing is guaranteed.

I’ve been reading Presidential biographies. It’s all over the place, with no actual influence being peddled.

If I thought this taking offense was real, and you wanted some reforms, that would be one thing.

But this you woke up yesterday act is nonsense.

[Brett Bellmore]

I say this a lot, but don't be such an idiot, Sarcasr0. Failsons of rich people getting high level positions IS evidence of influence peddling. Widespread influence peddling.

[Sarcastr0]

If you want to define it like that, as though a chance at a favor counts, then...wait, no. Fuck you.

This is the one you choose to be mad at?

Bullshit. You don't believe a word of this. Or, rather you do, but have argued yourself into it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Fuck you."

The sound of Sarcastro losing an argument and stomping off. Of course the fact that there's "a chance at a favor counts" as influence peddling.

The fact that the expected return on $1 million to Biden's family is greater than $1 million is evidence of influence peddling, almost by definition.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't read to the end of my post, TiP? I made an argument right after that.

No, I don't need you declaring defeat for me.

And you diving into Brett's definitional special pleading-esque bullshit does not make it more correct. It makes you also wrong.

Though unlike Brett, I'm not sure if you've fooled yourself or are full of shit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You wanted me to read past "fuck you" to the part where you assert, without evidence, that Brett doesn't believe his own claim?

Yeah, right. That's an argument.

[Absaroka]

"If you want to define it like that, as though a chance at a favor counts,..."

Well, it surely raises the possibility. It's not absolute proof, of course. There was a scandal called Billygate when Billy Carter was on Libya's payroll. Jimmy explicitly acknowledged if:

"I am deeply concerned that Billy has received funds from Libya and that he may be under obligation to Libya. These facts will govern my relationship with Billy as long as I am president. Billy has had no influence on U.S. policy or actions concerning Libya in the past, and he will have no influence in the future."

(from Billy's wiki page ... for fun, see the footnote!)

Generally speaking I think people accepted that A)the Libyans were trying to buy influence and B)Billy was a cross Jimmy had to bear and C)Jimmy was a straight enough arrow the Libyans were wasting their money.

But I think it's reasonable to expect raised eyebrows when relatives of government officials get seemingly sweetheart deals. People are going to be shining a lot of flashlights around when that happens, and I think that is appropriate.

"You didn’t read to the end of my post, TiP? "

I don't claim great skill with people, but I generally haven't found saying 'fuck you' to be an effective strategy to get people to carefully consider whatever argument I am making.

[Nige]

‘Failsons of rich people getting high level positions’

Maybe, but what are you going to do about it? The US is built on the ideal that failsons of rich people can get high level positions. Or failsons-in-law can get positions in presidenatial administrations. And faildaughters.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, his name is Kushner. If you're unfamiliar with that, you're probably not really familiar enough to comment on the topic.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Whatever, man. This ain’t a goddamn spelling bee.

If KUSHNER did something illegal, bury him. If Trump Sr did something illegal, crush him. All of the weight of the justice system brought to bare. Show me a receipt with millions from a foreign entity being deposited into Trump family accounts and I’ll be right there waiving a pitchfork beside you.

But in a world where people have principles the same thing should be said of Hunter and Joe Biden. And people like Nige and Sarcastro and (maybe?) Bernard aren’t willing to stand by that principle. If Biden were caught on video with $10 million spread out on the Oval Office floor rolling around in a like Scrooge McDuck they’d come up with some bullshit way to defend it.

They always bitch at me about “bothsidesism” like that’s a fucking sin, but it seems to me that principle suggests that bothsidesism is more honorable than on “onesideism”, which they’re ate up with. Never calling your own side to heel is what has our political system full of unprincipled jackasses.

[David Nieporent]

If Biden were caught on video with $10 million spread out on the Oval Office floor rolling around in a like Scrooge McDuck they’d come up with some bullshit way to defend it.

Scrooge McDuck was awesome!

[Nige]

'Never calling your own side to heel'

So every week there's shit about Hunter Biden, and nobody defends Hunter Biden but they do try to seperate the bullshit from the facts, which is something you don't bother to do. Meanwhile the same people who post this shit pretend Kushner never existed, but you get mad at the people seperating the bullshit from the facts about Hunter Biden, not at the people who, how do you put it, never call their own side to heel? You do see how your vaunted centrism comes across as a pose, right?

[Sarcastr0]

I know you love this idea that only you are unbiased, but your habit of resorting to counterfactuals is a tell how much you’re willing to indulge your own bias.

Both sides, one side, they're not something to compare and see which is good. They're all narrative crutches, and bad if you use them to write your own reality.

Which you are deeply into. Maybe I am too, keep me honest on that, but don't get high handed that your bullshit doesn't stink. Just quit indulging in bullshit.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In 2020, the Stanford Daily discussed the Leonard Law, a (perhaps unique) California statute requiring private colleges and universities to observe First Amendment principles in dealing with students.

Law professor Michael McConnell was quoted as denying that the law applied to invitations to outside speakers.

https://stanforddaily.com/2020/05/20/californias-leonard-law-what-it-means-for-campus-speakers/

But Dean Martin[ez] in ultimately deciding not to discipline any disruptors, said “My analysis here is informed by California’s Leonard Law…” (p. 8)

https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Next-Steps-on-Protests-and-Free-Speech.pdf

So Stanford, it seems to me, is limited in its academic freedom. Even if it had a different conception of what student behavior should be disciplined, there’s a state statute allowing this private university to be second-guessed.

Are there any “academic freedom” issues with a state government telling a private school how to run its own operations?

[Commenter_XY]

When you say ...a state government telling a private school how to run its own operations is it only academic freedom you are hypothesizing about here? The word 'operations' threw me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't see a problem with it as the state (a) gives Stanford a property tax exempting and (b) the authority to issue degrees.

Notwithstanding that, how is this an academic freedom issue -- if anything, it is a mandate that academic freedom exist. And remember that academic freedom started at Stanford with the Econ professor who said that Leland Stanford exploited Chinese labor in building his railroad.

[John F. Carr]

Education Code section 94367

[Gandydancer]

Thanks.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Stanford has in the past argued that the Leanord Law was unconstitutional, but they didn't persue it very for. But you'd think that there are some freedom of association issues there.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Are there any “academic freedom” issues with a state government telling a private school how to run its own operations?"

Depends if they make funding conditional on good behavior. IMO.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not just that -- they also authorize Stanford to issue degrees and accord it non-profit status.

[Randal]

Wow you alleged rapists sure do like to try to find excuses for the government to control what happens in schools, even private universities.

That's not going to end well.

[shawn_dude]

Stanford may not be disciplining individual students (but would we know that for sure given FERPA requirements?) but they are forcing the entire law school student body to take a course in free speech.

Seems to me that is going to be considered a waste of time by the vast majority of the law students who didn't participate in the protest which is going to increase resentment on those who did. There is some punishment there, though maybe not the life-altering kind some conservative commenters and Senators are calling for.

[Gandydancer]

"Stanford may not be disciplining individual students (but would we know that for sure given FERPA requirements?)"

The stuffed shirt could be lying, but that's what he says. The Dean says that sorting out the disruptive from the non-disruptive is too hard a task.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Liberalism Consumes Itself at Stanford Law...

“[by] Adrian Vermeule”

“…The struggle here is not a war between liberalism-cum-free speech and some antithetical set of political principles, such as “progressivism.” It is instead a civil war within the liberal camp, a conflict in which both sides act within, and appeal to, a shared framework of liberal principles….

“….The students take themselves to be good Millians applying the remedy of counter-speech, the “moral coercion of public opinion,” to prevent harm to individuals and to the community as whole….

“…Refusal to recognize transgender status in court, on this view, is itself deeply illiberal, denying the free choice of social and even biological identity. It represents the enforcement by law of coercive constraints imposed by society and even nature. The transgender movement is just the latest, and not the final, movement in favor of human liberation, a recognizable descendant of the principles of 1789.

“…To attempt to cope with such episodes by reasserting fundamental liberal principles, then, is an inherently self-defeating enterprise; it merely strengthens the very ground on which the Stanford students have taken their stand.”

https://postliberalorder.substack.com/p/liberalism-consumes-itself-at-stanford

[Mr. Bumble]

Not to worry, Dean Martin(ez) has the answer:
"Equally relevant is that no students are going to be punished or sanctioned for their bad behavior, although this is understandable given that Dean Steinbach and other Stanford Law administrators and faculty encouraged the bad behavior. Stanford could hardly punish students without also punishing its own senior staff.

Instead:

[W]ith respect to the students involved in the protest, several factors lead me to conclude that what is appropriate here is mandatory educational programming for our student body rather than referring specific students for disciplinary sanction.

But it turns out everyone will need re-programming:

Accordingly, as one first step the law school will be holding a mandatory half-day session in spring quarter for all students on the topic of freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession. [Boldface in original.]"

From Power Line blog.

[Gandydancer]

"Stanford could hardly punish students without also punishing its own senior staff."

Exactly who is asking Stanford to refrain from doing that?

Does [Associate] "Diversity" (LOL!) Dean Steinbach count as "senior staff? And what OTHER Stanford Law administrators and faculty made complete asses of themselves?

[Sarcastr0]

You already posted this.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A commenter who posts the same stuff more than once? Inconceivable!

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, it's kinda bad to repeat yourself like this.

What do you find stands out about it enough you posted it twice over 2 days?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The joke went over your head, didn't it?

Clinger.

[Gandydancer]

First time I've seen it. Nobody forced you to read it again, if you did.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has had a bad week so far. ABC News reported:

Prosecutors in the special counsel's office have presented compelling preliminary evidence that former President Donald Trump knowingly and deliberately misled his own attorneys about his retention of classified materials after leaving office, a former top federal judge wrote Friday in a sealed filing, according to sources who described its contents to ABC News.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/sources-special-counsel-claims-trump-deliberately-misled-attorneys/story?id=98024191 Trump attorney Evan Cochran has reportedly been ordered to comply with a grand jury subpoena for his testimony and has been ordered to hand over a number of records including handwritten notes, invoices, and transcriptions of personal audio recordings.

The Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, issued a lightning fast affirmance of the District Court order. The expeditious nature of that ruling is encouraging.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Donald Trump has had a bad week so far. ...."

The walls are closing in, again?

[Frank Drackman]

and I here they might release his Tax returns!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I suspect this is more like, "they're going to handcuff me on Tuesday! Contribute to the Ordinary Americans Like Donald J. Trump Legal Victory Fund Now!!!"

[John F. Carr]

His attorneys have a strong motive to make themselves into innocent victims here. That will not stop the investigation. It will give Trump's defense team something to go after during the trial.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whose trial?

Trump’s? Or his lawyers’?

Trump may be setting the record for a client turning his lawyers into witnesses, defendants, respondents, sanctioned lawyers, and former lawyers.

[Frank Drackman]

I know you're a little bit "Secluded" at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
But William Juffuhson C and Hillary Rodman Clinton have paid some $$$ for Top Shyster Representation of the Clinton Crime Fambly

Charles Ruff was one of five defense attorneys who represented Clinton; the others were Gregory B. Craig, Cheryl D. Mills, David E. Kendall. and Dale Bumpers.
Special counsel John Durham has used his first trial as a vehicle to air some of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s dirty laundry, but that was derailed Wednesday when the campaign’s top lawyer, Marc Elias, promptly used his testimony to slam Donald Trump and the FBI for how they responded to Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Durham’s case against a different Clinton campaign lawyer, Michael Sussmann, is the first courtroom test of his three-year probe into potential misconduct in the FBI’s early Trump-Russia investigation. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty to one count of lying to the FBI during a September 2016 meeting where he passed along a tip about Trump’s potential ties to a Russian bank.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, Volokh Conspiracy.

And the reason your colleagues consider you to be clerks in the toy department of modern legal academia.

[not guilty]

Some interesting commentary on the decisions finding the crime-fraud exception applicable. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/trump-indictment-court-ruling-prosecutor-charges-jack-smith.html I find particularly cogent the observation:

Like Judge Howell, the appellate judges who issued Wednesday’s decision reviewed Corcoran’s documents and know their contents. If the evidence in them was unusually inculpatory, it may well have added to the court’s urgency to get the materials to the Justice Department. That can’t be comforting to the target of the investigation or the lawyers planning to defend him.

[John F. Carr]

That's Slate going "this time we've got him." Weak evidence or strong, the legal question does not look complicated. The judge made a factual finding. Findings of fact are rarely overturned on appeal. From that factual finding the loss of attorney-client privilege follows.

[Kazinski]

In more Volokh related lawfare the New Civil Liberties Alliance (which has Randy Barnett, Eugene Volokh, and Glenn Reynolds on it's board) is being allowed proceed it it's lawsuit against the Federal Government for impermissible censorship in directing social media companies to suppress speech which contradicts the government line:

"“The Court finds that the Complaint alleges significant encouragement and coercion that converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action, and is unpersuaded by Defendants’ arguments to the contrary.”

Discovery in the lawsuit unequivocally establishes that at least eleven federal agencies and sub-agencies, including CDC and DHS, directed social media companies to censor viewpoints that conflict with the federal government’s messaging on topics ranging from Covid-19 to elections. Federal officials engaged in a lawless, expansive censorship campaign that employed illicit tactics—including coercion, collusion and coordination—on social media companies to suppress the airing of disfavored perspectives on Covid-19 and other topics. As a direct result of state action, NCLA’s clients were blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and censored, merely for articulating views opposed to government-approved views on Covid-19 restrictions and regulations. Judge Doughty held that “Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged state action under the theories of joint participation, entwinement, and the combining of factors such as subsidization, authorization, and encouragement.”
https://nclalegal.org/2023/03/in-ncla-win-federal-judge-rejects-motion-to-dismiss-government-induced-censorship-lawsuit/

[Commenter_XY]

Finally. Something about those wheels turning slowly.

So Kazinski, what is the judicial remedy here; realistically, what can the judge do? Enjoin the behavior?

[Kazinski]

Well it’s a murky area of law, and I’m no expert, but I doubt there will be meaningful consequences to the federal government if they are ultimately found to have illegally censored the plaintiffs.

But read closely: “The Court finds that the Complaint alleges significant encouragement and coercion that converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action..”

The social media companies don’t have sovereign immunity, and if they are state actors violating core constitutional rights, then they can likely be held liable for damages.

Private Actor Liability Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – All The Risks Without …

On the whole I'd rather be suing deep pocketed unsympathetic social media companies for damages rather than the feds.

[Krayt]

And threatening to wreck section 230, crushing their business models and costing them hundreds of billions of dollars in stock value, unless they censor harrassment, by the by, start with harrassing tweets of our political opponents right before an electi...oh, thank you! That was quick! ...doesn't count.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not a thing no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Big companies know how this works and know the words of Congress.

Yiu don’t know or care about the actual politics, just this scenario your narrative about government loves too much to bother checking,

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Perhaps you would, but these particular plaintiffs apparently did not. An odd omission?

[bernard11]

You left out a step.

You have to prove they actually did something before there can be a remedy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Court finds that the Complaint alleges significant encouragement and coercion that converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action..”

The judge finding that had already established a new world record for fastest transition from initial appointment to confirmed partisan clown status. In accomplishing that, Judge Terry A. Doughty obliterated both speed and distance records previously established by Judge Aileen Cannon—records which seasoned observers thought might never be approached, let alone shattered so soon and so convincingly.

[Kazinski]

Nothing speaks partisan clown status like a 98-0 confirmation vote:

“Doughty's nomination was confirmed by the Senate on March 6, 2018 by a 98–0 vote.[9] He received his commission on March 7, 2018. He became chief judge on December 5, 2022.[10]

The nomination was endorsed by U.S. Representative Ralph Abraham of Louisiana's 5th congressional district, who like Doughty resides in Richland Parish, and U.S. Senators Bill Cassidy and John Neely Kennedy.[11] Doughty was rated "well qualified" by the American Bar Association”

I am disappointed that they even asked the ABA what they thought.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In accomplishing that, Judge Terry A. Doughty obliterated … speed … records previously established by Judge Aileen Cannon

How? He was appointed before her, and obviously this decision came after the search warrant litigation.

[David Nieporent]

The lawsuit is 100% frivolous; in particular, the state standing arguments are a joke. But the NCLA is also lying cleverly wording its press release to make it sound as if the court upheld the allegations of the lawsuit. It quotes from the opinion, and then says, "Discovery in the lawsuit unequivocally establishes that at least eleven federal agencies and sub-agencies, including CDC and DHS, directed social media companies to censor viewpoints that conflict with the federal government’s messaging on topics ranging from Covid-19 to elections." But people not reading carefully might not realize that this language is not from the court's opinion. The court was deciding a motion to dismiss; it therefore did not make any findings at all about what "discovery unequivocally establishes."

All the court held was that plaintiffs's allegations were sufficiently pleaded to be allowed to proceed.

[OtisAH]

The only problem I see with their case is it’s entire premise. There’s not been a single piece evidence showing the government directing social media companies to do anything.

But good luck, professors!

[Ed Grinberg]

my prediction:
1. Case gets dismissed on appeal.
2. Once Biden is reelected, Justice Department prosecutes everyone associated with New Civil Liberties Alliance for ... something or other.

[bernard11]

How much, Ed?

[Commenter_XY]

I note that Ramadan, a time of fasting, reflection and prayer began at sundown yesterday. It is a meaningful time in the Muslim liturgical calendar. My hope is that this is a meaningful fast for all of my Muslim acquaintances, and Muslims everywhere.

Ramadan Mubarak

[John F. Carr]

According to the article I read, Ramadan began a day earlier in Saudi Arabia than in some other parts of the Muslim world.

[Krayt]

By western international dateline calendar, or continuous ancient calendar tracked through the ages?

[John F. Carr]

The Muslim world is mostly confined to an arc that does not straddle the International Dateline. Roughly 10 degrees west to 130 degrees east. The start of an Islamic month was traditionally based on observation of the new moon. That era may be over. Saudi officials gave a day or two warning. The start of the month did not wait until somebody saw the new moon. But it was not prescribed years in advance, like it could have been.

[Frank Drackman]

They just don't eat during the day time, big whoop, how about a month of the year where Moose-lums bathe daily???

[Bob from Ohio]

How about a month when they don't murder Jews?

[Frank Drackman]

How about a day when Blacks don't murder Whites? Every City should have one of those "Safety" Signs at the City Limits, "It has been (Insert number) days since a White was killed by a Black/Black killed by a White"

Frank "Never murdered anyone"

[Dr. Ed 2]

THAT would be interesting....

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem with police is not qualified immunity as much as the ability to spend virtually unlimited amounts of money in legal defense.

[Gandydancer]

Worked for Derek Chauvin and several others, who even had the benefit of being innocent.

Oh, wait....

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

The saga of dangling indictments for the former president certainly has its entertaining side but there are also a interesting politico-juridical aspects to it.
The circumstances around the payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels is probably the weakest case. There are two aspects that caught my attention and which I do have genuine questions about:
(1) Michael Cohen was convicted for — amongst other — campaign finance violation and sentenced to three years in prison. Is it credible that he acted on his own (taking up a loan against his house)? Put it another way: Trump and Cohen served a rotten meal: how come the waiter is punished and the cook could go scot-free?
(2) and far more important: I already wondered for the past days but apparently only yesterday did the media pick up the scandal in the story (Greg Sargent in the WaPo). On Monday, three House committee chairmen demanded explanations and documents from the Manhattan DA in the same matter — until today!
The Separation of Powers is in and off itself already a tricky story with prosecutors. But isn't the initiative a clear attempt to politically interfere in an ongoing crime investigation in favor of the possible defendant?
I am aware of the problem of rogue prosecutors (I am agnostic about Mr. Bragg), and being an elected politician doesn't help in this context; the prosecutor will always be under suspicion of acting politically. Yet, is it not egregiously violating the spirit of the Constitution when one legislative body of the union is interfering in a running state prosecution? Have people become so inured with the new political normal that this isn't a scandalon anymore?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Buckley v. Valero -- you can contribute to your own campaign without limits but not to someone else's. Cohen probably thought he would benefit from Trump owing him a favor.

As to Trump paying Daniels, he settled a lawsuit, just like Clinton did with Paula Jones. That's not illegal.

[not guilty]

"As to Trump paying Daniels, he settled a lawsuit, just like Clinton did with Paula Jones. That’s not illegal."

Oh, really? When did Stephanie Clifford, a/k/a Stormy Daniels, sue Donald Trump? In what forum? What was the style of the case?

Did Paula Jones agree not to talk about her interaction with Bill Clinton in exchange for cash?

[Krayt]

SNL Weekend Update, shortly after he took office, after discussing this revealation: “Can you truly appreciate the strange times we’re living in, where “Porn star blackmails president” is only the 4th biggest story of the week?”

Their description, not mine! If she wants to use her freedom of speech to talk about someone important, that’s her business. If some other soul, nefarious or shy, wants to throw money at her until her lip zips, that’s their business.

[Frank Drackman]

After a POTUS who got his dick sucked in the Oval Orifice and left DNA on a Blue Dress, paying a (can we say "Adult Film Actress") some eff you money to go eff her self, isn't really that interesting. Now Paul Pelosi's Gay Prostitute speakss!!!??? that would be mind blowing (and probably skull fracturing)

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Now Paul Pelosi’s Gay Prostitute speakss!!!??? that would be mind blowing (and probably skull fracturing)

The Volokh Conspirators hope mainstream Americans will overlook the degree to and frequency with which the Volokh Conspiracy cultivates this type of content at their blog.

[Gandydancer]

He's at least trying to be funny. You are merely tiresome.

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed, always ready to make shit up.

[Frank Drackman]

that's what he got his PhD in

[Sarcastr0]

Some folks might look up dimly remembered cases like Buckley v. Valero to make sure they recalled correctly what it was and what it said.

Not Ed!

[Life of Brian]

FEC describes Buckley thus:

Regarding the limitations on a candidate’s use of personal funds, the Court found that the provisions unconstitutionally interfered with the protected and valued right of an individual “to engage in the discussion of public issues and vigorously and tirelessly to advocate his own election.” The Court continued that no governmental interest supported the limit on such personal funds. To the contrary, the Court noted that “the use of personal funds reduces a candidate’s dependence on outside contributions and thereby counteracts the coercive pressures and attendant risks of abuse to which the contribution limitations are directed.”

What’s yer beef?

[Sarcastr0]

That's not the holding of Buckley v. Valeo, which fundamentally is about how money is speech.

But more importantly, that's not really the relevant issue in the NY case. So Ed used the mis-cited case for something tangential to the holding, that has been later refined, and which is not relevant to the case at issue.

Not the best thing to defend, but missing the forest and trying to get debate points for arguing about the trees is your thing around here.

[Life of Brian]

That’s not the holding of Buckley v. Valeo

Striking down one of the challenged statutory restrictions is by definition part of the holding. Stop wasting our time with the cutesy word games.

[Sarcastr0]

It was a facial challenge, so you're wrong. Also, there have been subsequent cases on that point so your narrow take on the case has been superceded.

So you're doubly wrong.

And Dr. Ed himself remains doubly wrong. Both substantively since his cite was not on point to what he replied to, and definitionally as a lifetime achievement.

So you're four times wrong.

Really an impressive record you are wracking up!

[Life of Brian]

Wow, you're just not going to let up on this, are ya? All sorts of confetti trying to avoid the simple facts that 1) Buckley said what it said, regardless of what came after, 2) the holding is the holding regardless of the argument that led to it, and 3) Ed correctly described that part of the holding regardless of whether you think the case was responsive.

But do quadruple down now, and this time have the balls to be specific instead of just throwing around a bunch of namby-pamby deflective language. I'm ready for another "OMG HE BROUGHT A CAMERA CREW" moment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I merely went with what Judge Buckley said his case was about.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you really?
You got the name of the other person in the case wrong, but you went to the pleadings (but not the holding)?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, I heard him speak about it.

[Sarcastr0]

After the case, I presume? And that's the limited thing he thought the case was about?!

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, you didn't.

[Krayt]

Under suspicion of acting politically?

Purple-faced talking heads: The president may pardon himself!

NY prosecutor: I'll take up the slack!

Feds, Congress: Ok, we'll start CCing you on everything we find, just in case.

[Nige]

I find the repeated dismissal of the Stormy Daniels stuff as weak weird, given that the lawyer involved went to jail for it.

[Kazinski]

Don’t be naive.

Mueller’ team had Cohen dead to rights on a Taxi medallion fraud, they get him to plea to another count that would never stand up in court in an effort to put some pressure on Trump.

DOJ passes on it knowing it would never get a conviction. Look what happened to John Edwards where he WAS using campaign donors for payments to hush up an affair and they lost miserably.

[OtisAH]

What jurisdiction do you suppose DOJ has over NYC taxi medallions?

[Kazinski]

Boy that would be a good question 100 years ago, but we've moved on from that era:

Cohen faced 65 years in prison on 8 counts, only 2 of which dealt with the payments for Trump.

He got 36 months, so you can see that the extra changes didn't give him a longer sentence.

"Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty today to eight counts that include tax evasion and campaign finance violations.

"Counts 1 to 5: Evasion of Assessment of Income Tax Liability
Count 6: False Statements to a Bank
Count 7: Causing an Unlawful Corporate Contribution
Count 8: Excessive Campaign Contribution"

[OtisAH]

Okay, thanks. DOJ definitely has jurisdiction over those things.

So what jurisdiction do you suppose DOJ has over NYC taxi medallions?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I believe it involved the money borrowed to purchase them.

[Gandydancer]

"So what jurisdiction do you suppose DOJ has over NYC taxi medallions?" (asked twice)

"Count 6: False Statements to a Bank" (taxi medallions used as collateral)

Is your Google broken?

[Nige]

Oh sure, a lowly lawyer is one thing, the high and mighty Trump a whole other.

[OtisAH]

To date the only person who “dangled” any indictments is Turnip.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I was listening to a book called The Molecule of More about dopamine He stated something, new to me, that our conservative or liberal beliefs are influenced by genetics.

What that brings to mind are two things if true:

Why isn't political belief a protected class?

If some people are genetically predisposed to evil and to harm others, like many believe of their opposite tribes, what should be done with them? What should be done with a people who is genetically predisposed to subjugate and oppress other peoples?

[Moderation4ever]

As the term liberal and conservative are really just made up terms, what is really meant by the idea of politics determined by genetics? What characteristics are you assign to each of the categories? I think you need to flesh this out a bit more.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I can't really synthesize the whole book for you, but the gist is that people who are dopaminurgic tend to have morals associated with liberals, and people who are seratonurgic tend to have morals associated with conservatives.

[Moderation4ever]

So what morals are you associating with each category? I understand you don't want to summarize the whole book but at least give me an idea or what you are talking about.

[Randal]

Oh, I always thought this was obvious. Conservatives are driven by fear, liberals are driven by hope.

What people in a society generally hope for and fear shifts from time to time, but the underlying emotional imperatives remain.

Also, people generally shift from hopeful to fearful as they get closer to death.

[BrianL.]

Right. What do liberal and conservative even mean? I thought conservatives were for the free market. Not so much anymore. I thought liberals were for free speech. Not so much anymore. How can you be genetically pre-disposed to be liberal or conservative if the terms don't really mean anything anymore?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

To most of the world, liberal means "liberal", not leftist.

[SRG]

Because they operate on separate levels. Political beliefs may well be consequence of certain genetic characteristics but are not the characteristics themselves.

And the law assumes free will, a necessary fiction.

[Nige]

'genetically predisposed to evil and to harm others, like many believe of their opposite tribes,'

Is this what you think?

[Krayt]

Genetic predisposition to believe charismatics who then instantiate their corruption as they regulate everything, slowing down progress and costing lives as tech falls further and further behind where it would otherwise be, is the worst case scenario.

If number of deaths is your yardstick.

Remember, to a politician (and a suing lawyer) a death in front of the cameras is worth ten million in the bush because your fancy new testing regulation delays the average new drug 4 years.

[Nige]

Charismatics instantiate regulation? Regulations are boring. Charismatics like to break things, and to get people to tell them they're great for breaking the things.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe because that book is well known to be crank science bullshit.

[Gandydancer]

Nobody should get "protected class" status.

And people who pose a threat need to be incapacitated when they do. It's a pretty high bar, but "not a suicide pact" applies when it applies.

[not guilty]

Here is some interesting commentary on the preliminary injunction hearing in the Mifepristone lawsuit in Texas. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/abortion-pill-mifepristone-misoprostol-ban-fail.html Among the myriad other defects in the Plaintiffs' presentation, there is no way that a ruling in the Plaintiffs' favor would redress the attenuated and fanciful "injuries in fact" that they posit in their complaint. The Plaintiffs accordingly lack Article III standing.

Even if the district judge were to invalidate the Food and Drug Administration approval of Mifepristone in 2000, abortion providers would continue to offer medication abortion using Misoprostol alone. The same harms which the Plaintiffs claim will occur in abortions using the two drug protocol will occur in Misoprostol only medication abortions. Accordingly, it is not "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the Plaintiffs' injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).

[Michael P]

Ipso fatso, lawsuits against gun manufacturers are not judicable because murders can still happen with knives or hammers.

[Martinned]

By that logic, so are prosecutors against murderers.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The Ukraine war continues....

First, true, Ukraine is not a "vital" US interest. If it was vital, there would be US troops on the ground there (which FTR, I don't support). There are not. In addition to the myriad of moral and legal reasons to support Ukraine, what it is, is a very valuable buffer state between an aggressive Russian state and vital US interests (NATO allies). As such, keeping Ukraine intact is valuable towards heading off future conflicts, and worth spending arms and ammunition on.

Second, the news isn't good for Ukraine. Ukraine is in a war of attrition with Russia currently. And if Russia is willing to mobilize its population (which it is to an extent), due to the population size disparity, Ukraine will have a hard time winning.

At this point, there are only two real options of Ukraine, a tactically superior, but under-armed and outnumbered force to win (or at least not lose).

1. Vastly increase the amount of arms and ammunition it has, to lay down withering fields of fire. This is dependent on Western Powers supplying the proper amounts of ammunition...which they haven't to date.

2. Use the tactical superiority to widen the battlefield...and invade Russia.

[Sarcastr0]

Letting Putin reconstitute the USSR is bad for US interests actually.

[Commenter_XY]

Ukraine is a vital US national interest or it is not. It simply is not. If you disagree Sarcastr0, then make a coherent case on how Ukraine is a vital US national interest. Because Ukraine is not a vital US national interest, a significant degree of caution is warranted, which so far, POTUS Biden's team seems to have done. Persuading Finland and Sweden to join NATO was a huge strategic win by POTUS Biden's team. Nonetheless, Ukraine is not our fight, and never was.

What is a vital US national interest are NATO countries. They are allies by treaty (ratified by the US Senate).

I am all for giving our NATO allies all the weaponry and support they desire, and explicitly stating (to Russia) that they are protected under our US nuclear umbrella. The Javelin anti-tank missiles and small drones employed by Ukraine are making Russia's life miserable. It looks like Russia has lost roughly 20% of their tanks and artillery. That alters the strategic balance between NATO and Russia. I might make that point privately to Mr. Putin, were I able to do so.

Another year of this, and Russia had better start looking over their Eastern shoulder at their new BFF China. They might be so friendly by that time.

In the end, Ukrainians will need to decide how long to go on, with the weaponry they are being provided.

[Sarcastr0]

This remains a really pinched view. Check out the Truman Doctrine sometime - the idea that we should only look at Ukraine with tunnel vision and not the upshot for Russia has long been found to be historically incorrect.

You insist our place in world events is limited to NATO allies. This seems artificial - NATO is not some fence inside of which all our interests exist and outside of which none of them do.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0....Make the case that Ukraine represents a vital US national interest. That was the challenge placed before you. If you cannot, then say so. If you have a coherent argument, make it.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter – I fucking did. A number of times. Over a number of weeks.

Our rivals matter as well as our allies. This is not hard.

Russia taking Ukraine would be bad for the US. so Ukraine matters.

You think you’re clever with this bullshit myopia game of only NATO?
You're really committed to an outcome. And doing some really disingenuous things to logic to get there.

[Commenter_XY]

So in other words Sarcastr0, you got called on it and can't make the case.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy fuck, Commenter. It's in bold.

[bernard11]

Here's a thought, XY:

A few analysts argue the US can’t afford to support both Ukraine and Taiwan. But, as
@cepa
notes, “US spending of 5.6% of its defense budget to destroy nearly half of Russia’s conventional military capability seems like an absolutely incredible investment.”

CEPA is The Center for European Policy Analysis.

[Absaroka]

Indeed. Moral issues aside, if Ukraine falls we'll spend the next 20 or 30 years spending on NATO like we did in the cold war.

[Armchair Lawyer]

We're actually spending significantly less than that in arms for Ukraine.

[Don Nico]

"Russia taking Ukraine would be bad for the US. "
You don't prove a case by assuming the answer. You have always been blind to the fact that the US is pleased to have a proxy war against Russia after being outplayed in Syria.

[Sarcastr0]

You have always been blind to the fact that the US is pleased to have a proxy war against Russia after being outplayed in Syria.

Speaking of assuming the answer…the US is not a person, and I don’t think most Americans think much about Syria.

On the other hand, it's not really assuming an answer that Russia is an antagonist to the US, and taking over Ukraine would make them a more powerful adversary.

Are you reading RT? This sounds like you read RT and believe it.

[Krayt]

Tanks not rolling through Europe is a vital US interest. The world learned the hard way that appeasement doesn’t yield peace in our time(tm) but just is a stepping stone to the next thing.

So you stop it here instead of the next country, several of which are mentioned, NATO or otherwise.

In fact, they already tried appeasement for Ukraine, with the deal that in exchange for not joining NATO, their territory would be respected. This is why western talking head tyrant bootlickers shift goalposts to agreeing that that is Russian ethnic population, “so who cares?”

Which was what Peace in Our Time from Czechoslovakia was all about at the start of WW II.

[Commenter_XY]

Krayt, I agree that defending our NATO allies is a vital US national interest. We have treaties, ratified by the Senate.

Anything happening in the Baltics? Nope
Anything happening in Finland? Nope
Anything happening in Poland? Nope
Anything happening in Hungary? Nope
Anything happening in Slovokia? Nope
Anything happening in Romania? Nope

Not too concerned with Russia rolling tanks through Europe at the moment. They seem to have lost 20% of them. Russia no longer has the capacity to militarily take on NATO in a conventional land war. As I indicated, the strategic balance has been altered.

[bernard11]

Not too concerned with Russia rolling tanks through Europe at the moment. They seem to have lost 20% of them. Russia no longer has the capacity to militarily take on NATO in a conventional land war.

And of course they have no clue how to build more.

We are dealing here with aggressive war, crimes against humanity, a threat to stability in Europe, and an effort to reconstitute an empire hostile to the US.

This needs to be fought.

[Don Nico]

"This needs to be fought."
The US has been doing that since it reneged on its promise not to expand NATO to the borders of Russia.
You believe too much of the news media's propaganda on behalf of the administrations (D&R) since that promise was made.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The US made no such "promise", and you almost certainly have been told this numerous times.

Even Gorbachev has admitted that this was a "myth" (albeit one he had previously spread himself).

In any case, if various individuals had made such "promises" on behalf of their governments and/or NATO (despite obviously lacking the authority to do so), given the immense importance and complete reliance the USSR/Russia claims to have placed upon them, the prudent thing to do would have been to insist that they be included in the treaty, no?

Russia, of course, doesn't observe even actual international treaties, in practice (ask Ukraine about the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, or the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation--both of which Russia simply ignored when it decided to annex or invade Ukraine). Russia (and Putin Republicans) complaining about "broken promises" is just self-serving nonsense.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Anything happening in some of the other countries bordering Ukraine, with Russia behind it? Yes.

You're either ignorant of the facts, or being disingenuous.

I'd also argue that standing against war criminals and genocide happens to align with the values our country claims to hold dear, thus falling under the umbrella of a vital national interest.

[shawn_dude]

Russia is doomed to become a Chinese economic satellite if it doesn't expand its borders to something similar to Soviet Russia. The Ukraine is a large and economically valuable part of that. The risk from China, though, isn't directly hostile but rather becoming its client state.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"It looks like Russia has lost roughly 20% of their tanks and artillery. That alters the strategic balance between NATO and Russia."

Of their working tanks and artillery -- during the Cold War we knew that there was a percentage of their stuff that wouldn't work -- right on down to a percentage of their nuke bombers that wouldn't get off the ground because the alcohol for the wet takeoff had been drained out of them.

What we don't know is what percentage of the remaining (in Russia) stock is nonfunctional due to graft & theft. Of course, China has that problem too...

[ragebot]

"What we don’t know is what percentage of the remaining (in Russia) stock is nonfunctional due to graft & theft. Of course, China has that problem too…"

Good thing there is no graft & theft in Ukraine cuz they are too busy laundering money.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Commenter,

You throw around the term "Vital US interest" a lot. Where I think you fail is that you don't appear to see an in between. It appears you believe an interest is either "vital" or essentially of zero interest.

But that duality isn't necessarily the case. An interest that is important, but not vital, these exist. One worth spending $100 Billion on, but not worth spending 100,000 US lives.

You understand that interests like this exist, right?

[Frank Drackman]

that's bullshit actually.

[Moderation4ever]

I would add to the reason to support is the nature of the way the Russians have treated the Ukraine civilians. They have kidnapped children and directly targeted the civilian population. There are plenty of countries that treat their own civilian population badly, our country condemns this, but accept that it is an internal matter. Here is an example of one country mistreating the civilian population of another country. This requires a larger degree of outrage.

[Martinned]

"mistreating" is quite an understatement. It's a war crime, and arguably genocide.

[Frank Drackman]

Like "W" and Barry Hussein did with Ear-Rock and Af-gone-ee-ston, and I'm generally in favor of killing Arabs (Bad ones), but don't act like what we did is any different.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Won't be the first time, either -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[Stephen Lathrop]

Seems evident to me that China intends shortly to commit to supporting Russia in Ukraine. That would convert the present fiasco into a super-power proxy war, with Ukraine and Russia positioned to be ground to pieces indefinitely. My sympathies lie entirely with Ukraine, but it seems a horrible fate for them if some way to stop it cannot be found.

It hardly seems possible that invading Russia would be the strategic choice to end the conflict.

[John F. Carr]

Russia is also burning supplies and equipment much faster than it can build or buy. If your glass is half full, Ukraine has an opportunity to make a strong advance over the summer and possibly push Russia back to the pre-2022 line.

[Frank Drackman]

I want whatever your glass is 1/2 full of.

[Randal]

Whoops! It happened again.

[ragebot]

"Russia is also burning supplies and equipment much faster than it can build or buy. If your glass is half full, Ukraine has an opportunity to make a strong advance over the summer and possibly push Russia back to the pre-2022 line."

Last I saw it will take the US till 2024 at best to replace the stuff it sent to Ukraine; and that was assuming no more stuff is sent. Without massive support from the US/West Russia would have already occupy Ukraine. Lets not ignore the fact that the US has intel aircraft flying over the Black Sea providing intel to Ukraine and has troops on the ground in Ukraine training peasants to use modern weapons. Don't think for a minute you could pick up an antitank weapon and be effective with it. Same goes for the more advanced weapons that the US spends months training US troops to use.

[Bob from Ohio]

"training peasants to use modern weapons"

Its 2023, Ukrainians have indoor plumbing now.

Some specialized weapons need training of course but they are fully capable of using most weapons

[NOVA Lawyer]

And, in fact, they have proven highly adept at learning new weapons systems both because there is a relatively high education level as compared to similarly poor countries (e.g., 99.5+% literacy rate in the population at large), the trainees have combat experience with weapons systems in the same genre, and they are highly motivated.

This isn't Afghanistan where, reportedly, U.S. trained Afghanis often had trouble understanding how to use night vision binoculars or other basic equipment.

[ragebot]

The elephant in the room no one wants to talk about is Putin. While everyone seems to agree he is a turdface there seems to be some reason to think even if he keeps blabbing about using nukes he has shown restraint so far. Problem is even if only half of what the US/Western MSM is saying Putin may actually be in worse health than Biden; and that is saying a lot.

So what happens if Putin goes away due to assassination, ill health, or whatever. Does anyone think his replacement will be any better. From what I am seeing Putin's inner circle is composed of hard liners who are more likely than he is to use nukes, even if only out of spite.

[John F. Carr]

If his replacement is not tied to the war we could see a "peace with honor" deal. I consider a nuclear war over Crimea and the Donbas very unlikely. Medvedev is playing bad cop.

[Bob from Ohio]

"hard liners who are more likely than he is to use nukes"

No one is using nukes, they don't want to die.

Will people stop using this argument. Please, its just embarrassing.

[Moderation4ever]

One of the problems with being a dictator is a lack of a good retirement plan. Putin is 70 years old and is safe as long as his health holds. The minute he does start to show weakness he will die quickly. Likely from poison.

[bernard11]

Meanwhile, DeSantis is scurrying away from his statements on Ukraine.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I thought his statements were fine.

Oversight on the spending is good and fine, and honestly needed. As is an honest realization for where things are going and what is needed.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That's not what DeSantis said. He called it a "territorial dispute" which is very close to Russian propaganda. He made the "brave" stand that there shouldn't be a blank check, which literally no one supports (other than perhaps some unknown Ukrainians). He failed to condemn the Russian genocidal atrocities (torture and mass murder of civilians, kidnapping children, etc.) or acknowledge any moral difference between Ukraine and Russia.

The mere fact that he had to "explain" his comments so quickly should tip you off that even March 24 DeSantis doesn't agree with the statements of March 21 (or whatever) DeSantis.

And you might object that there was too much parsing of his statements (such as the euphemistic "territorial dispute") by critics, but remember these were written answers to questions. He had time to consult his advisors, revise, edit, and wordsmith his answers. That he chose to minimize Russia's aggression against a democracy, in significant part because it is a democracy, is quite telling. The jackass who sent the questionnaire was no doubt happy as he tends to minimize how evil Putin is ("what did Putin ever personally do to you?") and how much Putin hates what Republicans pretend to value (e.g., free and open society, secure and fair elections, free enterprise rather than government control of industry and kleptocratic "regulation", an unbiased judiciary, etc., etc.). But he hates LGBTQ people and pretends to support Christianity and rides horses shirtless, so the jackass spent years indicating to his audience the guy isn't so bad. DeSantis played to that jackass and his audience, but soon discovered theirs is a minority view in serious GOP circles (as well as among the general populace) and if he stuck with that, it could well cost him the nomination and, even securing that, the general election. So he's tried to pivot. (And, recall, just a few short years ago he was a Ukraine hawk, wondering why we didn't do more. He's just a poll-reading empty suit, unwilling to lead.)

He didn't say what you say he said. And no one disagrees with what you say he said. But it isn't a "territorial dispute" and there are exceedingly important (if not vital, wherever you subjectively make that cutoff) U.S. interests at stake.

[Armchair Lawyer]

On a certain level it is a territorial dispute. One where Russia wants all Ukraine's territory.

Too much is made out of two little words, especially compared to Sleepy Joe's numerous, numerous, failings.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“On a certain level it is a territorial dispute. One where Russia wants all Ukraine’s territory.”

Which is a great summary of why DeSantis’s statement was wrong and dangerous.

“Too much is made out of two little words”

Those were two carefully chosen words. You know little about foreign policy if you think words don’t matter, particularly words like that. Even more when those words were carefully chosen in a written response. They were chosen and they were chosen for a reason. To minimize the significance of the conflict and to avoid honesty about Russia’s aims.

“especially compared to….”

Nobody was making a comparison, so this is a non-sequitur. But given you’ve made it, Biden has managed not to spout Russian propaganda, something neither Trump (saying Crimea was Russian anyway, he believed Russia over the CIA, FBI, GOP-led Senate committee, NSA, MI6, etc., etc.) nor DeSantis (“territorial dispute”) has managed. That’s a low bar and GOP front-runners can’t meet it. Why is that? Seriously. Why is that hard for the GOP?

[NOVA Lawyer]

"If it was vital, there would be US troops on the ground there"

I don't think that's the definition of "vital" that anyone else uses.

"At this point, there are only two real options of Ukraine, a tactically superior, but under-armed and outnumbered force to win (or at least not lose)."

You have all these either/or beliefs. (e.g., The U.S. should commit troops to defeating Russia or Ukraine is not a vital interest).

Western nations are sending modern tanks (though perhaps not enough and definitely not as quickly as they ought to have) and are ramping up other deliveries of advanced weapons systems and production/provision of ammunition. It's left to be seen whether the increase is enough.

There are other tactical and strategic blows short of marching on Russia. I'm not a military expert (and I doubt you are), so won't lay out many other options. But one example apparent even to me is to cut-off Crimea from Russia and/or take it back (a tall order right now, but not less realistic than invading Russia itself). Offensives to recapture other cities or areas in the east, combined with decimation of Russian forces in the target area could be as strategically effective as forays across the border.

You show symptoms of Dunning-Kruger in asserting so confidently that there are only two possible paths to a favorable result in Ukraine. War isn't checkers.

[Armchair Lawyer]

1. Yes, I consider a vital US interest one the US is willing to put down its soldiers lives for if necessary. If it's not, I don't consider it vital. (And yes, sometimes the US puts down its soldiers lives for non-vital interests). Quibble with that if you want.

2. You don't have a good grasp of the real situation. Here's real issue. Ukraine has/had a population of ~40 Million. Russia has a population of ~146 million. Ukraine has taken casualties of ~120,000 according to US estimates, while Russia has taken casualties of ~200,000 according to US estimates. Assume that casualty ratio continues (1.2:2). Who wins the war? Answer: Russia. They literally have more bodies to throw at it. They can run Ukraine out of men.

That means, you need to do something to either change the casualty ratio, or change the scope of the war. Allowing Russia to dictate the conditions of the advance doesn't work. They'll just continue as before.

One of the stories coming out unfortunately is how Ukrainians are needing to conserve ammunition. That's a problem. Their mortar teams are only getting 10-15 rounds a day. Ukraine doesn't necessarily need 50 tanks in 6 months. They need a million rounds of mortar shells, a million rounds of howitzer shells, something to put out a withering WWI rate of fire. And it's not happening. Because the west isn't shipping them that (and because they can't produce it locally really). In many ways, this is like WWI (Ukraine even has a similar size population to the French in WWI). Take a look at the relative arms between those two examples.

The other option is to invade Russia. Russia has this "magic barrier" that means they can bomb all of Ukraine with immunity, but Russia can't be touched (except in the most limited deniable ways) in return. That may need to change. Ukraine isn't driving to Moscow...but driving to Belgorod and Voronenz through the lightly defending border, cutting off supplies for the masses of Russian troops. That may be on the table. Mass air strikes at supply, electrical, and transportation industries in Russia...may be on the table. The west has told Ukraine "no, don't do this". But Ukraine may not have a choice soon. They can't win a war of attrition. So, they need to win it another way.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

By that definition, Canada isn't a "vital US interest".

[David Nieporent]

Who wins the war? Answer: Russia. They literally have more bodies to throw at it. They can run Ukraine out of men.

You know it's not like a game of Risk, right? You don't just count up the number of men on each side to decide who wins.

[NOVA Lawyer]

lol. No, he clearly doesn't understand this.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Most war isn't like this. In most wars, you can actually hit back at the country that invaded you. In this case, Ukraine can't.

To use your Risk analogy, it's like a perverse game of risk, where you just get Attacked, and can't attack back. Eventually you're going to lose.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“it’s like a perverse game of risk, where you just get Attacked, and can’t attack back. Eventually you’re going to lose.”

Are you unaware of all the examples where the side that couldn’t attack the invaders' homeland won?

I agree, that is a tactical negative, particularly if Russia is confident that it won’t be hit so doesn’t use resources defending. But it doesn’t mean Ukraine can’t win, particularly when Russia also can’t hit Ukraine’s supply lines and factories producing its advanced weapons because those are in NATO nations. The limitations aren’t as unilateral as you seem to think. Nor are they as decisive as you seem to think.

Again, you simplistically analogize to a game of Risk (the first time by implication, this time explicitly). Such analogies are completely useless. Which was the point. And yet you persist.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“You don’t have a good grasp of the real situation.”

I’m well aware of the population disparities and the dynamics of a war of attrition. However, as David succinctly and effectively notes, you seem to have no real understanding of war.

First, Putin is an authoritarian autocrat, basically, but he isn’t entirely untouchable or immune to the political situation. Ukrainians volunteer to fight. Masses of Russians of fighting age fled to avoid service. There have been bombings at recruitment stations. The unwillingness of large numbers of Russians to fight doesn’t make the numbers situation go way. But it definitely changes it.

Second, Ukrainians are fighting for survival, Russian troops largely would rather not be there. It’s why they have to recruit in prisons, whereas Ukraine doesn’t. Motivated soldiers are far better than unmotivated soldiers.

Third, Russia had 10 times as large a population as Afghanistan in 1980. But they lost that war of attrition. They lost in significant part because of dissatisfaction at home, despite Soviet leaders have similar impunity to public opinion as Putin now has. And the USSR didn’t lose nearly as many troops in Afghanistan as they have in Ukraine. It’s silly to just add up the numbers and say Russia can just lose 1,000,000 people and Putin will retain power. At some point, Russians won’t stand for it.

Fourth, war involves more than just people. From the Lawfare blog:

Russia has lost approximately 50 percent of its modern T-72B3 and T-72B3M main battle tanks since the war began, along with roughly two-thirds of its T-80BV/U tanks.

As Ukraine obtains modern tanks which they haven’t yet had and Russia loses theirs, the casualty numbers and effectiveness of their respective militaries changes in Ukraine’s favor. Ukraine has ammunition supply problems, but Russia has shortages too (hence some attacks on Bakhmut involved Russia soldiers wielding shovels rather than rifles). It’s not just counting men, it’s also counting equipment. Yes, the West should have done more sooner, and should do more now. But the modern tanks and other armored combat vehicles will improve the situation for Ukraine.

Fifth, there are plenty of examples, besides Afghanistan, of smaller militaries ultimately prevailing or fighting to a draw in wars of attrition. (Vietnam, Iran had triple the population of Iraq when that war started but Iraq managed a draw, Russia had roughly twice the population of Japan but lost the Russo-Japanese War, Spanish versus the Aztecs, Spanish versus the Incas, etc.). Just counting population and potential troops doesn’t tell you who will win.

And, yes, sometimes the smaller force won because of technological advantages, sometimes because they were defending home turf against invaders. But, with US and European help, Ukraine does have better technology and they are defending their home turf.

Once again, you oversimplify things and think you have the answer.

(Side note, after I told you an offensive in Crimea could be a way Ukraine could win, I ran across General Wesley Clark on CNN saying the same thing. It's nice to be seconded by a highly decorated general. And that’s just one alternate route. Again, you are far too confident in your determination that there are only two ways for Ukraine to prevail, one of which involves invading Russia. Your limited imagination is only matched but your limited understanding of how war works.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

There's lot wrong with what you said, and it's clear you don't have a good grasp of the situation.

1. Ukrainians may have originally volunteered to fight, but now there's a draft. They're being conscripted, not volunteering. You get this, right? Right?

2. Russia (unlike Ukraine) hasn't had a general draft. That's why they are recruiting from prisons. Recruiting. Not drafting. This isn't the sign of weakness you think it is. Again...Ukrainians are being drafted, en masse.

3. Afghanistan isn't Ukraine. Different types of wars. Afghanistan was a guerilla war. Different rules apply. Unless you're proposing Ukraine go Afghani-type guerilla instead?

4. Sure, let's talk about tanks. I mentioned more weapons, they're important. Russia's lost lots of tanks, true. They have thousands more in storage. Ukraine doesn't have any more tanks in storage. Ukraine's lost between 450 to 700 of their tanks in this conflict, leaving them with ~900. The US has offered 31 tanks. 31. By September...maybe...to replace them. Do the math.

5. True modern wars of attrition are ones where you win by destroying your enemy's manpower over the course of years and several (often indecisive) battles. Not ones where there is a single decisive victory, or a war of maneuver to take a capital, or so on. For the most part, none of your examples are accurate examples. The Russo-Japanese war was ultimately won by a decisive naval battle.

Realistic examples are the American Civil war, especially in the 1863-65 campaigns in Virginia, WWI, etc.

6. Homefield advantage and whatever technological advantage the Ukrainians have is already accounted for in the casualty ratios. Which are currently 1.2 : 2.0. You get that, right? Right? You understand casualty ratios....don't you?

7. OK genius, how do you suppose a Ukrainian invasion of Crimea would work? By land? By sea? What's the strategic gain? What's the strategic cost? How does it help win the war? Answer those questions.

[Absaroka]

"They have thousands more in storage."

Boy howdy. It seems they are dusting off the T-54 and T-55’s. That’s … not a very capable tank by today’s standards, even compared to Ukraine’s T-72s.

“Russia (unlike Ukraine) hasn’t had a general draft”

???? I don’t think Russia ever stopped conscription; it drafts new contingents twice a year, going back to the USSR days. (they also have volunteers, which they call ‘contract soldiers’)

[NOVA Lawyer]

1. My point main point was that Putin accessing all those bodies you say he has at his disposal is more difficult than you make out. Conversely, Ukraine has far larger numbers of volunteers, thus more likely to stay for multiple tours, for example. Thus, the raw population numbers you cite are deceiving.

2. Yes, recruiting and from interviews with the conscripts, it's about a 1 in 2 chance you survive and gain your freedom. So, yeah, these aren't people jumping at a chance to serve a great cause, they are desperate for a way out of long-terms in awful confinement. Their goal is to survive, they probably couldn't care less about the result. And certainly Russian commanders don't care about preserving them. They send them, sometimes armed with shovels, to get slaughtered so that Ukrainian firing positions are revealed. Great for morale.

3. You again avoid the point. You imply that because Russia has a larger population, they necessarily can sustain losses until they prevail. The public and the powerful ultimately turned against the war in Afghanistan because of the casualties which never came close to those being suffered by Russia now. This wasn't a point about tactics, it was about the fact that Russian leaders aren't immune to the consequences of slaughtering their own population in order to slaughter another country's population. But you knew that, you just pivot to a point you think is better.

4. As others have pointed out, the thousands you have mentioned will be destroyed by the thousands by modern Leopards and, if it lasts that long, M1 Abrams tanks. A WW2 or 1960s museum piece is nothing but a mobile coffin on the field against a modern western tank.

5. "modern wars of attrition" You don't engage with Iran versus Iran, where Iran had three times the population but was unable to win despite launching hordes against Iraq in a war of attrition. You try to use the American Civil War, but, bloody as it was (and it was extremely bloody), it isn't a good example. The Union had the moral high ground and knew it, as did many residents of the South. Plus the Union had superior technology, as does Ukraine. The North had a larger population, but also, by 1864, a superior overarching strategy, better political leadership, better foreign diplomacy, and the benefit of a moral cause. North and South doesn't map closely onto Russia versus Ukraine. In fact, it's a terrible analogy. It does illustrate the importance for Ukraine of maintaining its alliance and winning the public relations war (which it is so far), and draining the will of the enemy and their belief they can prevail, and not squandering its men and resources by trying for one-off knockout blows (at which various Southern generals counterproductively tried multiple times).

6. You don't get that casualty ratios aren't everything and you simplistically imply that the casualty ratio must equal or exceed the population ratio for Ukraine to win. That's stunningly simplistic.

Further, Ukraine hasn't yet gotten all of the technological advantage they will have. The modern tanks haven't hit the battlefield yet and they've destroyed most of Russia's modern tanks. Going forward, they will have a much better technological advantage as Russia loses assets it can't replace and Ukraine gains Leopards and (much later) some Abrams tanks. Again, a lone Abram can decimate an entire battalion of 1960s and earlier junkers which Russia is being forced to pull out of mothballs. Ditto a Leopard. Yes, I think Ukraine should get more Leopards sooner and longer range weapons systems as well, but your point that the full technological advantage is already baked in is false.

7. Ask General Wesley Clark for the how's. I haven't a clue, nor do you. The strategic gains are obvious. It's a supply hub for Russian southern offensives and a staging area for missile attacks, it's the home of their Black Sea fleet. Militarily, it's a disaster for Russia to lose it. More importantly, re-taking Crimea would boost the morale of Ukraine and its allies and convince the world it can win, while Russia would be humbled. Nobody wants to be the last one supporting a loser. If Russia can't hold Crimea, how can they ever win? The public relations and diplomatic fallout would be crushing.

Yes, it's likely extremely hard and may be foolhardy to try, but it's more realistic than your only alternative of invading Russia proper. The point is that there are multiple possible ways for Ukraine to win. You simplistically assumed only two possible paths to victory. You're just wrong. It's highly unlikely you or I know how either Russia or Ukraine will win the war, if they don't draw. Likely, neither the Ukrainians nor Russians yet know either. But Armchair leans back confident he knows how this goes. Dunning-Kruger, my friend.

8. The only person grandiosely claiming to be a military genius is you. And you do so while analogizing the Ukraine war to a game of Risk. LOL.

[Gandydancer]

WHO is going to invade Russia? The US? Ukraine?

This supposed “tactical superiority” clearly isn’t large enough to anticipate the result you suppose. This isn’t redcoats against Zulus. If it were there’d be lots of prisoners. And more obviously disproportionate kill ratios. The Battle of Kiev (1941) is not remotely what has gone on at any time in this conflict. Russia invaded with forces smaller than the Ukrainian army and its imagined superiority (real in the case of artillery, not so much in other respects) turned out to no more effective in producing imagined results than yours would.

Russian mobilization has anyway reversed that inferiority. I expect Russia will destroy its opponent in due course if this isn’t ended and and what is actually possible in the supply of more NATO weapons won’t change that.

So, what if I’m right?

[Martinned]

It looks like Ireland is finally getting rid of art. 41.2.2 of its constitution, which is hilarious but only because it is long dormant.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/534bb-taoiseach-and-minister-ogorman-announce-holding-of-referendum-on-gender-equality/

[Nige]

It's emblematic of the imposition of a stiflingly conservative, patriarchal, church-dominated social order that lasted until well into the nineties after the more liberal and inclusive ideals swirling around independence from Britain were ruthlessly snuffed out.

[Martinned]

O, no, that's not the story at all. Irish history in a nutshell is that, already in Patrick Pearse's declaration of independence, there were two strands in the independence movement: a liberal one and a conservative catholic one. After independence there was a civil war won by Michael Collins's side, who can broadly stand for the liberal side in this dichotomy, but in the 1930s Éamon de Valera took over and turned Ireland into a conservative Catholic paradise. The Constitution dates from that era, from 1937. That's why it has lots of other gems too:

Preamble
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, (...)

ARTICLE 6
1 All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions
of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good. (...)

For a lot of the founding fathers of the Irish Republic, conservative Catholicism was one of things they wanted to get out of independence, that they couldn't get under British rule.

[Nige]

That's the story, just with more detail?

A lot of the rebels knew the Catholic church would be as oppressive in its way as the British were, particularly those associated with the Labour movement, but they lost out.

[Kazinski]

Seems to me it was just a power struggle between Collins and de Valera.

High minded philosophical struggles are usually settled by an ambush and execution.

[Martinned]

In this case literally.

[Gandydancer]

You single out Article 6. Is there more than the "under God" bit that you object to?

[Frank Drackman]

You left out "Klingers"

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

Isn't that what welfare handouts are for?

[Martinned]

I don't think that's the objection. It certainly isn't mine.

[Gandydancer]

Ed didn't state any "objection", so your meaning is unclear.

[John F. Carr]

In 2020 the British scientific journal Nature endorsed Joe Biden for president. A followup survey found that (1) the endorsement did not improve Biden's support, (2) Nature harmed its reputation among conservatives, who now consider the journal more biased and less trustworthy. https://phys.org/news/2023-03-political-economist-impact-journal-nature.html

The top American one-word journal, Science, also lost its way, publishing a series of editorials on Supreme Court decisions that have nothing to do with science. I have seen no formal study of the consequences.

[Nige]

'Nature harmed its reputation among conservatives'

Nature reports on climate change as if it's real, because it's real, therefore Nature is aware of the urgent need for action. Conservatives who admit it's real are rare as hen's teeth and conservatives who propose any policies to deal with it are non-existent. If both sides were proposing solutions the endorsement might be more eyebrow-raising, bit one side is full square against solutions to climate change and general environmental destruction. One supposes that any conservatives who actually care about the environment - a big deal amongst hunters, for example - either already vote Democrat now, or are refusing to confront the issue at all. So this seems like an inevitable outcome in relation to any scientific institution involved in climate and environmental studies and conservatives.

[hoppy025]

Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever denied climate change is real. But the "party of science" thinks that it can take provable fact, that the climate is changing, and automatically use that to prove that the climate is changing due to human activity.

The latter is what conservatives deny, as there is zero evidence for it.

[Martinned]

Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever denied climate change is real.

I'll take that bet.

[Life of Brian]

A given year's climate is never the same as the past year's. What definition need you apply to win your bet?

[Sarcastr0]

Weather is not the same as climate.

But you knew that, and are just being a jackass pretending you don't know the scope of the issue when everyone else seems to be tracking.

[Life of Brian]

Nah, I just don't close my eyes and swallow the latest rhetorical game of using "climate change" as shorthand for "man-made climate change."

If that's what you're getting at, you need to say those words.

[Nige]

If you see the issue as primarily rhetorical, you don't understand the issue at all.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that’s not what I said, LoB. You seem to conflate climate as an aggregate (not year-by-year) with manmade effects.

Which is really telling on yourself. To the point that you seem to be admitting the very thesis you accuse of bad faith.

[Life of Brian]

Why are you working so hard trying to crystal-ball my position when I just told you my actual position in so many words?

Is it because you really don't have anything you can say about my actual position?

Nah. Can't be.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one that found my weather is not climate point to be about man-made climate change.

Which I didn't say. So where did you get it from? Seems like your own priors about what climate change is, if honestly defined.

[Life of Brian]

You’re the one that found my weather is not climate point to be about man-made climate change.

You're off the rails again. I said not one word about your sideshow distraction -- I explicitly responded to your attack on my supposed position by clearly spelling out my actual position.

I understand that sorta kills your buzz since you don't have anything to say about my actual position, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Nige]

In fairness he's giving you the credit of thinking you're drawing a substantive distinction, when in fact you're drawing an entirely rhetorical one.

[Gandydancer]

Climate change is just summed weather changes over time. And, yes, climate is always changing. The switch from "global warming" to "climate change" was profoundly dishonest.

No doubt humanity is having some effect, but no "solution" has even been proposed except by the eliminate-the-human-race crowd.

The idea that "science" says you should have voted for Biden is ludicrous.

[BrianL.]

Donald Trump has said that global warming is hoax many times.

[Frank Drackman]

"Honey, I'd like to watch Television, is the wind blowing???"

best line ever

[Gandydancer]

I wouldn't count his expressed opinion as worth anything, but he's right about that. (The "global warming" hoax is of course not the same as the scientific result that there has been over some period an increase in average temperature and the projection that that will continue.)

[Nige]

'Climate change' is a term of art with a fairly specific and well-understood modern meaning, pretending that it means something else is disingenuous at best and, of course, climate change denial,

'as there is zero evidence for it.'

You barely made it to a second paragraph before contradicting yourself.

[Martinned]

Speaking of the overwhelming evidence for man-made climate change, I was interested to read about the last time it went the other way. In the 16th century the population of the Americas fell by so much that it shows up in the climate statistics. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261

[Nige]

Germ warfare.

[Mr. Bumble]

Climate change Aztecs decided more sacrifice was needed.

[Nige]

Fascinating.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Germ warfare."

250 years before the germ theory. Yet they intentionally waged warfare.

It was just an accident of zero prior contact, you dope.

Europeans got sick when they first tried to go into non-coastal Africa, because there were diseases there that they had not been exposed to.

[Nige]

Duh.

Handy for the colonisers when the diseases you bring wipe out the people already living there, though.

[Gandydancer]

Indeed it was. What's your point?

[bevis the lumberjack]

There is not “overwhelming evidence of man made climate change”. There just isn’t.

And don’t go spouting the 97% bullshit either. That number is the consensus that the climate is actually warming. There is a lot of disagreement as to the degree to which human activity is affecting it and even more disagreement as to whether it’s a crisis or not.

And as demonstrated by the Dutch farmers, ultimately if you push it too far the voters are going to slap you down.

[Nige]

‘There is a lot of disagreement’

There really, really isn’t. The last list of climate change denying scientists anyone was able to present to me included scientists working in areas that had nothing to do with the climate, engineers who worked for oil companies and Lord Christopher Walter fucking Monckton.

‘And as demonstrated by the Dutch farmers,’

Most farms in Europe and the US are owned by large, wealthy corporations reaping massive subsidies and tax benefits. Naturally they flex their muscles when people object to subsidising the destruction of the planet, just like the fossil fuel industry does.

[Martinned]

And as demonstrated by the Dutch farmers, ultimately if you push it too far the voters are going to slap you down.

Voters have a well-known preference for politicians who tell them what they want to hear. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Voters have a strong preference for politicians who aren’t going to confiscate 30% of a country’s farms.

But you’re not a “by the people for the people” type. You’re more the “we know better than you so shuddup and take it” type.

[Sarcastr0]

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

If you want to argue about policy, you might have a point.

But you're trying to argue about facts and evidence, and thus have stepped into a fallacy.

[Martinned]

There's a reason we have representative democracy, not government by referendum. Governing is hard, and better left to the professionals.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're right, but I think the consensus supporting it has changed. People increasingly do not accept that governing is best left to professionals, but in their place they have selected even less-qualified popular figures to do the governing. This won't end well.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm more optimistic than you. The populism pendulum has done a couple of arcs throughout our history; it's never been good, but it's always swung back.

[Martinned]

This week Emmanuel Macron had quite a line (which also didn't go down well).

La foule n’a pas de légitimité face au peuple qui s’exprime à travers ses elus

"The mob has no legitimacy vis-à-vis the people who express themselves through their elected representatives."

https://www.europe1.fr/politique/retraites-macron-affirme-que-la-foule-na-pas-de-legitimite-face-au-peuple-qui-sexprime-a-travers-ses-elus-4173510

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Let me guess - this is another topic which you're going to pretend to be an expert on, but in fact you're just channeling more of your inner Jon Snow?

Look everyone. Mr. OIL AND GAS 'R GUD guy says the climate isn't being affected by the gigatons of pollution we've thrown into it.

It's like you're ignorant of what a balanced equation is, and what happens to the opposite side when one half gets wildly multiplied.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who took that census?

[Kazinski]

It’s not I we don’t think the climate is changing, I do believe that global temps have gone up about 1c in the last 150 years. I also think temps went up about 1c in the hundred years before that from the depths of the little ice age, and that earlier temperature rise cannot be blamed on CO2.

I also think most of the effects of global warming are positive, and will continue to be positive, as shown by this graph:

http://thebritishgeographer.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/8/1/11812015/1337499770.jpg

[Martinned]

Your math is off: https://xkcd.com/1732/

[Kazinski]

Speaking of which what’s your take on the BBB’s big electoral surprise?

Of course I guess the real test is whether the current coalition changes course on nitrogen and farming or BBB becomes the largest party in the lower house in in 2 years.

[Martinned]

I think there was definitely a red state/blue state dichotomy that was exposed by this election result. (Full disclosure, I'm myself from centuries of farming stock. In my home town BBB got 35% of the vote, which is utterly bonkers in Dutch politics.)

The actual issue of environmental legislation only motivates a subset of BBB voters, particularly the actual farmers. But there aren't many of those, because Dutch farms are typically quite large scale operations. For the rest of the BBB electorate it's more a matter of distrust of mainstream political parties and a desire to vote for a non-racist populist right wing party.

As for the future from here, this can go all sorts of ways.
- This election could drive the government further to the left. They have to get their majorities somewhere, so they might end up beholden to the centre-left parties in the senate to get them to a majority. That would make the more strict on nitrogen, not less, but it would put the centre-right parties in the coalition in a difficult position.
- As you say, it is at least as likely that the centre-right parties in the coalition will try to appease the BBB voters by relaxing the nitrogen policy. But this is difficult, because the government's freedom of maneuver is limited by EU legislation and the need to build more houses.
- BBB won't be the largest party in the lower house in 2 years time. Provincial elections are a much more likely election for protest votes than a general election, and they will struggle to survive for 2 years as a coherent political force. Until now they only had one MP (they still do), so BBB was a one-person party. But now that they have many other elected politicians, there is exponentially more risk of conflict and/or someone saying something stupid. That's what happened to every other rightwing populist party in the last 20 years. They all crash and burn to a greater or lesser extent within a few years from their first big electoral success.

[Mr. Bumble]

Along with the proposed farming ban was there a plan to return reclaimed land to the North Sea?

[Nige]

There was no proposed farming ban.

[Mr. Bumble]

Poor wording on my part. The proposed plan called for forced reduction of farmed land not a ban on all farming.

[Nige]

No, it was a reduction in cattle farming, which is getting to be almost as bad as fossil fuels for carbon emissions and envrionmental damage.

[Martinned]

There is no proposed plan to use eminent domain for farms, and even if there was it wouldn't be that unusual. That's what eminent domain power is for, to take private property for public use. That's what happened to my father's ancestral farm 40 years ago, it was taken by the government to build a motorway on top.

But at this point forced buy-outs are absolutely politically toxic. They already were before this election. Not going to happen unless the European Commission takes the Netherlands to court first.

[Gandydancer]

"...the government’s freedom of maneuver is limited by EU legislation..."
"...forced buy-outs are absolutely politically toxic...
Not going to happen unless the European Commission takes the Netherlands to court first."

So, are the Dutch sheep who will let the EU/EC inflict policies on them which they abhor?

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, Randal's timeline shows that, yes, about 1 degree C in the last 150 years. More than 0, and less than 2, and the error bar for 150 years ago is pretty large.

Also note that civilization began when things were about this warm, during a period called the Holocene Climate Optimum for a reason, and almost all the warming everybody (I lie, a loud minority...) is freaking out about was from a recent unusually COLD period. We only got back to normal temperatures a decade or so ago, AFTER the freakout had begun.

[Nige]

Civilisation began when the temperature was *stable*
Temperatures rising rapidly from an unusually low period is not the reassuring handwave you seem to think it is.

[Nige]

Taking the graph at face value, you seem to be confusing largely unsustainable industrial agricultural practices which have been heavily polluting and destructive of biodiversity with the effects of climate change. We’re barely starting to feel the effects now, never mind 1999. Even so, not much agriculture going on in the Horn of Africa lately.

Also, it’s a bit of a fallacy to state that because something else caused a temperature change in the past it must mean human CO2 emissions aren’t causing it now.

[Kazinski]

But it’s not just farmers, it’s nature increasing production too:

“Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.”

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/

[Nige]

'The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”'

It's a very limited, temporary 'benefit' in the context of all the other implications of both biodiversity loss and climate change.

'While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.'

Not to mention the growing water crisis:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00842-3

'Around half of the world’s population is already at risk of severe water scarcity for at least some of the year, according to the latest (sixth) assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published this week. This number is likely to increase owing to the effects of climate change, such as heavy precipitation, flooding, drought and wildfire events. If global temperatures reach 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures, extreme agricultural (soil moisture) drought is expected to be twice as likely in many parts of the world.'

There's a phrase on the tip of my tongue for when something seems to suddenly bloom into good health right before it dies.

[Frank Drackman]

World Population's increased from 1 Bullion to 8 Bullion in the last 220 years, so not surprising there's more CO2 in the Troposphere, unless somebody's really holding their breath. Average Human generates 20ml CO2/minute, do the math. Idling my Z06 for 20 minutes doesn't matter.

[Nige]

Slightly dwarfed by the CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels and the wholesale destruction of various natural carbon sinks, including the effects of ocean warming. Two billion tons per year of CO2 due to fossil fuels in 1900, to about 35 billion per year today. Hold your breath indeed.

[Frank Drackman]

So tell AlGore/Gerta Thornbugh to fly Commercial, or better jet, have Senescent Joe stay home, he wouldn't know the difference, never knows where he is anyway.

[Nige]

GangrapeGPT has reached the 2000s.

[Kazinski]

Yeah heavy precipitation is generally associated with water shortages.

But let’s be clear, water shortages are a real danger, bu there is one primary cause for water shortages: population growth.

There isn’t any evidence there is less water to be had, the problem is more and more water is needed.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in areas (US Southwest) where it was always scarce.

[Nige]

Which are the sorts of places affected first.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, water shortages in the (US Southwest) maybe because
ITS A FUCKING DESERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (HT S. Kinison)

come to Jaw Jaw, we've got water everywhere (and its free!)

[Sarcastr0]

Oh yeah, what does more heat have to do with a disordered water cycle?

[Nige]

Yes, heavy precipitation leads to flooding, which means all the water goes away, taking people, houses and bits of the landscape with it, and means less precipitation later.

Population growth puts pressure on water resources, but climactically droughts are getting worse worldwide, and bad planning, poor infrastructure and using millons of gallons to grow crops in unsuitable locations don’t help either.

[Kazinski]

The data doesn't support that. If floods are gettimg worse "taking people, houses and bits of the landscape with it" then it would show up here, Climate related deaths since 1920:

https://lifepowered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Climate-Related-Deaths.png

[Nige]

You use weird metrics.

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/weather-related-disasters-increase-over-past-50-years-causing-more-damage-fewer

A disaster related to a weather, climate or water hazard occurred every day on average over the past 50 years – killing 115 people and causing US$ 202 million in losses daily, according to a comprehensive new report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The number of disasters has increased by a factor of five over the 50-year period, driven by climate change, more extreme weather and improved reporting. But, thanks to improved early warnings and disaster management, the number of deaths decreased almost three-fold.

[Brett Bellmore]

According to NOAA, driven by people moving into areas prone to bad weather.

[Nige]

People living in places prone to weather.

[shawn_dude]

This is just bogus. While it's true that higher demand is impacting fresh water resources, long-term reduced rainfall and snowpack is also impacting the supply. Whole sections of the central California valley sank because of increased water pumping due to lack of rainfall. Less water fell so farmers pumped so much water out of the ground that residential wells went dry and buildings sank. That would be "evidence there is less water to be had."

[Gandydancer]

Your assumption that pumping was going on at a rate that could have been sustained absent climate change (and snail darter diversion, etc.) is complete bullshit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, there is enormous evidence, world wide, and with few exceptions, that there is less water to be had. Mountain snow packs around the world have been measured systematically for more than a century. Reduced mountain snow packs and world-wide receding glaciers are a phenomenon for which no counter-evidence exists.

[Brett Bellmore]

Handy word, that "may".

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I also think most of the effects of global warming are positive"

You wear that badge of ignorance with undeserved pride.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nature harmed its reputation among conservatives

Precisely how much should Nature care about its reputation among the half-educated, roundly bigoted, gullible, delusional, superstitious, science-disdaining audience?

[hoppy025]

Judge Lynch of the 2nd Circuit (an Obongo appointee) spent most of the March 20th hearings on New York's gun law complaining about Bruen. It was a kangaroo hearing. Judicial resistance to SCOTUS isn't over.

[David Nieporent]

Is your real complaint that he's tarnishing the word "lynch" in your mind?

[OtisAH]

He has no complaint. He just wanted to use his clever nickname for Obama again.

[Frank Drackman]

I thnk "Barry Hussein" is better, because he actually went by that

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why does it bother the Volokh Conspiracy's right-wing fans when I mention the bigotry that saturates this conservative blog?

The target audience seems to revel in it (except when someone mentions it).

[hoppy025]

Does it bother you when the little boys you groom tell you you're hurting them?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How is that "civility standard" you told us about when censoring non-conservatives coming along, Volokh Conspirators?

[Sarcastr0]

It was both before my time and after my studies of the American Presidency stopped, so I have a bit of a knowledge gap, but it seems like what Reagan did to those Iranian hostages to stick it to Carter was pretty messed up.

[OtisAH]

At least as messed up as Ben Barnes acting as if he’s done a noble thing in finally confirming the event. Maybe it would be noble, or at least respectable, if he’d written it in a shame-filled suicide note.

The Reagan campaign holding Americans hostage in Iran, and getting away with it, is likely one big reason they felt so emboldened to embark on Iran-Contra, which they also got away with.

Nixon and the Vietnam peace process. Reagan and Iranian hostages (and arming Iran). Dubya and Iraq. Imagine where this country might be today if any one of these things resulted in the consequences they deserved.

But please, let’s hear more about our Real Patriots…

[Bob from Ohio]

Barnes is just lying. He didn't "confirm" squat.

[OtisAH]

This must be another one of Bob’s “jokes.”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bob from Ohio, a disaffected and bigoted clinger who proofreads downscale deeds in the can't-keep-up stretch of Ohio, has concluded that Barnes is lying and the New York Times doesn't know what it is doing.

[bevis the lumberjack]

There was a 4 hour two part deep dive on the whole Iran/hostage thing on PBS a few months back. It doesn’t suggest that Reagan did anything to Carter as to the hostages.

The Iranians were not going to let them go for Carter because they hated Carter because Carter allowed the Shah to escape Iran and come here for cancer treatment. Even so, at the end the hostages were finally released on the last day of Carter’s presidency and Reagan stayed out of the way and let Carter go to Germany and greet the hostages as they were being processed the day after their release.

This was all in a very detailed documentary broadcast on a left-leaning network that had no live for Reagan. Turns out that maybe the stuff with Reagan and the hostages was substantially conspiracy stuff.

[OtisAH]

JFC dude, it was just *this week*…

https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/ben-barnes-john-connally-iran-hostages-jimmy-carter-ronald-reagan-october-surprise/

[Life of Brian]

Wow, some really compelling stuff in that article:

Obviously, it was a big moment in our history that changed from Carter to Reagan. And we don’t really know. What is important to know is that Ben Barnes can talk about what he saw, right? And what he heard. What he was in the room for. What he can’t tell us is whether Reagan knew about this, for instance. Now, he does say that they met with Bill Casey, who was Reagan’s chief campaign chairman after the trip and filled him in about it. And that’s important because Casey has been at the center of a lot of suspicions over the years about any interactions between the Reagan camp and the Iranians. And he later became the Central Intelligence Agency director.

But you know, Barnes doesn’t know for sure if Reagan knew about it, and he doesn’t know if the message was ever passed on to the Iranians. He doesn’t know if the Iranians acted on it.

I'm pretty comfortable those that believe this late-breaking well-maybe-coulda-mighta tale supports Sarc's thesis already fervently believed without it.

[Sarcastr0]

You think this kinda shit went down without Reagan knowing about it?!
First, I don't believe you. You're just arguing for its own sake. This isn't a court of law, we're allowed to make judgements based on just not being idiots.

Second, if Reagan didn't know, that's not better.

[Life of Brian]

You think this kinda shit went down without Reagan knowing about it?!

Oh, hey, what's the standard Sarcspeak rejoinder about appeals to incredulity? How does that go again?

Second, if Reagan didn’t know, that’s not better.

Why?

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re missing the point. No shit went down. It’s made up.

Down here in his home state Ben “Sharpstown” Barnes is not regarded as a paragon of honesty.

[Sarcastr0]

No shit went down. It’s made up.

Did you even click on the link? It's not an era I know much about, but we now have a contemporaneous witness. You need to do more work if you want to dismiss that.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What link?

Did you even watch the 4 fucking hour PBS documentary? I know that to you PBS is a white supremacy site but the covered the whole thing very thoroughly.

In Texas, Barnes has zero credibility. He’s a proven scamster.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ben, a Democrat politician, was involved in the Bush phony national guard scandal too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are clingers genuinely illiterate, or is this an affectation that resembles flashing gang signals?

[Commenter_XY]

The article simply contradicts your 'factual' assertion about what POTUDS Reagan knew. If you have evidence, present it.

[Sarcastr0]

No - it doesn't. It provides no direct evidence Regan himself knew. But anyone who knows anything about how administrations work, doesn't need direct evidence.

And, if he didn't know, that's also very bad.

[Bob from Ohio]

"we’re allowed to make judgements based on just not being idiots."

That lets you out then.

Barnes is just lying. Old man takes advantage of another old man nearing death to get some publicity.

Election denying is cool again I guess.

[Sarcastr0]

Dunno why you care - no morals in politics after all; this would seem a Reagan masterstroke under the awful morality you claim to hew to!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Reagan masterstroke"

He won 44 states, he didn't need this but it would have been incredibly dangerous to even try with a huge chance of exposure.

You expect us to believe that he sent a Democrat like Barnes to met with multiple Arabs to pass on a message to Persians. Casey was in OSS, he knew how to get messages across, not choose this Rube Goldberg method.

You hate Reagan so you fall for this BS. Occam's Razor.

[David Nieporent]

I am properly skeptical of this story, but the claim is not that Reagan "sent a Democrat like Barnes." The claim is that Reagan sent Connally. And that Connally invited Barnes on the trip.

[bevis the lumberjack]

A Bidenista has no standing to lecture on morals in politics.

The point is that you reacting to a probably made up story from a known liar who is a democrat no less. The guy was significantly dishonest enough to lose his political career. As a Democrat in Texas in the early ‘70s. That’s almost impossible to conceive, but he managed.

The documentary was pretty clear that Reagan was happy to stay quiet and let Carter take the credit for the release.

You’re barking up an imaginary tree.

[Sarcastr0]

bevis, stick to the topic, and stop with the collateral bullshit.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What in that post was collateral bullshit?

The topic at hand is made up conspiracy bullshit. A four hour documentary that included interviews with a lot of the people involved attributed to Reagan exactly the opposite attitude relative to what this story suggests. Saying so is sticking to the topic. You not liking the response doesn’t make it off topic.

[Sarcastr0]

The topic at hand was Reagan the Iranian hostages.

Quit changing the scope so you can bothsidesing again.

You want to talk about the documentary, talk about that. Don't fucking bring up Biden.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Screw off Jackass.

I told you what the documentary described. A consistently liberal source. You ignored it. What the fuck do you want me to do?

It didn’t happen. That’s not bothsidsing, moron. There, I’ve discussed it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The topic at hand is made up conspiracy bullshit.

That is the assessment of the side of the aisle populated by birthers, QAnon freaks, televangelism victims, "stolen election" misfits, faith healer enthusiasts, MAGA malcontents, Vince Foster truthers, "false flag" insurrectionists, Italygate, plandemic believers, global warming "hoax" proponents, anti-vaccination kooks, Info Wars fans, Italygaters, pizzagaters, and Sidney Powell funders.

Carry on, clingers. Your betters will let you know how far and how long, of course.

[Kazinski]

You got any evidence it actually happened?

It was an unsupported allegation that George Bush as the VP nominee in the middle of a presidential campaign made a secret journey to Paris to negotiate with the Iranians to hold the hostages until Reagan were elected, or took office.

Nobody ever found any evidence.

Take off the tinfoil hat.

[David Nieporent]

It was an unsupported allegation that George Bush as the VP nominee in the middle of a presidential campaign made a secret journey to Paris to negotiate with the Iranians to hold the hostages until Reagan were elected, or took office.

This is a different allegation than that one.

[OtisAH]

JFC dude, it was just *this week*…

https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/ben-barnes-john-connally-iran-hostages-jimmy-carter-ronald-reagan-october-surprise/

[Life of Brian]

To avoid clutter, I'll not duplicate my response to your copypasta.

[OtisAH]

I’ll avoid further clutter by not noting you don’t know what “copypasta” is and by not bothering to read your response in either instance.

[Life of Brian]

and by not bothering to read your response in either instance

That's our Otis -- he knows his positions are so perfectly unassailable he doesn't even need to bother reading the responses!

LOL

[Absaroka]

If that story is true, it's really bad.

I'm not 100% convinced of its veracity, though. For one example, if I was a presidential candidate who wanted to pass a clandestine message to the Iranians, I wouldn't do it by telling it to half a dozen various mideast governments in the hope one would pass it on. That doesn't seem like a good way to keep secret messages secret.

And the supposed message was 'Reagan will give you a better deal', but there wasn't much time for deal making - the hostages were released on inauguration day. The Occam's razor explanation seems to be that the Iranians thought that one of Reagan's first meetings might be asking DoD 'how can we make Iran sorry for taking the hostages'. Reagan was, for better or worse, a lot more a gloves off kind of guy than Carter.

This isn't to say the story isn't true - it might or might not be. But my doubt-o-meter is tingling.

[Sarcastr0]

Not a time I know a lot about; I don't know much about ME diplomacy in that era.
But this was the conventional wisdom, and now it has some testimonial backup. I'm not sure if 'this seems a janky way to do it' is enough of a rebuttal.

Though I agree, I'm not in the 'slam dunk for sure' camp; one late to the game claimed witness is only that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"this was the conventional wisdom"

No it was not. Wild rumors are not "conventional wisdom".

[Absaroka]

"But this was the conventional wisdom"

There have been accusations, sumarized here. Note:

"Two separate congressional investigations looked into the charges, both concluding that there was no plan to seek to delay the hostages' release"

The footnote for that is to a 1993 NYT article that says "A bipartisan House panel has concluded that there is no merit to the persistent accusations that people associated with the 1980 Presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan struck a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of American hostages until after the election."

I think the conventional wisdom was actually the opposite of what you say.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey, I was unaware of the investigations - again, this is not an area I'm really familiar with. Not dispositive (neither is this new guy's take), but hardly nothing. Thanks for brining substance, not 'this guy is totes a liar.'

Maybe it was my NYC upbringing - not really salt of the earth. But I would also site The Onion: https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/11w7rr8/the_onion_has_always_been_golden/

But to be serious, conventional wisdom is weak and subjective; I cede the point. This new go-round is intruiging, but not sufficient evidence.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Testimonial backup from a known liar in the party opposed to Reagan.

Research has demonstrated that the “conventional wisdom” of the time, assuming it even really existed, wasn’t accurate.

What the fuck are you wanting us to discuss? If this thing that almost certainly didn’t happen had actually happened it would have been unseemly. Hey, you’re right!!! It certainly would have been awful!!!! Hypothetically, of course!!!!!

Happy now?

[OtisAH]

You didn’t even know this guy existed before this morning. But you know he’s a known liar. Probably because all of Texas MAGA has been saying so since Monday. But you’re probably right. After all, he participated in the Reagan campaign scheme to delay the release of our citizens. The guy’s as crooked as you are full of shit.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that it would have been pretty messed up if it had happened.

I disagree with your implied premise that there’s a good reason to think that it happened.

[Sarcastr0]

This aligns with the suspicious timing quite well. We will probably never know, but I don't think you can say there's no good reason to think it happened.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What suspicious timing?

[Sarcastr0]

What was the day the hostiages were freed?

Anyhow, I'd like to direct your attention up above to Abrasoka's point, which I found persuasive.

That's how you do it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The hostages were released on Carter’s watch. The Iranians weren’t going to do Carter any pre- election favors because they despised him for giving the Shah an out to avoid Iranian justice. Carter was the “president” who went to Germany to celebrate the hostage’s return to freedom with the hostages and their family.

That’s how you do it. You watch or read well-researched history.

[bevis the lumberjack]

And as to your stupid “testimonial backup” point, I mean, the stealing of the 2020 election has testimonial backup too. She we get an election redo going.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

People who figure Obama's birth certificate, certified election results, climate scientists conclusions, and Ben Barnes' account to be lies while considering QAnon, Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Sidney Powell, Jim Jordan, and Rudy Giuliani to be credible are among my favorite culture war casualties.

And the target audience of a white, male, right-wing blog whose academic veneer has largely vanished.

[Sarcastr0]

If you can't see how the jackwagons that thought the 2020 election was stolen are pretty unlike this guy, that's on you.

That doesn't mean you must find this guy is credible, only that you are ignoring some pretty broad differences in kind and need to do more work than waiving at yahoos and saying 'sometimes yahoos lie, and this guy is a human being just like these yahoos so...'

[bevis the lumberjack]

The 2020 comment was to make a point about the claims made by known liars.

The guy whose statement started this wasted thread hasn’t been considered credible by anyone in Texas for going on half a century. But if you want to use what he says to dis a dead guy over something that nobody else thinks happened, then go to town. I’ve told you what I know, which is more than you do, but who cares. Knock yourself out.

[Sarcastr0]

If you have some kind of insider Texas reputational knowledge to share, you should do that. Not just attack people and ipse dixit (he's a Dem in Texas in the 70s? Who cares- give up the juicy bits!)

[Absaroka]

Way upthread Bevis posted "Down here in his home state Ben “Sharpstown” Barnes is not regarded as a paragon of honesty.".

When he posted that I googled "Ben Sharpstown Barnes" and I'd say that seems like an accurate statement. He wasn't prosecuted, but folks there seem to think he, well, isn't a paragon of honesty. There don't seem to be any smoking guns, but Texans seem to feel there is a lot of smoke.

One example.

I'm not from Texas and never heard of him before this kerfluffle.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Absoroka, this is one of those things that Sarcastro never wants to know.

It’s not any inside knowledge. You know how everyone everywhere pretty much knows that Trump is dishonest? Barnes is not well known nationally and he was chased out of politics in the mid-‘70s, but everyone in Texas who is old enough to remember the ‘70s knows that he’s a dishonest scamster. He was the most powerful elected democrat in a heavily democratic state and was still young and the stench was bad enough to stop his political career cold.

Sarcastro is taking a statement from the Trump of Texas in which the guy says he didn’t know if Reagan had any knowledge and turn it into Reagan being an asshole when even documentarians for a left-leaning organization say that Reagan was gracious at the end of the crisis and let Carter have the glory, to the extent there was any.

He admits he has no direct knowledge but still draws a firm Other Team Bad” conclusion. That’s his style.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I found David Frum's analysis pretty compelling:

The important @peterbakernyt story demands a very careful read of what it alleges and what it does not allege. If the allegations are true, they reflect very ill on the memory of John Connally. But is there more?

According to former Texas Lt Gov Ben Barnes, his mentor John Connally traveled to the Middle East in 1980 to communicate to the Iranian hostage-takers that they would get a better deal from Reagan than from Carter.

The Connally 1980 trip genuinely happened. But two big questions: did Connally in fact communicate with the Iranians? And was he acting in consort with the Reagan campaign - or engaged in a personal scheme of his own?

The article specifies only one Mideast leader with whom Connally met: Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. Sadat had no relationship with the new regime in Iran at all - in fact, Sadat was an especially close ally of the fallen Shah of Iran.

Relations were even worse between the Iranians and the Gulf kingdoms to whom Connally would most likely have had access. EG in November 1979, Iranian-backed gunmen had tried to seize the Grand Mosque in Mecca.

Talking to Sadat and Gulfi emirs and kings was no way to reach the Iranians - and there's no claim by Barnes that Connally ever discovered an actual working channel to the hostage-takers. 6/x

Nor is there any evidence of any kind of connection between Connally and the Reagan campaign. Reagan and Connally had been rivals for the GOP nomination in 1980. Connally had been the business favorite - and relations had not warmed after Connally lost

Barnes claims that Connally debriefed Reagan campaign chair William Casey after Connally's trip. But even if true - what does that show exactly? Not that Connally was any kind of emissary or operative - nor that Connally returned with anything worth hearing.

Someone as suspicious as Casey might well have sensed a trap. Connally's methods were indiscreet at best, reckless at worse. What if one of the kings/emirs etc. had blabbed the story during the 1980 campaign? What if Connally had blabbed to show off to some reporter?

Connally's freelance diplomacy - if it happened as Barnes now recalls - could have ended in election-losing catastrophe. And Connally was a man who had gotten into himself into trouble before. He'd been indicted on corruption charges in 1974.

It's very easy for me to imagine Connally trying to insert himself back into the mix in 1980 via this venture. I can well imagine that Barnes was, as he says now, worried and horrified as it happened. But ...

Would the Reagan campaign have trusted such a wrong and dangerous mission to Connally? That seems vanishingly unlikely. Did Connally's self-advancing chatter reach the right ears? That seems not impossible - but did that mean anything in the context of the time? Doubtful.

Bottom line: if Barnes recalls the story correctly, it reflects ill on John Connally, both his character and his judgment. He might as well have walked through the region with a "who wants to cause a US national scandal?" sign around his neck. But that's all Barnes has, not more.

Reagan offered Connally the job of Secretary of Energy. Connally rejected it as beneath his dignity.

Connally was a famously vindictive man.

If Connally held such an explosive secret over Reagan - why did he not use it?

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1637206506700406790

[Frank Drackman]

Not nearly as messed up as Jimmuh Carthuh sending a "Rescue" team in without proper Night Vision equipment, with a plan so arcane even Rube Goldberg would have punted,

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Imagine if "45" lied about being a Drug Addict on his Form 4473 (If you have to ask you're too ignorant to be on this "Legal" Forum) He'd be arrested, "Perp Walked", and prosecuted like happened with Hunter Biden, didn't matter he was the POTUS's son, hmm, funny, can find any record of Hunter Biden suffering any thing from his Perjury except having (one particular) gun purchase turned down,

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Oh yeah, Queenie, here's my source
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/06/hunter-biden-tax-gun-charges/

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

And how frequently are lying about drug addiction on Form 4473 prosecuted? If Hunter Biden were prosecuted for this would it be selective prosecution?

[Frank Drackman]

at least 5 were , in 2019. ULSA, Okla. – United States Attorney Trent Shores announced that five “lie and try” defendants have pleaded guilty to violations of federal firearms laws that stemmed from “lie and try” charges filed in February. The charges were announced by U.S. Attorney Shores and law enforcement officials from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Marshals Service, Tulsa Police Department, Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office and Delaware County Sheriff’s Office during a February press conference.

[Moderation4ever]

I noted that the five listed as plead guilty. Could I assume that the prosecutor had more on these five than just lie on Form 4473. Hunter Biden has money for lawyer and if all the prosecutor has is a lie on 4473 I guessing the case is going nowhere.

[Krayt]

People need to wonder, loudly, why China is helping Russia roll tanks through Europe in a clone of Hitler’s behavior before and early in World War II.

Wasn’t China an ally in the Pacific, and the allies helped it against Japan, ultimately doing the heavy lifting? China, why are you taking the Hitler side in this? The side that claims territory hosting ethnic nationals needs Anschluss.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's almost as if something happened in China in 1949...

[ducksalad]

NAL, please advise on whether I correctly understand the legal theory here:

Some ordinary guy decides to run for Congress, without giving up his day job. He realizes his wardrobe is kind of shabby, so he goes down to Men's Wearhouse and drops $1K on some new clothes. While he's there he tells the salesperson he "wants to look good at the forum" but also that the suits need to be "durable for the office".

Scenario A: He pays for the clothes out of pocket. Since the flashy suit was designed to influence an election, this is an illegal undeclared contribution, a federal crime. He is also guilty of falsifying a business record, a state felony.

Scenario B: He pays for the clothes out of a campaign account. Since the suit will be worn at the office, this is an illegal diversion of campaign funds for personal use, a federal crime. He is also guilty of falsifying a business record, a state felony.

Scenario C: He scrupulously prorates the cost of the suits, paying 30% out of the campaign account and 70% out of pocket, based on expected usage on the trail and at the office. The county and federal DAs think the percentages should be different. He is guilty of *two* federal crimes and *two* state felonies.

Do I have this right?

[Krayt]

Seriously, is paying for your own campaign stuff a crime? These are transparency laws to help voters discern smoke of tit for tat. There is no such there.

[ducksalad]

Seriously, my question was serious. My understanding (or misunderstanding?) is that candidates who want to pay for their own campaign stuff need to formally donate the money to their campaign and report it. But then that puts them into Scenario B, where some DA can say the clothes were a personal expense and can't be paid from campaign funds.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you've pretty much identified the catch-22 they're attempting for Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Not my area, but 'county and federal DAs think the percentages should be different' is not sufficient to prosecute (no intent), much less establish beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ducksalad]

Can't they tell the grand juries the percentages were deliberately manipulated to simultaneously "influence an election" and "steal campaign funds". The feds could take one side with their GJ and the state could take the other with theirs.

And if the process is intended to be the punishment, I don't see what reasonable doubt has to do with it.

[Sarcastr0]

You claim guilt, and now go to grand juries, who have a very different function.

[OtisAH]

No, probably not. But you spent way more time on your hypothetical than anyone else will so let’s just say “yes” and move on.

[ducksalad]

Well, at least I made you read it and comment. Win!!!

[Moderation4ever]

I think that you do a good job of making the case that campaign laws are complicated, but there is a lot of money involved in elections and that money will be under scrutiny. Most people are not worried about the $1K suit but rather a friend who lets the candidate use his jet for campaign trips. Trouble here is how to you differentiate between the two.

[Ed Grinberg]

campaign laws are complicated, but there is a lot of money involved in elections and that money will be under scrutiny.

It would be interesting to see some numbers re: who gets prosecuted under campaign finance laws -- is it mostly Democrats or Republicans? And if there is a clear trend, is it because one party's political candidates (and their contributors) commit more violations, or because the-other-party-affiliated prosecutors are more willing to use their office to go after their political opponents?

[ducksalad]

It appears to me that it goes beyond complicated and is into Catch 22 territory.

I do realize that some little-known candidate who hasn't pissed off anyone in a position of authority isn't at any risk of being prosecuted. But that how the whole "three felonies a day" culture at federal agencies works....it's sustainable because ordinary citizens don't have to worry about as long as they keep their heads down.

[Sarcastr0]

Quit conflating grand juries with conviction.

And your scenario - where there is no evidence of intent to comingle (because there is no such intent) and no evidence these percentages are wrong either by accident or design - may even let a ham sandwich get away.

[ducksalad]

Conflating? That is the whole point here. Virtually no case ends with a jury trial. It's all about using process to wear someone down, renewing the news cycle, maybe some pre-trial detention, and possibly getting someone to plead guilty to something just out of fear or exhaustion.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, conflating. Indictment is not conviction.

Now you are just making up a new thesis. Really stinks of outcome-oriented unseriousness.

Your original post said nothing about grand juries or indictment, or probable cause, or pleas, or the process wearing people down. It was about guilt.

No new goalposts.

[ducksalad]

One or more of us is confused…..not about the legal issues, but about this being some imaginary football game with “goalposts” and two organized teams trying to score on each other. Or worse yet, some pretend high court where a specific issue is presented, a standard of proof defined, and nothing irrelevant to that allowed.

Eff that. Sometimes people just want to have an open ended discussion. But I sincerely apologize for using the legal term “guilt” when what I really meant is the ordinary (hence NAL) question of “can this result in legal troubles at the discretion of a prosecutor”. Because ordinary people don’t want to spend their lives winning legal cases. They hope to never be involved in a case.

[Sarcastr0]

You come in with a hypo, and keep adding new arguments.

Your final redoubt is that grand juries are bad because power can be abused.

What an overbroad and ridiculous place you've ended up arguing for.

[M L]

Scenario D: Tech companies give billions of dollars worth of in kind contributions for the stated purpose of influencing elections and helping a particular candidate, censoring information and manipulating search results. No problem and nothing to see here.

Scenario E: Former spy, acting on behalf of a particular campaign, gathers "dirt" contributed by Russian sources that turns out to be unreliable and false, but gets blasted over the airwaves for years on end by biased media helping the campaign, and used by federal law enforcement agencies to spy on the political opposition, "investigate" and derail presidency based on innuendo. Again no problem here.

[David Nieporent]

Scenario D: Tech companies give billions of dollars worth of in kind contributions for the stated purpose of influencing elections and helping a particular candidate, censoring information and manipulating search results. No problem and nothing to see here.

Correct. Because characterizing independent media expenditures as "in kind contributions" is just willfully stupid. Or did you think Fox News and every single person who works there should be charged by the FEC?

[ducksalad]

If it were up to me, "influencing an election" would be a separately enumerated constitutional right, and public schools would teach that the right to influence an election is the key defining feature of a legitimate democracy.

And a separately enumerated right would be that groups of people, no matter how organized, have every right of individuals making up the group. Such organizations would include, but not be limited to, large for-profit corporations.

[Moderation4ever]

There has been a lot of speculation about DA Bragg's case against Donald Trump. My own thought is that the loss in civil court on the Trump company's corrupt business practices showed a vulnerability that DA Bragg is now looking to exploit. It seems like the heart of the hush money case is way the business of payments was handled. Most of the press focuses on the morality, but could the simply corrupt business practices be the real heart of the matter and likely to be the downfall of the former President? Any thought from the lawyers on this?

[Frank Drackman]

Alvin Bragg looks like he's about to have a STEMI at any second.

[Mr. Bumble]

No Trump prep walk this week. Grand jury cancelled.

[Frank Drackman]

Marxist Stream Media's gonna be eating shit the rest of the week, but not grinning.

[Michael P]

The wall are still closing in, I am sure.

[Frank Drackman]

A wall closing in?? just move away from it

[Michael P]

Even the most avid fans of moving walls have to admit the Get Trump campaign is running out of them at this point.

[Sarcastr0]

Rich asshole will get away with lawbreaking is not really the rock solid defense you think it is.

Says a lot about your morality though.

[Michael P]

"He's guilty because muh feelz" says a lot about your morality.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump Exploits Little-Known Legal Loophole Where You Avoid Indictment By Not Committing A Crime

[Nige]

Trump certainly thinks so, or his screaming panic and begging for his supporters to save him is completely performative and his fakery has leveled up even further.

[Frank Drackman]

Hmm, missed the "Screaming", "Panic" and "Begging" but then again, I'm a Bitter/Klinger/ with guns, and don't hear so well.

[OtisAH]

Deaf and dumb then. Every single “Turnip may be indicted Tuesday” article, op-Ed, comment, etcetera, came out of Turnip’s all-caps Twitter rants screeching about his impending arrest. That was last Thursday or Friday.

[Nige]

Well you're just a slimy wee algorithm doing its best.

[ragebot]

Looks like Bragg got his dick caught in his zipper again. No more GJ meeting till at least Monday and even then it is not a sure thing. Lots of talking heads blabbering about the reason including reports that some GJ members told Bragg to go bite a big red donkey dick.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-news-grand-jury-indictment-new-york-live-updates-rcna76239

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I was rooting for the documents-and-fraud case to precipitate the first criminal charges involving Trump, followed by the Georgia in-American activities investigation, with New York’s worst foot forward case later.

I still hope the criminal conduct concerning the documents generates the first batch of charges. If New York’s pace slows, that would be good.

[Frank Drackman]

and your commutation from former Lt Gov S-S-S-S-S-tuttering J-J-J-J-ohn Fetterman????
and not sure about getting treatment for Depression at Bethesda Naval Hospital (they changed the name to Walter Reed, but it's just old Bethesda Naval) didn't work out to well for Forrestal,

Frank "Watch out Admiral, that first step's a Dooz-ie!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is it a coincidence that the Volokh Conspiracy has attracted this disaffected, autistic, illiterate, antisocial right-wing misfit as a fan and defender?

[Frank Drackman]

I'm actually very social, people always say, "You think you hate Drackman now, wait till you get to know him!"

[shawn_dude]

Unintended or intended consequences? Anti-abortion laws in some conservative states are causing medical staff to vote with their feet. Maternity wards are shuttering. From a free market perspective, these laws have driven up the costs and risks for medical providers which is impacting the services they'll offer. Reproductive health outcomes for women are declining, especially for those who cannot afford to travel to a different state.

Sending the issue of abortion back to the states has resulted in direct harm to women.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Maternity wards have long been the sacrificial lamb for cash-strapped rural hospitals trying to save money and keep their doors open"

[John F. Carr]

There is also a shortage of primary care doctors. If reimbursement rates for various types of medical care go up, the supply will follow in a few years. There is also a shortage of nurses. I talked to a doctor who said the big chain that owns his three MD practice wouldn't offer enough money to interest a nurse. That is a harder problem because "nurse" is not billable to insurance. A nurse is overhead. In a large practice a nurse saves money by giving shots while a doctor bills more expensive services. (As I understand the rules here, a shot must be given by an MD or an RN, not a physician's assistant.)

[shawn_dude]

Physician's assistants hold advanced degrees and can do most of what a full MD can do. Nurse Practitioners are an advanced degree for nurses and can do more than RNs. I have a tendency to prefer PA's over MDs for most routine care because PA's are often younger and more recently educated with more modern approaches.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, those PA's do Surgery just like real Doctors.

[John F. Carr]

I wrote "RN" but the doctor only said "nurse" and I interpreted it that way. I don't know what letter qualify a person to give shots. The doctor didn't like the fact that all shots had to be given by one of the three physicians in his office. My doctor's office is bigger and offloads the needle work to less prestigiously credentialed employees.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe try commenting on something you know something about, most "Shots" are given by Medical Assistants.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Rural residents will get the health care they deserve, unless better Americans subsidize the freeloaders and provide skilled, educated medical personnel to the shambling backwaters.

[Frank Drackman]

Ladies and Gentlemen, Jerry Sandusky, Health Policy Expert!!!!!!!!

[shawn_dude]

I had a second link in there and it looks to be deleted. Here's the link: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/idaho-hospital-ending-labor-delivery-services-amid-political/story?id=98038409

"An Idaho hospital said it will no longer be providing obstetrical care due in part to the state's "legal and political climate" -- obliquely referring to recent restrictions on abortions."

[Kazinski]

Kirsten Sinema on why she doesn't caucus with the Democrats anymore:
“I’m not caucusing with the Democrats, I’m formally aligned with the Democrats for committee purposes,” Sinema said. “But apart from that I am not a part of the caucus.”

Then she let loose.

“Old dudes are eating Jell-O, everyone is talking about how great they are,” Sinema recounted to gales of laughter. “I don’t really need to be there for that. That’s an hour and a half twice a week that I can get back.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/03/23/sinema-trashes-dems-gop-00088461

[bernard11]

What an asshole.

I doubt she is missed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sen. Sinema is a show horse, dope, diva, and misfit. I am glad she departed the Democratic caucus, which can survive without a disingenuous private equity mouthpiece.

I expect she will quit rather than sustain the vivid risk of losing the next election. I derive this conclusion from my assessment of her character.

[Frank Drackman]

Well Mee-Yow!!!! did she steal your hot pink Luis Vittons???
Jerry Sandusky Assessing someone's "Character", stick to FoFo times and Bench Press Reps,

Frank

[OtisAH]

Evan Corcoran must testify and produce documents. It’s probably no big deal.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2023/03/23/donald-trump-appeals-court-attorney-testify-Mar-a-Lago-documents-case-Evan-Corcoran/3011679568360/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Will he testify that he knew the documents he prepared and circulated expressed falsehoods?

Will he testify that he did not know about the falsehoods (despite certifying that he had investigated)?

Will he testify that he merely did as others instructed him to do?

Which is worse for Corcoran? For Trump? For the other lawyers of Trump Elite Strike Force?

[not guilty]

"Evan Corcoran must testify and produce documents. It’s probably no big deal."

If Corcoran testifies that he was acting at Donald Trump's behest or direction, that is a big deal. That could provide the nexus for charging Trump as a principal for the criminal conduct of other persons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b )Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

Corcoran reportedly drafted the June 3, 2022 declaration whereby Christina Bobb certified that Trump’s team had fully complied with a subpoena seeking classified documents being housed at Mar-a-Lago. https://nypost.com/2023/03/17/evan-corcoran-cant-use-attorney-client-privilege-in-trump-classified-doc-probe/ That certification was untrue.

A good defense lawyer will find a way to weave harmful facts which cannot be denied into a broader narrative consistent with reasonable doubt. Team Trump, however, is acting as if the false June 3 certification -- a smoking gun -- doesn't exist.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He also could testify that Trump lied.

He seems a devoted clinger by this point, so trying to shield Trump from accountability might be in play, but the self-preservation instinct could be powerful enough to incline Corcoran to tell the truth.

[bernard11]

Education news from Florida.

The principal of Florida’s Tallahassee Classical School is out of a job after parents complained that their sixth-grade children were shown Michelangelo’s 16th century “David” sculpture, with one parent calling it “pornographic,” the Tallahassee Democrat first reported.

The now-former principal, Hope Carrasquilla, told HuffPost the situation was also “a little more complicated than that,” noting that the usual protocol is to send parents a letter before students are shown such classical artwork.

Due to “a series of miscommunications,” the letter did not go out to the sixth-grade parents, and some complained, Carrasquilla said.
.....

The Tallahassee school is a public charter institution that focuses on classical learning, a teaching philosophy centered on a traditional Western liberal arts education that aims to impart critical thinking skills children can use throughout their lives.

[shawn_dude]

Sixth grade students are what, 11-12 years old, all of them presumably with cell phones and/or internet access at home? And a statue of a naked guy in a classical, non-sexual pose is a problem for these kids? Kids sent to a school for classical learning and liberal arts?!

Someone needs to teach the parents the difference between pornography and simple nudity.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Backwater residents have been known to be quite prudish, unless it's time to marry a cousin, impregnate a slave, or get frisky with the livestock.

[Frank Drackman]

Ladies and Gentlemen, Jerry Sandusky, Social Critic!!!!!!!!!!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Fake news. The school board chair claims that they have no problem with the statue and that this was one issue among many.

He also claims that the teacher told students, "don't tell your parents" which is a serious problem in itself.

[bernard11]

The school board chair is also an idiot who thinks that if you ask a teacher to resign and tell her she'll be fired if she doesn't, and she resigns, you haven't really fired her at all.

He also says,

“Parental rights are supreme, and that means protecting the interests of all parents, whether it’s one, 10, 20 or 50,”

Which makes no fucking sense. What happens when some parents want X and the others want Y?

The whole "parental rights" crap the right is so hot on these days is just a bullshit excuse to impose right-wing ideology because one parent wants you to.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The school board chair is also an idiot who thinks that if you ask a teacher to resign and tell her she’ll be fired if she doesn’t, and she resigns, you haven’t really fired her at all."

Well, no, he thinks it's important to be clear about what actually happened. He's clear that the board pressured her to resign. But if he had said that the board fired her, that would be false, and he'd get sued faster than you can say Bob's your uncle.

[Sarcastr0]

So it's not about the kids. It's never been about the kids.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? No, the decision to clarify that the principal was pressured to resign rather than fired was largely not about the kids. Who said it was?

[David Nieporent]

But if he had said that the board fired her, that would be false, and he’d get sued faster than you can say Bob’s your uncle.

Sued for what? The gist was true. "Sign this resignation letter or we'll fire you" is a firing, not a resignation. If I point a gun at you and say, "Give me your wallet," and you do, that doesn't mean it's not robbery. ("I didn't forcibly take the wallet from him; he handed it to me voluntarily.")

[TwelveInchPianist]

Would you advise a client to tell the news media that he fired someone, when he had actually permitted her to resign instead?

[David Nieporent]

I wouldn't, but not because I was worried about defamation. And if I were, I sure wouldn't advise him to explain that they gave her an ultimatum to sign this resignation letter or be fired.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Which makes no fucking sense. What happens when some parents want X and the others want Y?"

Well, then some parents don't get what they want. But the school has a policy of notifying parents whether they're getting X, Y, or both. That policy was violated, and that's one of the reasons she was fired.

[Ben_]

Bernard11 would be happier to see the wrong kind of parents treated as the enemy by their children’s school. You don't tell the enemy what your strategy is.

[Sarcastr0]

Your telepathic discovery of this double standard perfidy among those who disagree with you continues to be lame as hell.

[Ben_]

You guys are very predictable.

You might want to consider believing in and upholding civilized values like tolerance and egalitarianism if you ever decide you want to restore a civilized society.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A parent can walk away from that charter school and find one of the other schools. There’s your veto – the wish to keep parents from walking off.

So much for any conflict between “voice” and “exit.” If you’re threatening to exit, your voice gets louder.

[Sarcastr0]

Now do Jim Crow.

Law of the market is a cute dodge to cut rights out of the equation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? What right is being cut out of the equation?

And what to a set of laws requiring discrimination against blacks have to do with the law of the market?

[shawn_dude]

It is illegal to teach that subject in Florida to K-12 students.

[BadLib]

Sources, including Politifact, are suggesting that Trump’s claim that the five year statute of limitations on the crime of “falsifying business records in the first degree” has expired may not fly because Trump changed his residency from New York to Florida in October 2019 and that could toll New York’s statute of limitations.

Is there any precedence for changing one’s residency from one state to another tolling the statute of limitations on crimes committed in the former state?

NY was free to charge Trump during the five years after the alleged crime. Nothing about his state of residency prevented that did it? Doesn’t charging an individual, even if the individual has not yet been arrested, toll the statute of limitations? Yet NY chose not to do so.

Once charged and once Trump was no longer was President NY could have tried to get Trump arrested and extradited from wherever he was at a particular moment. As well, if Trump set foot in NY since January 20, 2021, NY state troopers were free to arrest him (the Secret Service might of gotten a bit testy about that — but that’s a separate issue).

Suppose an 18 year old commits a misdemeanor such as petty theft which has a statute of limitations of, say one year, and then moves to another state six months later. Surely it would be unconscionable for the state in which the alleged crime was committed to review seventy year old video, discover the alleged theft, and proceed to charge, extradite, convict, and punish the person when they are 90 years old and all witnesses that could have exonerated her are long since dead and/or forgotten where they were and with whom during a ten minute period seventy years earlier.

Presumably I’m missing something here – what is it? Surely this “tolling” argument has been made before and the issue resolved (or are prosecutors not as clever as I thought?).

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts has a similar law tolling the statute of limitations: "Any period during which the defendant is not usually and publicly a resident within the commonwealth shall be excluded in determining the time limited." (General Laws chapter 277 section 63)

[Absaroka]

Following on with BadLib's train of thought, that seems pretty awful. For example, if you didn't happen to be a resident of MA the statue of limitations would never apply.

I get that time spent as a fugitive, for example, shouldn't count against the SoL - if you want the benefit of witnesses with fresh benefits etc, turn yourself in and stand trial. But with that law anyone living openly one mile outside the state boundary would have no protection at all.

[not guilty]

New York law provides:

In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:

(a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which (i) the defendant was continuously outside this state or (ii) the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence.  However, in no event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-30-10/

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey how is that search for the person who planted "bombs" in DC on Jan 5, 2021?
How about the Dobbs leaker?

[Brett Bellmore]

The idea that they were ever going to find the Dobbs leaker, barring a confession, was pretty silly. The document leaked was too widely available, and you don't have to be 007 to figure out how to leak a document without it being traced back to you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Now, the person who planted the 'bombs' might be a different matter, assuming they were actually trying.

[Michael P]

I hope none of the commenters here with electric vehicles are ever in any kind of collision: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/scratched-ev-battery-your-insurer-may-have-junk-whole-car-2023-03-20/

[ragebot]

Just when you thought the libturds could not get any stupider

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/washington-bill-cuts-english-language-requirement-for-cops-firefighters-equity-agenda-at-play/ar-AA1900UQ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=344176f79b4c4627af232ec21ad4627b&ei=25

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sounds like the judge in the Harvard anti-Asian bias case wrongfully sealed an anti-Asian joke that was shared between the Harvard Dean of Admissions and a DOE OCR official.

[Michael P]

This piece from Jeannie Suk Gersen deserves its own post. It's amazing that the judge sealed so many details in a case about secret discrimination practices and excused the sealing as a way to keep the jury from hearing those details -- in a bench trial.

[Bored Lawyer]

"This piece from Jeannie Suk Gersen deserves its own post."

+ 1000. The behavior of the district judge hear was absolutely shocking. This was a bench trial. Most judges take the attitude, everything comes in in a bench trial, and then I will evaluate it on the merits. The notion of sealing things in a bench trial is bizarre in the extreme. And against the weight of long-standing Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Judge should be impeached, frankly.

[Bored Lawyer]

Here are a couple of really devastating paragraphs:

Judge Burroughs held a hearing on the request [to unseal] in mid-November. I represented myself in court. She said, “There are a lot of things in those sidebars that were really just meant to be out of the hearing of the jury, not meant to be out of the hearing of the entire world for all time.” Strange, since there was, in fact, no jury at that trial. She explained that she would consider unsealing some contents of the sidebars but added, “In response to Harvard’s letter, I think that the secret sauce will stay under seal, which I suspect is what all these news medias really want.”
What was this “secret sauce”? It appeared to refer to aspects of the admissions process that Harvard wanted to keep secret—much like Coke or Heinz wouldn’t want to release their secret recipes. Yet that commitment to secrecy sat awkwardly in a case about whether a hidden process masked racial discrimination.

[John F. Carr]

Based on the fragment quoted in the article it wasn't an anti-Asian joke. It was a fake memo parodying Harvard's anti-Asian bias, written by an OCR official.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The memo was a joke, and it included anti-Asian remarks and stereotypes. I'm not sure what distinction you're making here.

[Bored Lawyer]

Do you think in a case regarding Harvard's alleged anti-Asian bias in admissions, that a memo by an admissions officer parodying Harvard's anti-Asian bias might be relevant?

[Randal]

Do you think that the Department of Education is part of Harvard's admissions office?

[TwelveInchPianist]

The meme was privately shared with Harvards Dean of Admissions, who felt it was amusing.

[Bored Lawyer]

He was called in to review their admissions policy, and shared it with the admissions staff.

[Ben_]

Two Russian oligarchs avoided sanctions placed on hundred of others. It just happens to be two who paid the Biden family millions of dollars.

https://nypost.com/2023/03/06/jean-pierre-wont-say-why-hunter-biden-linked-russian-oligarchs-arent-sanctioned/amp/

From the article:

“He made it very clear to me that, you know … ‘I think it would be good to have a good relationship with this guy … maybe he can do a favor for us and we can do a favor for him,’” the source continued. “It was a complete quid pro quo that he was going in for.”

“I told him that’s not the way it works in America, [but] he basically laughed at me and told me I was so naïve,” the source recalled…

[ragebot]

Is it already one eye season, I still have my corn pop decorations up

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hunter-biden-might-now-be-in-even-more-legal-trouble/ar-AA18ZQwu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=61afd9822bd24afe840f32022caf5810&ei=37

[M L]

China's new Foreign Minister Qin Gang warned Tuesday that "conflict and confrontation" with the United States is inevitable if Washington does not change course, delivering a stern and wide-ranging rebuke of US policies for his first press conference in the new role. -CNN

[TwelveInchPianist]

Robin DiAngelo Advises People of Color to ‘Get Away from White People’

Sounds like her and Scott Adams are birds of a feather.

[M L]

Macron while asking for sacrifices from the French people realizes he is wearing a € 80,000 watch and like a magician makes it disappear under the table.

https://twitter.com/radiogenova/status/1639187461577363456

[Sarcastr0]

Google RadioGenova for another banger source from ML!

[Absaroka]

I did ... was something derogatory supposed to come up?

The Beeb is reporting the same thing (albeit the value of the watch is in dispute).

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you bothered to check your sources, we'd see a lot less of your posts around here.

"In fact, according to French media reports, the watch in question is made by the French manufacturer Bell and Ross, costs somewhere between €1,600 and €2,400, and Macron has brandished it in other public appearances and photo shoots."

https://www.newsweek.com/macron-watch-france-pension-protests-video-1790157

In related news, are you aware that 'gullible' is not in the dictionary?

[M L]

Thanks. That’s why I chat here so someone will check random tweets for me.

Still, it was a neat magic trick in the video.

[Kazinski]

I got that from Wikipedia, you can go chase the citation if you like.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eluded is the question of whether white resentment over being discriminated against is reasonable. I think it is entirely so.

[Kazinski]

Here is at least a partial accounting here:
“House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer revealed on Thursday that on March 1, 2017 — less than two months after Joe Biden left office as Barack Obama’s vice president — State Energy HK Limited, a firm affiliated with Chinese Communist Party-backed energy company CEFC China Energy, wired $3 million to Biden family associate Rob Walker.”

https://nypost.com/2023/03/17/where-the-money-went-the-bidens-and-biden-associates-that-received-chinese-cash/amp/

Note that this from bank records from 2017 from CEFC traced to the Bidens. Patrick Ho the CEFC executive was arrested in 2017, and convicted in 2019.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-corruption-idUSKCN1R62IY

So the timelines match the payments and the allegations.

[Kazinski]

Well of course an NCLA press release isn’t going to down play what discovery shows before trial.

And the judge saying the allegations, if true, “converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action” doesn’t prove the allegations.

But it’s a significant step forward.

[Ed Grinberg]

From now on, Queen Almathea must turn over half her income to Ed Grinberg.
Are you resentful? If so, is your resentment understandable, reasonable, or both?

[Brett Bellmore]

I wrote reasonable because I meant reasonable. "Preferences" for one group means racial discrimination against another.

The civil rights movement had justice on their side so long as they were demanding equal rights, and nothing more. Undeniable justice, and people will support justice even if they suffer a bit as a result.

But when the civil rights movement gave up on equal rights, and started demanding equal results even if it took treating people differently to achieve it, they threw away any claim to justice. And if you defend discrimination, people will, perfectly reasonably, object to being on the losing side of it.

[Kazinski]

No, not just that, the reveal goes on to show the cash then going to the Bidens.

[Kazinski]

I shouldn’t be surprised you don’t want to educate yourself:

“Third was Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, whose salary of $181,300 was higher than that of any other professor outside the administration.”
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1997/9/19/harvards-top-five-salaries-total-more/

[Frank Drackman]

Was she paid in Wampum?? or the Great White Father's Greenbacks??

[Mr. Bumble]

"The investigation into Hunter Biden began in 2018, ..."

Must be quite a complicated case.

[Frank Drackman]

He wasn't the Presidents son when he committed the crime

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sure, so long as it spells out its standards about what you can or cannot do.

The California law has an exemption for religious schools enforcing religious tents. Why not, say, a woke institution desiring to enforce *its* tenets? Or a non-woke institution trying to maintain standards of civility?

[Gandydancer]

Stanford claims it could punish unprotected disruptive "speech", but is unwilling to do so.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Most Volokh Conspiracy exchanges turn toward bigotry, and usually sooner than later. That might be the most reliable, prominent feature of this blog.

No Volokh Conspirator seems interested in addressing this point (and, in particular, the degree to which their conduct precipitates it).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog Of Persecuted, Resentful, Disaffected White Males

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Institutional autonomy.

James II tried to force one of the colleges at Oxford University to elect a President of his (James’) choosing, and they considered this an attack on what we could call academic freedom.

And “[t]he rise of the Third Reich led to the end of academic freedom (and the accompanying principle of institutional autonomy) in Germany.”

https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/dispatches-academic-freedom/a-brief-history-of-academic-freedom/

Forcing a private university to keep a student or professor whose views contradict the mission of a university, as defined by itself, strikes me as a violation of institutional autonomy.

Though I’d prefer to consider institutional autonomy in terms of separation of powers.

In some accrediting bodies, one of the accreditation standards is that the Board of Trustees must be free from outside pressure, including legislative pressure, in making policy.

My discussion applies to intervention by the secular state, not outside private bodies with which the university may be affiliated.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're not even trying.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Queen seems totally off her game today.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, why isn't THIS racist? https://www.doi.gov/iacb/act

[Frank Drackman]

Smile when you talk about Senator Princess Yellow-Hair-High-Cheekbones, Pail Face!!

[Frank Drackman]

Great, now the "My Pillows/Slippers" guy is gonna start "My Moccasins"

[Frank Drackman]

and you're the poster boy

[Kazinski]

You did read that it's a press release from the organization that's suing, didn't you?

Lets lay out a commenting ground rule here: we are assuming you are sophisticated enough to read press releases from an interested party with a grain of salt.

If you aren't, please tell us.

[Kazinski]

What do you need a cite for this time?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If that's what floats their ark, I mean boat.

[Frank Drackman]

YOUR comparison is dumber!

[OtisAH]

From “unequivocally establishes” to “if true” to “it’s just a press release, dude.” Can’t wait to see what comes next.

[Kazinski]

I copied it from the press release and added quotes on the beginning and end but maybe the internal quote marks confused you.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Who gets to decide - the institution or the govt?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A freedom issue. Plus it's in the academic area. Why can't it be called academic freedom?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am not persecuted, resentful, or disaffected.

Being a member of the modern liberal-libertarian mainstream -- victor in the American culture war, resident of the right side of history, and shaper of American progress -- enables one to avoid such problems.

[Randal]

Neither, I think is the point of academic freedom.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, who gets the freedom? The institution, or someone else?

[Randal]

The academics. As in the professors and students.

[Nige]

Why would you treat the groups of people who have been brutally oppressed for a few centuries differently from the groups of people who did the oppressing in attempting to end that oppression? Baffling.

[Brett Bellmore]

Find such a group of immortal victims and oppressors, and your question might make some sense.

As it is, we're talking about people who look a bit like the long dead oppressed, and people who look a bit like the long dead victimizers, and in both cases may not even actually be related to them.

You're dedicated to a notion of collective, generational, racial guilt, and it's a remarkably dangerous notion which you should be glad the general public largely rejects. Because the implications if the public ever embraced it are pretty ugly.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is talking about guilt except you.

Lets not bring up history as context because then we all look bad, you say, a week after you argue gays are responsible for all pandemics.

[Frank Drackman]

you left out "Coach of one of the best Linebacker Corpse in College Foo-Bawl History"

[Gandydancer]

Reading comprehension: FAIL.

Brett didn't write anything resembling, "Herself is cleaner legally than I’d ever have imagined" or "Being a Democrat, the MSM just put a lot more effort into publicizing her warts than they would for a Republican like Trump".

[Gandydancer]

"In some accrediting bodies, one of the accreditation standards is that the Board of Trustees must be free from outside pressure, including legislative pressure, in making policy."

Some accrediting bodies, themselves a source of outside pressure, don't have a lot of self-awareness. Or maybe it's just hypocrisy.