Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

Lost in the crucifixion of Donald Trump has been some disturbing news -- various foreign countries have declared that the US Dollar will no longer be their reserve currency, used for trade between nations. See: https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/brazil-china-strike-trade-deal-agreement-ditch-us-dollar

If this were to happen worldwide, it would trigger hyperinflation here and a second Depression.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Sounds like the Republicans should stop pretending that they’re not gonna raise the debt-ceiling. A little patriotism, a little seriousness, a little interaction with reality, please, guys.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's a silly take.

Here, the world is concerned that we have no will at all to control our endless borrowing, and your reaction is that Republicans need to stop obstructing more borrowing, and instead facilitate borrowing more ASAP.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Refusing to raise the debt ceiling wouldn't "obstruct more borrowing". It would prevent us from paying the interest on the money we have already borrowed.

You are certainly right that we should reduce our borrowing, but the way to do that is to raise taxes. Raising taxes would also be a much better way to fight inflation (assuming you agree that we still need to fight inflation) than having the Fed raise interest rates. Raising interest rates affects startup-companies as much as (or more than) established companies and wealthy individuals. Tax-increases can be better-directed.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We pay $900B a year on debt service. How much debt service do you think is too much to pay and starts to cripple a country?

The federal government wastes tens of billions in inefficiencies, waste, fraud, and abuses. Why isn't it the duty of the government to eliminate those before asking the taxpayer to sacrifice more on its behalf?

[Kazinski]

We have to borrow money to pay the interest on the money we already borrowed?

That seems like a problem.

Maybe the hole is deep enough and we should stop digging.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is literally on a level with making the payments on your line of credit by borrowing against it, and then demanding that your line of credit be increased so you can continue to make the payments.

Then somebody suggests that you could cancel your planned Hawaii vacation, instead, and you call them insane, and claim they want you to skip your next payment to the bank.

Frankly, we jumped off the top of the Empire state building, fiscally speaking, back in '08. By 2016 we were passing the 20th floor. But when Covid hit, Congress used it as an excuse to strap on a rocket backpack and go into a vertical power dive.

Went straight from "don't need to do anything about it yet" to "it's too late, let's party down" without ever passing "time to get serious".

[Randal]

Getting serious means raising taxes.

When are you going to get serious?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Taxes can't be raised forever. Eventually you have to cut spending. That is the serious story.

[Randal]

I don't think we're anywhere close to the limit of our tax-raising ability. We haven't even raised them once.

[Gandydancer]

I guess our "ability" to raise taxes stops somewhere north of 100% of income, but maxing that is a really stupid idea.

Of course Randal has shown many times that he is a really stupid person.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Refusing to raise the debt ceiling wouldn’t “obstruct more borrowing”. It would prevent us from paying the interest on the money we have already borrowed."

I've remarked on the insanity of this statement before. We could balance the budget, including paying interest on the debt, by simply reverting to spending levels of a few years ago. We don't NEED to borrow more money to pay interest on the debt. (Aside from rolling over debt, which doesn't require raising the debt ceiling.)

We don't raise the debt ceiling to permit interest to be paid. We raise it to allow continuing to spend beyond our means.

And every time somebody on the right suggests not increasing the debt, out comes this insane claim that failing to increase the debt implies failing to pay the interest. As though just spending a bit less was utterly unthinkable.

It better be thinkable, because the signs are that it's shortly going to go from just a good idea, to utterly unavoidable.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Spending less is literally unthinkable to these people. They can't fathom a government who would seek to find efficiencies before taking from citizens, or one that would reduce fraud.

Even when they gin up their Chicken Little routine about the government "shutting down", they don't grok that only 20% of the government actually shuts down. Nor do they understand how utterly vile and evil it is of the people in government to engage in their Washington Monument Syndrome antics where the government shuts down things that are visible and harm citizens unnecessarily to inflict harm on citizens purposefully to get them to engage their politicians to relent on funding.

That is vile, evil and demonic. The Federal Government and nearly even person who serves it are doing Satans work.

[Nige]

What would have helped is if Republicans hadn't started obscenely expensive ten-year wars that ended in obscenely expensive catastrophe while unleashing new forms of conflict and terrorism across the world. Obama shouldn't have kept it going, either, of course, but there was still this idiotic deference to the idea that Republicans were grown-ups and their accusations of anti-Americanism and cowardice would have carried weight, as would the idea that there is something close to holy about the US military and ending their war prematurely would have been a kind of sacrilege. The expense of all that dwarfs almost anything else.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because Brandon's "cut & run" in Afghanistan made things so much better...

[Sarcastr0]

Yes. We shouldn't be there; we're no longer there.

Great job Biden.

[Frank Drackman]

We shouldn't be in You-Crane
We are
Great Job Sleepy

[Nige]

Trump set it up, of course, with his usual capabilities.

[Nelson]

"Because Brandon’s “cut & run” in Afghanistan made things so much better…"

Yes. 100%. Absolutely.

The DoD screwed the pooch on the withdrawl. It was a shitshow. But we should have been out of Afghanistan in 2009 and we never should have been in Iraq at all.

Getting that money pit off our balance sheet was a great thing.

[Sarcastr0]

Focusing on whether we stubbed our toe in our effort to stop continually punching ourselves in the dick for 20 years shows how the right is all reactionary not policy.

[Reallynotbob]

What's the scoreboard say on the 2017 tax breaks, again? Sheesh, "these people" are the problem.

My point is, both sides are spending too much. The finger-pointing and brinksmanship with the debt ceiling are unhelpful.

[Frank Drackman]

You can always pay more in taxes if you want

[Krayt]

As government is constitutionally required to pay its debts, interest payments are literally first in line to attach to the revenue stream, before defense, before aid to poor, before even social security.

This claim it won't be paid is fraud by politicians. It's ironic they could refuse to pay it, temporarily, but consequences from this lie at the feet of the fraudulent, overspending, corrupt, lying, self-serving bastards.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the debt ceiling concerns are just a conspiracy by every politician and economist.

Thank goodness you're here to offer you expertise.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would it have to be a conspiracy when they're doing it out in the open?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett: do you think failing to raise the debt ceiling would no cause the US to default on it's debt, but everyone is lying that they would?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think you're so much lying, as that you've got a mental fixation that prevents you from considering ever cutting spending.

Obviously, yeah, if you stop borrowing more when you're running a deficit, and you've already irrationally ruled out no longer running a deficit,, you're going to cheat your creditor. Because you've decided that the actual alternative to doing that isn't allowed to be considered.

[Sarcastr0]

You either don’t understand what the debt ceiling is, or the timing of how failing to raise it works. Did you miss the thread that’s what we are talking about?

Your inability to even attempt to understand people explaining why you are wrong is at an all time high,

[bernard11]

Even if it were possible to that, which as a practical matter it isn't, that wouldn't change things.

It would be like making your car payment and not paying the electric bill, and expecting that not to affect your credit rating.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, because we're spending enormously more than we used to, but it's all absolutely necessary, and we were just inexplicably managing without spending it before.

It's like making the car payment and paying the electric bill, and canceling the Hawaii vacation and having tuna fish casserole instead of steak.

[Sarcastr0]

Once you don’t pay that bill it doesn’t really matter about your budget otherwise, you made a dumb choice.

You would fuck America just for kicks, it wouldn’t address your personal views of fiscal policy at all.

[bernard11]

I’ve remarked on the insanity of this statement before.

There is nothing insane about it. Refusing to raise the ceiling would stop us from meeting all sorts of obligations, including interest payments. It's performative BS that threatens financial calamity because those advocating for it are too stupid to understand the consequences.

If you want to cut spending, fine. But tell us what you want to cut, and not, "waste fraud and abuse." The Republicans raising hell about the ceiling won't do that, because of the political blowback, so they throw around this crap instead.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Refusing to raise the ceiling would stop us from meeting all sorts of obligations, including interest payments."

The fundamental problem here is that you want to treat ALL current spending as obligatory. Which rules out a priori any spending cuts.

[Sarcastr0]

Still not choosing wha to cut, just preening how unthinking you want the cuts to be

[Randal]

Sure, let's cut some stuff. What do you want to cut?

But while you figure that out, let's not default.

[myself]

I’ve remarked on the insanity of this statement before. We could balance the budget, including paying interest on the debt, by simply reverting to spending levels of a few years ago. We don’t NEED to borrow more money to pay interest on the debt. (Aside from rolling over debt, which doesn’t require raising the debt ceiling.)

Fine do that.

But if you decide not to do that (as your country has done repeatedly) then you need to pay what you owe.

From what I understand of conservatism paying what you own is a pretty important principle.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're obviously not familiar with today's conservatives, their party leader being a prime example of walk away from debt and let someone else clean up the mess as long as you, personally, don't suffer.

It's why the happily spent us into oblivion first with the Iraq War and Bush tax cuts and then doubled down when they controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency with increasing deficits when they had just spent all of Obama's term saying what they are saying now.

Do not trust them.

Today's conservative only cares about deficits when Democrats might get credit for a good economy, so they do everything they can to put the pain of paying for their misadventures around the necks of Democrats. It's just slightly more seemly than Lindsay Graham begging paycheck to paycheck suckers to please dig into their pockets to help the sleazy billionaire.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Maybe your idiot friends in Congress should stop trying to cut taxes on the ultra-wealthy and de-funding the IRS - which INCREASES our debt by allowing tax cheats to get away with it.

But no - all you whine about is cutting spending.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I have yet to hear any sensible argument about cutting funding to the IRS. You really want the likes of Hunter and Don Jr. and their ilk paying taxes on the honor system? Are you out of your minds, "conservatives"?

You just want to put honest people at a disadvantage. Presumably because you've been cheating. What other reasonable explanation is there?

[Gandydancer]

(not so) Intelligent Mr Toad: "Refusing to raise the debt ceiling wouldn’t 'obstruct more borrowing'. It would prevent us from paying the interest on the money we have already borrowed."

Which -- if that were indeed the effect -- would indeed obstruct more borrowing, since folks with money don't like to loan it out to people who aren't paying the interest on their current loans.

But of course governmental income doesn't stop. Our poorly written Constitution says something about the debt of the US "not being questioned" which has been interpreted to give interest payments first claim on available government funds. And if we actually didn't raise the debt ceiling it would mean that the government parasites laid off wouldn't get catch-up payments for when they weren't working and spending would have to be cut.

[Sarcastr0]

This has nothing to do with our internal fiscal policies, Brett.

It's international politics.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sheesh. On the one hand, any time it's suggested that we can't endlessly borrow, we're told, "We're a world reserve currency, that makes things different!"

On the other hand, if it starts to look like we're going to lose that status? "This has nothing to do with our internal fiscal policies!"

[Sarcastr0]

I can't help but notice that your comment here lays out zero evidence for the causal link you're insisting on. Your first paragraph is utterly unconnected to your second.

You're arguing from ideology, not reality.

[Michael P]

Why are you such a fact-free, inconsistent denialist?

[Nelson]

"if it starts to look like we’re going to lose that status?"

Of course. Why wouldn't people trust a currency whose value can be changed, on a whim, by the Chairman of the CCP. This fantasy that the yuan is a trusted global currency that will supplant the dollar as the default is insane.

It's been less than 20 years since the yuan was pegged to the dollar. It has no inherent stability, since it is 100% subject to the political whim of the Chinese givernment in general and the Chairman specifically.

Is that something that any reasonable financial organization or company would bet their future on?

[Gandydancer]

For comparison, what is it that you imagine fixes the value of the US dollar?

[Nelson]

The dollar is stable because no one person (or even a group of people) can arbitrarily change its value. It is changed by policy (especially Fed policies like quantitative easing and quantitative tightening), but no one can say, "The dollar is now worth X.".

That's why it is trusted. That's why it's the world's reserve currency.

The yuan is the exact opposite. If Xi wanted to, he could make it worth $5 on Monday, $.50 on Tuesday, and $3.27 on Wednesday. No one trusts a currency that can be so easily manipulated.

[Jmaie]

The dollar's loss of supremacy doesn't require replacement by the yuan. It only requires regular purchases in other than dolllars...

[Nelson]

The dollar's "supremacy" will be dependent on what companies and countries who don't use their own currency will insist on using. China will require the yuan, Russia the ruble, America the dollar, and the EU the euro. But what will two countries who don't have stable currencies use? As long as the dollar remains a stable, predictable, and trusted currency, it will be the supreme currency in the world. But that isn't the important aspect.

The dollar is also the world's default *reserve* currency. This is a completely different thing than what currency third parties choose to use for trade. A reserve currency is the one that central banks hold in reserve. Trillions of dollars are held in the central banks of the most of the developed world and a good percentage of emerging countries.

A country can't just drop the dollar and pick up another currency. They would have to convert all of those dollars into another currency, not a cheap process. So unless there is a very, very, very good reason to do so, most won't stop using the dollar as their majority (or even sole) reserve currency.

[bernard11]

On the one hand, any time it’s suggested that we can’t endlessly borrow, we’re told, “We’re a world reserve currency, that makes things different!”

Well, the point is that we borrow in our own currency. That's not going to change any time soon. Unless the GOP wrecks our credit rating.

[Gandydancer]

Yeah, the GOP is the only threat to our credit rating.

Uniparty deficit spending has nothing to do with it.

And there's no connection whatsoever between the dollar being used as a reserve by other countries and our ability to sell Treasuries ad nauseum. In bernard-world.

What's the color of the sky there?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This has nothing to do with our internal fiscal policies, Brett.

It’s international politics."

Huh? The two can't be related? What a terrible argument.

[Gandydancer]

When our "internal fiscal policies" can be predicted with confidence to debase the currency other countries' willingness to hold reserves must obviously decrease. Your evidence that down is up is conspicuously absent and your demand that others prove the obvious is accordingly risible in the extreme.

[bernard11]

First, you've never understood the debt ceiling issue, and still don't.

Second, I'm not sure what the panic over this is about. China is Brazil's largest trading partner, so Brazil is going to trade with them in yuan. Big deal.

It doesn't mean the world is abandoning the dollar as the reserve currency, though certainly, over time the dollar's share of transactions will decline.

[Gandydancer]

And China and India etc. now buy oil in rubles.

I don't know what you think "abandoning the dollar as the reserve currency" means, but clearly it's wrong.

[Nelson]

"And China and India etc. now buy oil in rubles."

Only from Russia. From everyone else (like, say, OPEC), they buy oil in dollars.

Also, that's not what a reserve currency is. You seem ignorant as to what a global reserve currency is. Here is a primer so you can learn: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reservecurrency.asp

Hint: It's about what currencies the various central banks hold in reserve, not what companies use to buy things from other companies. Hence the name.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Putin and Xi take your feelings into account when they make decisions—because the world revolves around you!

[bernard11]

No, Brett. It's actually the right take.

The Republican idiocy is in fact a danger to US economic standing, and the dollar. It threatens to increase interest rates, among other things.

That happened the last time they started playing those games.

[Gandydancer]

You are a loon.

[Frank Drackman]

Or both sides could do like most responsible peoples do, pay their bill

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll grant that neither party at the federal level is responsible. Once borrowing money to buy votes became acceptable, any politician unwilling to do it got outbid for those votes, and lost their office.

So basically EVERYBODY at the federal level is going to be glad to deficit spend, because if they weren't willing, they'd be someplace else. The just argue about what to spend the borrowed money on.

It's a classic failure mode for democracies.

[Frank Drackman]

Remember on the Sopranos when JT Dolan didn't pay Christopher for his gambling debts, and was sort of a dick about it? Thats what needs to happen to almost every one of the 535 (with a few exceptions, Rand Paul, MTG, AOC)
No, I don't want them beat up by 2 Goom-bahs, just make them sell the Porsche, take Greyhound if you want to travel back to their district, and get my with as many staffmembers as I do (zero) and I make more than any Congressman/Senator, that's what TurboTax and MS Word are for.
OK, might take a few Goombahs to get the point across

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

No catastrophizing. Japan is way more in debt than we are and thus far no dire effects.

I’m not saying we should ignore the debt, but the 1990s cries of a debt apocalypse did not come to pass.

Turns out it was a sop for austerity spending all along. The anxiety of the 1990 you adopted is overblown. It’s an issue, but not top of the list, and not requiring drastic cuts now.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Decades of stagnation, no biggie.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

But you got what you wanted—a Jesus lover as president that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims. So it all worked out! Except if the top tax rate were just 35% as the Jesus lover wanted the economy would be so much better!

[Nelson]

"Decades of stagnation, no biggie."

Stagnation? In the US economy? What are you talking about?

With the exception of the recessions during Reagan (huge), George HW Bush (small), George W Bush (biggest), and Biden (small) Presidencies and isolated quarters during Obama (plus two after 9/11, which wasn't Bush 43's fault), real GDP has grown, uninterrupted, since 1980. The trend line has been positive since 1947.

Do you just say any crazy thing that pops into your head without making even the smallest attempt to find out if it's true?

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/economic-growth-rate

[Gandydancer]

Are you really so dumb that you didn't notice that “Decades of stagnation, no biggie” was a response to "JAPAN is way more in debt than we are and thus far no dire effects"?

As to the supposed absence of stagnation of the US economy, gross and faked GDP numbers are not what counts for most people. And if you think it will continue, to be, or is even now, plausible to assert that the Biden crash-and-burn is "small"... nah, you're a loon.

[Nelson]

You are correct. I read that as a comment about the US, not Japan.

[Nelson]

"gross and faked GDP numbers are not what counts for most people"

Faked GDP numbers? What are you talking about? GDP is measured the same way year after year. How would they be "faked"?

"plausible to assert that the Biden crash-and-burn is “small”… nah, you’re a loon."

Yes, I remember how, according to conservatives, the Obama economy was terrible and then, suddenly, the exact same numbers during the Trump economy were booming.

Like Obama, Biden started his Presidency with a disastrous economy. Granted, Obama's was due to Bush's crappy supply-side economic policies and Biden's was due to the pandemic in the last year of Trump's Presidency. But like Obama, Biden has overseen a strong, stable economy. Unemployment is low. Even with rampant inflation, corporate profits remain strong.

As of right now, the only two quarters that were negative were Q1 2022 (-1.6%) and Q2 2022 (-0.6%). By any reasonable standard, that is small.

I know that conservatives believe that the economy is bad when a Democrat is in the White House and good when a Republican is President, but data just doesn't support that belief.

If you think this economy is so terrible, show the data. GDP, corporate profits, wages, consumer debt, unemployment ... bring some macroeconomic support for your beliefs. If things are so terrible, it shouldn't be hard.

[Brett Bellmore]

What you're calling "austerity" is just not adding shaved truffles on top of the filet. At our standard of living, we can't even SEE austerity from where we are.

AGAIN, I point out: There hasn't been a point in the last half century where we couldn't have balanced the budget, including debt payments, by just reverting to inflation adjusted per capita spending levels of a few years earlier. Were we in the depths of hideous austerity in 2019? Because that's the spending level that would balance the budget today.

Yes, Japan is deeper in dept than we are. Surprisingly, you can survive being deep in debt if you spend the money on sensible things, instead of frivolous waste. It's still not a good place to be.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, I read your responses in this thread. Practically speaking, what alternative do we have here to raising the debt ceiling? Team R did the brinksmanship thing with Obama...with mixed results. It would seem we are headed to the same place: a shutdown, with some sequestration in place.

For the investor, Japan has been a spectacularly bad investment for the last three decades. High debt constrains growth. That is the lesson I take away. For the average Japanese retiree, live has not been a bed of roses.

To me, the danger to us is the prospect of low returns for decades. If you think pension funds are stressed now, imagine then. Inflation now is high, relative to historical averages.

So the question is: What do you advocate doing?

I take it you would roll all spending back to 2019 levels. Do you roll back SSA benefits? What to do about Medicare advantage payments? Is it really that simple, Brett?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it actually IS that simple. Seriously, it is. Things were not horrific in 2019. Cap total spending at 2019 levels on a per capita, inflation adjusted basis, then let spending priorities compete on a zero sum basis. We could balance the budget tomorrow, if we did that.

You know, they say that, "For every problem, there's a solution that's simple, clear, and wrong."

But that's often a lie. The truth is, there's often a solution that's simple, clear and unpleasant.

Like, you're overweight, you don't want to accept that, yes, it actually IS as simple as eating less and exercising more. But that answer is simple, clear, and correct. It's just not what you want to hear.

This is not to say that I think it's going to happen. As a country, we lack the will to balance the budget, not the capacity to. Or, to put it more accurately, we have the will, but the way democracy functions it can't be brought to bear on the problem, because any politician who would seriously attempt to gets picked off.

You need something that changes that dynamic, an opportunity for the public to decide, directly, on just that one question: Are we going to do it? Then, having taken continuing to get deeper into debt off the table, arriving at how to do it becomes solvable by normal political dynamics.

We need a balanced budget amendment, basically, the way states are largely restricted from endless deficit financing.

But it's only going to come from a constitutional convention, the will to do it isn't in Congress.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, that's not a viable solution. It's both cruel and a political non-starter.

It is also far from the only solution.

Have you heard of taxes?

[Brett Bellmore]

How the hell is it "cruel" to revert to spending levels of four years ago? You want to explain that? Again, I ask, was the US a dystopian nightmare four years ago?

And how the hell is it NOT cruel to just hike taxes, instead?

[Absaroka]

"Have you heard of taxes?"

Every April, in fact 🙂

Have a look at Table 1.3, which is "Table 1.3—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) in Current Dollars, Constant (FY 2012) Dollars, and as Percentages of GDP: 1940–2028".

In constant 2012 dollars spending has increased about 27% since 2019. That's an inflation adjusted number - we are actually buying 27% more stuff than in 2019. This isn't a pandemic bump; the projections say that increased level of spending will continue as far as the projections go.

The percent of GDP numbers are also up about 20%.

I think Brett's point needs a more careful rebuttal than he is getting - was 2019 so bad it's unthinkable to live at that level? I'm old enough to remember 2019 🙂 and I don't remember it as a dystopian nightmare.

[Sarcastr0]

QA - the New Deal shows how not doing that is pretty awful; caring for the fallen is a baseline duty of society.

And what Brett wants is worse - to take away support people currently have. Yeah, that's cruel.

[Sarcastr0]

Abrasoka - I don't think Brett's knee-jerk austerity pitch needs a more careful engagement. Our population has grown, our economy is shakier, contractionary economic policies have huge individual effects. It's an awful idea, come up with via ideology not economics, and would have bad results.

In the 1990s we grew our way out of our debt as much as cut. And our cuts were carefully negotiated, not anything like the simplistic take Brett has.

Taxes, growth, targeted cuts on chosen areas, that's the way to do it. But first we need to get ourselves out of our current partisan thicket. That'll happen, in time; the pendulum will swing away from empty populism in time. And then we can think about our fiscal policy.
I think we have time. I'm optimistic.

[Sarcastr0]

QA - the issue with your analogy is that you are presumably one among many supporting the shelter - some churn is going to be fine.

The government is in a much more singular position, supporting many programs all by itself.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, you're assuming that ALL the spending is existentially important. If that's the case, how the hell were we getting by without it for most of the nation's history?

Current spending levels are utterly unprecedented outside of the context of WWII. Any claim that we can't cut spending is facially absurd.

[Sarcastr0]

you’re assuming that ALL the spending is existentially important.

No, I'm not. In the comment you replied to I talked about spending cuts as an element of balancing the budget.

But your plan is as awful as they come. Your '2019 levels lets not worry about where' and 'lets fuck with the debt ceiling' is childlike in it's inability to deal with reality being messy.

You're so far out there, you don't care about reality or politics on this issue. You're just a doomsayer, asking us all to repent.

[Sarcastr0]

QA - I'm going to move this conversation down to a fresh thread; it's interesting and I don't want it lost in this comment hole we're in.

[Life of Brian]

Our population has grown

Our population has grown a whopping 1% since 2019. Barely a rounding error in the context of this discussion.

our economy is shakier, contractionary economic policies have huge individual effects

This sort of unmoored handwaving can't possibly justify a sustained 20+% spending bump.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair pout on the population, LoB. I hadn't checked that number, just assumed.

[Michael P]

"I didn't check my asserted facts, I just assumed" is S_0's commenting style in a nutshell.

[Gandydancer]

Queenie: "What’s the cost of living increase from 2019 to 2022 Bri Bri? Sources say it’s about 20%"

Brett, previously: "There hasn’t been a point in the last half century where we couldn’t have balanced the budget, including INFLATION ADJUSTED per capita spending levels of a few years earlier."

[bernard11]

We need a balanced budget amendment,

A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea. Just fucking terrible. It might not be worse than going on the gold standard - I'm not sure - but it would be bad.

[Gandydancer]

We should absolutely go back on a gold standard.

We've seen where fiat currency leads, and it's into the pit.

[Nige]

'is just not adding shaved truffles on top of the filet'

Poor people barely exist for Republicans, unless they're homeless, in which case they become vermin.

[Gandydancer]

So in the (D) cities they so infest they’re pets?

Where's the SPCA when you need it?

[Nige]

QED

[OtisAH]

We had a budget surplus when Dubya entered office. The budget surplus was presented as proof that taxes were too high. Then deficits started growing with a big helping hand given by putting two wars on the credit card. Obama took down big chunks of our deficits through policy. Then Turnip came in and we all learned that taxes were still too high so we gave wealthy people a permanent tax cut. The deficits soared.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush is the worst president in history. We know it took decades to recover from the 4 years of the second worst president in history, Buchanan. We spent $5 trillion dollars and sacrificed 7000 of our best and brightest to save a few hundred Americans on the homeland and then 20 years later China unleashed a bioweapon that has killed over a million Americans.

[Gandydancer]

Lincoln was the worst president in American history.

Then maybe LBJ.

[David Nieporent]

I can see why ending slavery would upset you.

[Nelson]

Yes, the President who saved the United States was terrible.

I sense there may be a reason the two Presidents who benefitted African Americans the most are "the worst" in your estimation.

[Kazinski]

But you are overlooking the huge difference in how Japan finances it's debt and how we are. Virtually all of Japans debt is held domestically.

Both Japan and China each hold over a Trillion in US debt.

[Sarcastr0]

First, you went from a proportion for China to an absolute number for the US. That was a tell - I looked it up and whaddya know: " $24.6 trillion held by the public and $6.9 trillion in intragovernmental debt." Bit of a lie with stats, there.

Second, explain why that difference matters?

[Kazinski]

It matters when the debt is owed to the same people responsible for paying it.

But I do have to admit it's much worse when you are borrowing money in foreign exchange.

When we get to the point that we have to borrow in Yen, Pesos, or Euros to finance the debt then we will be truly fucked because we won't be able to inflate our way out.

[Absaroka]

"I’m not saying we should ignore the debt, but the 1990s cries of a debt apocalypse did not come to pass."

The latter part of the 1990's was a rare area of ... budget surpluses.

But, you don't see any cause for concern in this graph?

[Absaroka]

Or this one?. No sense that maybe we are sailing into uncharted waters? You have high confidence nothing bad will happen? You have a plan for what to do the next time we want to increase spending a lot to ward off a recession/combat a pandemic/fight a war?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm speaking from memory, but there were billboards, and commercials, and news about the debt.

And then it went away. No, not by some simple 'cut all the things' like Brett thought, but it did go away.

And then, of course, GWB brought it back. And the same politicians and economists and media and everyone were silent. Until Obama, when they tried to start it back up again but no one bought their nonsense as anything more than an excuse to attack entitlements.

Now we are in an era where some of the old righties are still stuck in that vein. But most of America is not debt hawks. Not Modern Monetary Theory people, but who think we have plenty of runway left before the effects become noticeable, much less a crisis.

[Frank Drackman]

The Debt never "went away" it just went down a little bit circa 2000.
Then "W" came in, "Mission Accomplished" (if the Mission was to make sure no more surpluses ) Medicare Rx Plan, blahsey blahsey blahsey.
And Amazingly Barry Hussein did the same thing, just invading Afhanistan instead of Ear-Rock, Free medical insurance for almost everyone,
and yes, even my hero "45" didn't cut spending, you may remember something called "Covid"

and Senescent Joe's just more of the same,

Frank

[Absaroka]

It went away because ... we balanced the budget.

(FWIW, not a partisan issue IMHO. I like to joke we get to choose between tax and spend dems and don't tax and spend repubs. But the fiscal reality that there is only so much GDP to spend)

(I'm also hearing the faint echo from couple of years ago when you were all 'there is no evidence all this spending will trigger inflation' ... color me skeptical about that :-))

[Sarcastr0]

I talk below about what goes into balancing the budget. It is *not* empty calls to just lower spending.

I think if you look at other countries, we are not in uncharted waters. Though that doesn't mean we should ignore it; I also think national spending is not one of the problems we can solve in the current populist political juncture.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, no, we did not balance the budget. We had a primary surplus, which is the sort of surplus you only care about if you’re planning on stiffing your creditors.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, show some sources for your claim Clinton didn't have a budget surplus because debt servicing was not considered part of government spending.

Because I've been looking for anyone saying that, and no finding it. I think you're wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

US public debt by year

[Brett Bellmore]

And a more detailed discussion from the Treasury.

[bernard11]

Brett,

Look at the chart in your link to the Treasury.

Notice that in the 1990's the black line - revenues - rose, and exceeded the blue line - total spending including interest - by the end of the decade.

[Brett Bellmore]

“The latter part of the 1990’s was a rare area of … budget surpluses.”

Nope. Didn’t happen. What we had is something that’s called a “primary surplus”, which is to say, there would have been surpluses if not for the expense of paying interest on the debt. “Primary” surpluses are fake, counter-factual surpluses, not real ones. Only the government raves about them, in the private sector nobody cares if you've got a primary surplus, because they know that interest on your debt is an actual expense that has to be accounted for.

And, how did we get there? Think back: We had the dot.com boom boosting revenues rapidly at a time when the administration and Congress were at each other’s throats, in the midst of an impeachment battle. So they couldn’t agree on how to spend the extra loot, and the actual deficit, while it didn’t remotely go to zero, at least declined.

So, Congress and the President locked in mortal combat, I’m cool with that. But how do we arrange for an economic bubble, and it never popping?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, we paid down principle on the debt as well. Out actual debt to GDP ratio dropped.

And no, it wasn't on the back of the dot com boom; your timeline is off, and the boom wasn't that big.

Are you just making this shit up? Do you have some awful ideological source? This is as naked an example of historical revisionism as I've seen.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, you're hallucinating on a ChatGPT level here. The debt went up every single year of the Clinton administration. Sure, the debt to GDP ratio is going to drop in an economic boom, that doesn't mean the debt actually got paid down.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't can't verify your number because no one uses it.

You're ignoring the number everyone pays attention to in order to highlight a number no one uses.

Use the functional number, Brett! Not some deep cut with no practical upshot just because you want to catastrophize.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, you're going with "the actual size of the debt isn't a real number, and I can't look it up"?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm going with use the number that matters, Brett.

I think I found the 2016 Kevin D. Williamson National Review piece you're basing this on, and...you may want to check some other sources.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/05/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-economy-1990s-ronald-reagan-george-h-w-bush/

I see no evidence elsewhere the Clinton surplus was only a primary surplus. And then it goes off on some other...weird places.

If a story aligns with your narrative so closely it seems amazing...*check other sources*

[Absaroka]

FWIW, I looked at Table 7.1 from the previously linked page of OMB data. It's true the debt went up every single year from 1940 to present in nominal dollars. But in constant dollars, which I think is more useful, the debt was flat in 1997-1999, and actually dropped a couple of percent in 2000 and 2001, before starting a rapid climb again.

So you are both right - the debt did drop a tad - a couple of percent - in real terms, but not in nominal terms.

I also don't think it's hugely useful to try and assign too much budgetary blame/credit to presidential administrations. One reason is that while El Presidente has a big bully pulpit, spending and taxes are actually set by congress. Another is that presidents have to deal with the recessions/wars/pandemics as they come. I mean, I'm happy, for example to blame Trump for Stimulus #2 and Biden for #3, because they both advocated for those programs, even if congress actually enacted them. But if McCain had won in 2008, given the economy at the time, I think he would have been advocating a lot of spending, just like Obama did. And Trump was probably right to do Stimulus #1, given what the pandemic was doing to the economy at the time.

[Martinned]

@absaroka: That's indeed the illiterate thing about this whole discussion. Congress may set tax rates, but no one in Washington is able to decide the $tn amount of taxes that the Federal government receives ahead of time, because that is the net effect of countless other factors that the government doesn't control.

[Gandydancer]

Liar0: “Brett, we paid down principle on the debt as well.”

There is no way to define your way out of this being a lie. The number “amount owed” goes up every year.

And that's not even counting the unrecognized but real obligations.

[Sarcastr0]

You are a moron with zero content only unsupported Neo Confederate statements and insults, I don’t know why I unmuted you

[bernard11]

Nope. Didn’t happen.

Yes. It did.

Look at your chart.

[Gandydancer]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

[apedad]

Every state has debts too so not sure why you're harping on just the feds.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/debt-by-state

[Brett Bellmore]

The WORST state has about $11k of public debt per capita, and a debt to GDP ratio of about 20%. The average state is much better off than that.

The federal government has $90k of public debt per capita, and a 129% debt to GDP ratio.

So, yes, states do find ways to evade constitutional prohibitions on deficit spending, but the scale of the problem is microscopic at the state level compared to the federal level.

[Martinned]

Well yes, because anything that creates a need for (risk of) deficit spending has been kicked over to Washington. Reading the constitution, you'd think that the welfare state would be state-level. But it isn't, so the states aren't going to end up with the downsides of that either.

[bernard11]

a 129% debt to GDP ratio.

97% per the Treasury report.

[Commenter_XY]

Either number is a very high number. Unsustainable in the long term.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know that's true. Remember, national debt is not credit card debt.

[Commenter_XY]

If high debt to GDP were a good thing, Mugabe would be a visionary and Zimbabwe a model of fiscal rectitude.

[Nelson]

LOL! Well played, sir!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

a 129% debt to GDP ratio.

97% per the Treasury report.

"It's not 6.5x that of the average state...it's only 5x!"

You sure destroyed his point.

[Gandydancer]

“97% per the Treasury report.”

My replies aren’t showing up. Apologies if this is a duplicate. But, it’s 122% per the IMF.

https://www.worldeconomics.com/Debt/United%20States.aspx

[OtisAH]

All I will add to today’s version of this exact same discussion is that raising the debt ceiling is what allows us to borrow the money necessary to pay our bills. As we permanently slash tax rates for the wealthy, and occasionally add temporary short-term tax relief to everyone else like in 2017-2020, revenues go down. When revenues go down we need to borrow more to pay our bills. And the need to borrow more money triggers the need to increase the debt ceiling. Now I return you to your regularly scheduled stupid,

[Sarcastr0]

I’ve been monitoring. Saudi Arabian rhetoric. Some Indian banking regs for specific countries in specific sectors. Brazil and China in a bilateral agreement.

Maybe this is how we lose our status as a reserve currency. But right now this is weak momentum and not much of a story.

It is certainly not happening because of our debt or the debt ceiling. One good way to keep it from spreading is not to be protectionist isolationist so China can’t come to Africa and Latin America as easily.

[Dr. Ed 2]

China is spending a lot in Africa and that could come back to haunt them.

[M L]

It is much of a story, but I agree it is weak momentum at this point.

You are certainly wrong about debt. Our spending is a major factor in the value and reserve status of the currency.

[apedad]

". . . the crucifixion of Donald Trump. . . . "

Cult worship is soooooooooooo 1970s.

Although when was Heaven's Gate; mid 1990s?

[Frank Drackman]

Don't remember, was that before or after Barry Hussein parted the Red Sea.

[Krychek_2]

Who is Barry Hussein and when did he part the Red Sea?

[Frank Drackman]

“this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."~~Barack Obama upon winning the Democratic nomination for presidency conveys his thinking of what that means ....for the world, Tuesday, JUNE 03, 2008”

― Barack Obama
tags: oceans-heal-obamaRead more quotes from Bar

[Krychek_2]

Frank, many here have suspected you don't have a good grasp on the difference between reality and fantasy. Thank you for confirming those suspicions.

[Gandydancer]

Correcting you, what he actually confirmed is that B. Hussein didn't have a good grasp on the difference between reality and fantasy.

[Krychek_2]

I very much doubt that "B. Hussein" ever claimed to have parted the Red Sea.

[Krychek_2]

The real problem is that the American people want a big-spending government but they're not willing to be taxed for it. Period, full stop. And no, that's not sustainable, but it's political reality.

[shawn_dude]

Weeellll… not quite but close. They’re constantly being told by the GOP that their taxes are too high and the solution to having more to spend is lower taxes. It’s magical thinking, I know, but a significant number of voters have bought into the lie that it has taken on a life of its own. If the GOP were to start being more honest about it, the public would largely shrug it off and not care so much. Keeping in mind, of course, that the majority of high taxes wouldn’t be paid by the majority of the voters anyway. It’s the wealthy that pay those taxes but somehow the GOP has made that a rallying cry for the blue collar middle class.

[Gandydancer]

As opposed to the (D) magical thinking is that there’s no amount of spending that’s too much if you just tax harder.

[Krychek_2]

Has any Democrat ever said that there's no amount of spending that's too much if you only tax harder?

[shawn_dude]

High tax states like California and New York have some of the strongest economies in the country.

[Martinned]

If this were to happen worldwide, it would trigger hyperinflation here and a second Depression.

Care to share your workings on that one?

[John F. Carr]

This has become a perennial cry of "wolf" – if the U.S. does something assertive the world will abandon the dollar.

After a three decade pause to experiment with unity the world is returning to factions. We thought we could make Russia and China nice places by being nice to them. We were wrong. Clinton has recently expressed regret over persuading Ukraine to give its nuclear weapons to that good-hearted neighbor Russia.

[Gandydancer]

Ukraine didn't have a choice -- "its" nukes were already under the control of what was already the Russian military. And it was even less competitive militarily then with Russia than it is now.
\
And, yes, exporting US industrial production to China may have been being "nice" to them (though it did stick China with a lot of soon-to-be-near-worthless dollars), but nice-to-Russia didn't happen in this universe.

[Randal]

Imagine the US had no debt. First of all, we'd be a third-world country, having failed to invest in, well, anything. But that aside, the very first thing we'd do is... go into debt! We get amazing interest rates. It would be absolutely insane not to take advantage of them.

Y'all sound like the guy with good credit and a great job, but who's still paying rent to their mom and living in her basement rather than take out a 3% mortgage because of debt-phobia.

Debt can be a fucking good investment.

So the question is, what's the right amount of debt? I don't know, but no one here seems to either. This whole thread is nonsense.

[Gandydancer]

You think the US isn't a third world country because of US GOVERNMENT "INVESTMENT"????

Moron.

[Randal]

It's one of the reasons, obviously.

Winning the second world war, winning the cold war, being a superpower…. those all required US government investment funded by debt.

[not guilty]

Since Donald Trump was indicted in Manhattan, there has been discussion of whether the trial judge will or should issue a gag order prohibiting or restricting communications with the media. A gag order is a prior restraint upon speech, and as such, bears a heavy presumption of invalidity under the First Amendment.

My research is not exhaustive, but it appears that New York law provides that extrajudicial statements of attorneys may be subject to prior restraint by a trial court upon a demonstration that such statements present a "reasonable likelihood" of a serious threat to a defendant's right to a fair trial. National Broadcasting Co. v. Cooperman, 116 A.D.2d 287, 292, 501 N.Y.S.2d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). However, a trial court may not impose prior restraints upon attorneys and other participants in a trial without the requisite showing of a necessity for such restraint and a determination that less restrictive alternatives would not be just as effective in assuring the defendant a fair trial. Id., at 293.

Federal courts have differed as to the threshold showing required to support a gag order. The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2000), summarized a split of authority:

In Gentile [v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991),] the Supreme Court merely approved Nevada's "substantial likelihood [of material prejudice"] standard when applied to gag orders imposed on attorneys, but did not mandate it as a constitutional minimum necessary to justify a judicially-imposed restriction on attorney speech. Moreover, neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has articulated a standard to apply when evaluating gag orders directed at attorney or non-attorney trial participants. Our sister circuits have not reached a consensus on this question. The Fourth and Tenth Circuits have held that a trial court may restrict extrajudicial comments by trial participants, including lawyers, parties, and witnesses, based on a determination that those comments present a "reasonable likelihood" of prejudicing a fair trial. See In re Russell, 726 F.2d 1007, 1010 (4th Cir. 1984); United States v. Tijerina, 412 F.2d 661, 666-67 (10th Cir. 1969). The Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have applied more stringent tests, requiring either a showing of "clear and present danger" or "serious and imminent threat" of prejudicing a fair trial. See [United States v.] Ford, 830 F.2d [596,] 600-02 [(6th Cir. 1987)] ("clear and present danger"); Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242, 249 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied sub nom. Cunningham v. Chicago Council of Lawyers, 96 S.Ct. 3201 (1976) ("serious and imminent threat"); Levine [v. United States Dist. Court,] 764 F.2d [590,] 596 [9th (Cir. 1985)] "clear and present danger").

[Footnotes omitted.] The Fifth Circuit in Brown concluded that a district court may impose an appropriate gag order on parties and/or their lawyers if it determines that extrajudicial commentary by those individuals would present a "substantial likelihood" of prejudicing the court's ability to conduct a fair trial. 218 F.3d at 427.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who on the DA's team will be held accountable for leaking information about the indictment?

[Frank Drackman]

Puddin' Tane

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Has it been established the prosecution leaked information?

Or is that just more grievance and sputtering from disaffected losers?

[Frank Drackman]

OK, it's not as established as the guilt of Jerry Sandusky,
but it's in the "ballpark"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who else could have leaked it?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One obvious prospect: Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think they leaked it before they saw it?

lmao good one.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you have a transcript of the communication(s) by which prosecutors informed the defense attorney(s) of the true bill?

How did the defense attorneys, in your judgment, know when and where to show up with the defendant if the true bill was sealed at the time of the arraignment?

The grand jurors also could have been reporters' sources.

[David Nieporent]

A grand juror, obviously.

[Dan Schiavetta]

We’ve never had a criminal defendant talk like Trump did at that post indictment speech — and after being specifically asked by the judge to cool it.

[Frank Drackman]

Well this isn't Roosh-a, is this Roosh-a?
And 45's innocent until proven guility, so there's that
and is the Judge really unbiased? Contributing to Sleepy-J's 0-20 cam-pain? I like "45" and I didn't send any $$.
And just maybe the Judge holds a little grudge that he isn't eligible to be POTUS.

[not guilty]

"We’ve never had a criminal defendant talk like Trump did at that post indictment speech — and after being specifically asked by the judge to cool it."

I suspect that Judge Merchan gave an informal admonition to see whether alternatives less restrictive than a gag order would be as effective in assuring the defendant a fair trial. If not, Trump may face sterner measures in the future.

[Frank Drackman]

Judge must think he's in his native Colombia, we don't do things that way here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why would this judge expect Trump to be reasonable?

He should have asked Trump to explain that "baseball bat" stunt, in detail and on the record, and then decided how to address it.

[Frank Drackman]

Baseball Opening Day was only a few days away, and everyone knows "45" is a big Baseball fan, unlike that Waterhead Senescent J

[Kazinski]

Well why should Trump cool it?

I hope nobody is going to deny the only purpose of these charges is political. If there was real wrongdoing, these wouldn't be the charges being brought.

And the only response to political charges to silence someone is to keep talking, and talk louder.

[Sarcastr0]

I hope nobody is going to deny the only purpose of these charges is political.

Yeah, I'll deny it. Dunno how the trial will shake out, but it seems a pretty good example of a chargeable white collar crime. Former Presidents are not above the law.

Asking everyone to agree with you by acclimation is not going to cut it, Kaz.

[Life of Brian]

but it seems a pretty good example of a chargeable white collar crime

Weirdly, whether something is "chargeable" does not speak to the purpose for bringing that charge.

[Sarcastr0]

You and Kaz can delve into telepathy; I'll stay in reality.

[Life of Brian]

Thank goodness we have tools other than telepathy for judging someone's motivations!

[OtisAH]

The reasons for not charging the 34 felony counts of business and financial fraud are what?

[Life of Brian]

34 felony counts of business and financial fraud

Do you truly believe this? Or do you just really badly want to?

[OtisAH]

You’re suggesting there are not 34 counts of business and financial fraud? Or is this just your way of dodging my request for reasons they should not be charged?

[Life of Brian]

34 counts of business and financial fraud

I see you quietly deleted the word "felony" from this rendition, Otis. Temporary finger paralysis?

[OtisAH]

Okay, so it is your way of dodging my request for reasons to not charge them. No surprise.

[Life of Brian]

If they're not felonies, they can't be charged at all. Keep dancing.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/and-so-it-begins-first-charges-drop-against-former-president-donald-trump

In his press conference following Trump’s arraignment, Bragg explained that New York state law does not require that his office identify the specific underlying offenses in the indictment. That said, he described three separate provisions of law that his office believes Trump had the requisite intent to violate, or which he had the intent to aid or conceal the violation. And while Bragg did not connect the dots in his remarks, each appears to relate to certain allegations laid out in the indictment and associated statement of facts.

The first provision identified by Bragg is a New York state election law provision that makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. Though neither the indictment nor Bragg identify it specifically, this is almost certainly New York Election Law § 17-152, which concisely states: "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

The second legal provision that Bragg pointed to is the limit that federal election law places on individual campaign contributions. While Bragg did not say as much in his remarks, this is almost certainly in relation to the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels by Cohen.

The third provision involves tax law, specifically obligations to properly report taxable income. Once again, this most likely relates to Cohen, as the statement of facts goes into some detail as to how Trump, Weisselberg, and Cohen agreed to structure the repayment of the $130,000 Cohen paid to Stormy Daniels to minimize tax consequences.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sarcasto -- notwithstanding whatever NY law says, the 6th Amendment guarantees "the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation", and Buckley v. Valero guarantees the right to give as much as you wish to your own campaign.

[Absaroka]

"Trump, Weisselberg, and Cohen agreed to structure the repayment of the $130,000 Cohen paid to Stormy Daniels to minimize tax consequences."

Is that illegal? The details I have seen are:

"In addition to the $130,000 that Cohen paid Daniels, Trump and the Trump Organization also reimbursed Cohen $50,000 for a separate charge he had made, and that $180,000 amount was then doubled to $360,000, because Trump assumed Cohen would have to pay 50% income tax on the payments."

IANATaxL but why would the "then doubled to $360,000, because Trump assumed Cohen would have to pay 50% income tax on the payments" illegal?

[Life of Brian]

IANATaxL but why would the “then doubled to $360,000, because Trump assumed Cohen would have to pay 50% income tax on the payments” illegal?

It's a brave new world we live in when OVERreporting your taxable income and OVERpaying your taxes is prosecutable as some ill-defined flavor of tax fraud.

[Sarcastr0]

Very much out of my area as well, Abrasoka. The linked article has this analysis:
"While Bragg suggested in his press briefing that this primarily related to New York state tax law, the statement of facts suggests that both federal and state tax law obligations could be implicated, as the structuring of the repayment effectively misrepresented Cohen’s amount of income for the purposes of both."

Ed, the government does not need to lay it's plan to try the case out to the defense under the 6A. And Trump doesn't get to lie (or cause someone else to lie) about his spending; Buckley did not cancel the crime of fraud.

[shawn_dude]

Trump paying Cohen back plus extra for a $130K campaign contribution made by Cohen is not "giv[ing] as much as you wish to your own campaign." It wasn't Cohen's campaign, for starters, and the structured payments were designed to conceal the donation, which starts to look more like money laundering than legal giving.

[David Nieporent]

Sarcasto — notwithstanding whatever NY law says, the 6th Amendment guarantees “the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”, and Buckley v. Valero guarantees the right to give as much as you wish to your own campaign.

There is no such case.

[Gandydancer]

Valeo, of course. Just highlight the name and hit search and the correct spelling pops right up. Is your Google broken?

[David Nieporent]

I know full well what case he meant. He continually gets it wrong, which means it's almost certain that he hasn't actually read it.

[Life of Brian]

"Who cares if he accurately described the holding of the case, Your Honor -- he flubbed one of the names. I win, right?"

- DMN

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump and Clinton both cheated on their wives, Clinton had a full-fledged "Bimbo Eruption" team.

Cohen was Trump's lawyer, Cohen said he would take care of things legally (he lied, and that's why he's disbarred) and Cohen sent Trump bills which Trump paid. Where is the crime here?

There are court filing fees and such whenever Trump sues someone and those would be paid by his lawyer and then billed to him. Is that a crime as well?

And notice what is NOT being charged -- the practice of buying stories from the National Enquirer and killing them. Could it be that someone realized that it would be rather embarrassing for Trump to reveal how many other people had done the same thing -- and weren't charged with anything?

This is -- at most -- an accounting error. Something the IRS would have said he did wrong and tell him to fix it, but they didn't even do that. So the NY DA went through Trump's tax returns and declared something that the IRS had accepted as legitimate to be crimes.

(Question: Can Trump subpoena the IRS to testify at his trial? If the IRS says your tax return was legal, it kinda impeaches the credibility of the DA to say it wasn't....)

[Nige]

‘Where is the crime here?’

Pretty sure it’s still a crime if you get your lawyer to do it for you.

It's a bit crazy that Trump is viewed as anti-elite when he was casually and repeatedly able to do one of the more elite things the elite can do - stop the media reporting stories he didn't want them to. It's a bit crazy that he's viewed as anti-media in the sense that the media is corrupt, when a media mogul colluded with him to kill those stories.

[Gandydancer]

It's a bit crazy that you imagine it's even up for consideration that the media might not be corrupt.

[Nige]

You can consider it all you want, in Trump and Pecker there’s actual proof. Vote for the corrupt media guy if you hate corrupt media!

[Dr. Ed 2]

“Trump paying Cohen back plus extra for a $130K campaign contribution made by Cohen is not “giv[ing] as much as you wish to your own campaign.”

OK, instead of it being Cohen, presume it was a catering company that provided food and beverages at a donor event, and presume that it was being done on a “cost plus” basis, which I *think* is legal to do for campaign events. (It often is done for corporate events.)

The catering company pays all the bills — they buy the food & booze, they hire (and pay) all the employees, they obtain all the necessary permits (and possibly police detail), and they pay for the cleanup afterwards.

They then add up all their expenses and send Trump a bill — this is only what they paid, they haven’t made any money on this yet. And then there is a second amount that is (or has already been) agreed on and that is their profit. This is simpler than a combined price if you and the customer know and trust each other -- it also is fairer to both of you because you don't get burned if (say) the price of lobster increases and they don't get burned if (say) their guests don't drink as much booze as anticipated -- it's strictly what the costs were.

And depending on how informal you want to be, your profit can be whatever the customer thinks it should be, not unlike tipping a waiter. And if the client is particularly pleased with the event , the client may toss in additional money for you.

So Trump pays the caterer her expenses and then pays her for her services (i.e. profit) and may even calculate how much he wants her to receive after taxes and give her enough to have that much left.

None of this is illegal — banks and large law firms do it all the time. And if it actually were a campaign event, Buckley v Valero would apply and Trump could donate (ie spend) as much of his own money on his campaign as he wished.

It wasn’t Cohen’s campaign Nor the caterer's campaign….

” and the structured payments were designed to conceal the donation, which starts to look more like money laundering than legal giving.”

1: Lawyers routinely buy things on behalf of anonymous clients. Look at how Walt Disney bought the land in Florida — if people knew that they were selling to Disney, they’d have charged more. And this is legal.

It is perfectly legal to structure payments (as opposed to deposits) and people do this all the time to avoid taxes. Every high-level academic administrator I know of is receiving part of his/her/its salary as deferred compensation — it’s not illegal to avoid taxes.

And money laundering is concealing the illegitimate source of the money, while these were legitimate dollars coming out of Trump’s wallet.

There’s no crime here…

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The reasons for not charging the 34 felony counts of business and financial fraud are what?"

See all the arguments the Dems made for not charging Clinton for lying to a grand jury.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Is your point that those arguments were valid? Or is it that since Dems acted badly, that it's okay for Repubs to do it?

[Kazinski]

How many of those “chargeable white collar crimes” involved the prosecutor campaigning on criminally charging one specific individual, and of course letting everyone else go for everything?

Trump should continue to say whatever he likes about the prosecutor, the judge and anything else he likes, and he'll get away with it, because they can't tell him what to do.

[not guilty]

"How many of those 'chargeable white collar crimes' involved the prosecutor campaigning on criminally charging one specific individual, and of course letting everyone else go for everything?"

When did Alvin Bragg make any such campaign promise? Please be specific. As for "letting everyone else go," since Mr. Bragg took office in 2022, prosecutors have filed 117 felony counts of falsifying business records, against 29 individuals and companies. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/21/nyregion/trump-indictment-legal-theory.html

[Gandydancer]

Bragg, campaigning: "I have investigated Trump and his children and held them accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation. I know how to follow the facts and hold people in power accountable.'

Or, in plainspeak, he promised to get Trump.

[Nige]

No, he's merely pointing out their record of criminality.

[David Nieporent]

Or, in plain speak, he did no such thing.

[Frank Drackman]

"Chargeable white collar crime"??
Merrick the Elephant man Garfield didn't think so, of course he's only the Attorney General and a former SCOTUS nominee (now aren't you glad Mitch nixed that nomination?)

[Martinned]

I hope nobody is going to deny the only purpose of these charges is political. If there was real wrongdoing, these wouldn’t be the charges being brought.

If the purpose of these charges was political, they would have brought pretty much any other charge than this one.

[Brett Bellmore]

People say that because they're not the guys who had to examine those other charges with an eye to whether they could be successfully prosecuted. So they're free to imagine better cases against Trump than actually exist.

As awful as this case is, it might well be the strongest case against Trump out of a bunch of really weak cases.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you have no freaking idea what the various investigations are finding. It's OK not to opine when you have no facts.

[Martinned]

The whole point of something being a "political" case is that you don't care about winning as much.

[Gandydancer]

You'd prefer that people not committed Democrat loons not roll their eyes.

Bragg spends too much time being a Manhatttan pol so he miscalculated about that.

[Nige]

Well, the cases and investigations left after Bill Barr got through with them.

[Kazinski]

I have to admit that's a response I didn't expect: "These charges are so pathetic they can't be political".

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Have you considered the possibility that, for the umpteenth time, you’re wrong and don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about?

As mentioned above, NY has a long history of charging for this exact crime.

You whine about it being political because you’re an ignorant partisan dipshit.

[Gandydancer]

No, it doesn't.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Well why should Trump cool it?

Another "baseball bat" stunt, for example, could bring new criminal charges or a court order.

Trump has been getting special, favorable treatment so far. That could change.

Neither Trump nor his lawyers have exhibited sound judgment or professionalism, so "could" might be inappropriately lenient.

[Frank Drackman]

So now it's a crime to grip a Louisville Slugger?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators.

And the reason you occupy the clown car of modern American legal academia.

You'll always have Leonard Leo's money available, but never the respect of your peers or employers.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

We’ve never had a criminal defendant talk like Trump did at that post indictment speech

We've also never had a former president indicted on trumped-up (yes, that was intentional) criminal charges by a DA who made doing so a political campaign promise. What's your point?

[Frank Drackman]

The Judge has issued his Gag Order, now let him enforce it.
And in what universe is 8 months from now a "Speedy Trial"?? and that's just the next "Hearing"
If "45"'s mouth is such a threat lock him up, maybe even put him in the same cell Epstein "Suicided" (yeah, right) in just to make a point.

[not guilty]

No, the judge has not issued a gag order. If he does issue such an order, it will be enforceable by contempt proceedings.

[Frank Drackman]

Does the judge realize he's not in his native Colombia?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tell that to (MA) Judge Shelly Joseph.
State judges can themselves become Federal defendants.

[not guilty]

Whether a defendant has been denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial cannot be established by any inflexible rule, but can be determined only on an ad hoc balancing basis in which the conduct of the prosecution and that of the defendant are weighed.

The leading case is Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). There the defendant was indicted on September 15, 1958. His trial began on October 9, 1963, the prosecution having obtained 16 continuances. (In the meantime, a codefendant was tried six times, including two convictions which were reversed on appeal.) A unanimous SCOTUS found no speedy trial violation. The Court identified four factors which courts should assess in determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of his right: length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. Id., at 530.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Whether a defendant has been denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial cannot be established by any inflexible rule, but can be determined only on an ad hoc balancing basis in which the conduct of the prosecution and that of the defendant are weighed."

Or, another way to put it is that the Supreme court doesn't actually care about this particular right, and so doesn't enforce it. The right exists in theory, but not in practice.

[Nige]

I'd go with the poor guy who got stuck in Riker's for three years, including significant time in solitary, without trial after allegedly stealing a backpack as the posterboy for this rather than Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, may I ask another question? You were a defense atty for 28 years, and you've answered a number of questions I have asked (appreciate that, too). There is one aspect here I don't quite get: what is the original crime that POTUS Trump was concealing with these payments. As in, a specific law, statute?

My understanding is that the way DA Bragg's case is put together, he did not actually need to cite the specific law that was broken previously. How do you get prosecuted for a crime that is never cited? That seems a little odd to me, as a layman. How do (or did) you handle that as a criminal defense atty?

Is this a loophole in the law that needs to be closed? (meaning, not having to cite the crime)

[not guilty]

I would move the court to order the prosecution to furnish a Bill of Particulars to specify the other crimes that were intended to be concealed. I surmise that Team Trump will do that.

Bragg told reporters Trump falsified records as part of a scheme to violate state and federal election laws, as well as state tax laws. The government's theory is detailed in a Statement of Facts filed contemporaneously with the indictment. https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-SOF.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

Ah, ok. I did not miss anything. I get it. You would force the prosecution to name the underlying crime in a court filing. Just seems weird that can happen...charged for a crime not actually cited in a separate indictment.

Philosophically, should that happen?

[John F. Carr]

What if Trump was charged with felony concealment of a crime Trump did not commit? Then the crime being concealed could not be included in an indictment against Trump.

Coverage of this case reports that New York indictments are terse. Federal felony indictments have many more details.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem here may be that the crime only exists because Cohen plead guilty to committing it, as part of a much larger plea deal.

So A pleads guilty to "eating meat with B on a Friday during Lent" -- not a crime. But does the fact that A plead to it *create* a crime with which to charge B?

It shouldn't -- eating meat on Friday during Lent isn't a crime. It may be a sin, but it is not a crime...

[John F. Carr]

Cohen's guilty plea does not prevent Trump from disputing that a crime was committed.

[Randal]

The crimes being charged are listed in the indictment: 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

One of the elements of that crime is that the falsification be done for the purpose of concealing another crime.

But that's just about the mental state of the defendent. That "other crime" doen't have to be charged or even proved. You just need to prove the element, which is that the defendent thought they were covering up some crime by falsifying the records.

The indictment doesn't need to provide theories or evidence for the elements of the charges. That comes later. The DA chose to do so anyway, with the accompanying "Statement of Facts." But that was a bonus nicety on his part.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You just need to prove the element, which is that the defendent thought they were covering up some crime by falsifying the records.

Let’s look at the actual language of the statute itself, rather than relying on your creative reinterpretation of it:

“A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

It would appear that you’re inventing verbiage/meaning that doesn’t actually appear in the statute itself. Namely, the notion that one need only “believe” that what they’re allegedly concealing was a crime for that element to be satisfied. The plain language is “the commission of” a crime, not “the imagined” or “believed” commission thereof.

[Randal]

What do you think the word "intent" means, dorkass?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What do you think the word “intent” means, dorkass?

Well, as used in the context of the statute I so helpfully quoted for you (well, my "intent"...see what I did there?...was to be helpful, but I can't do anything about your illiteracy) it means that at least one of someone's purposes for doing something was to conceal a crime. It has nothing to do with their beliefs. But let's try it the other way:

Someone intentionally falsifies a business record in order to conceal something that they did not believe was a crime (maybe they were just trying to avoid embarrassment). But it turns out that he was mistaken, and the action he covered up actually was criminal. Does his belief absolve him of guilt under the statute in question? He "intended" to conceal the action via the record falsification, but did not believe that the action itself was criminal. Is ignorance of the law an excuse in this case?

Or, try this one. Under 18 U.S. Code § 1001:

"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years."

Let's take the offense described by (a)(1), which involves "knowingly and willfully" (with intent) concealing a "material fact". Suppose you intentionally conceal some fact that you think at the time is a material one, but which turns out NOT to be a material fact. Are you guilty of a crime under that provision even though you did not actually cover up a material fact, even though you intended to?

[Randal]

Does his belief absolve him of guilt under the statute in question? He “intended” to conceal the action via the record falsification, but did not believe that the action itself was criminal. Is ignorance of the law an excuse in this case?

Yes, it’s called mens rea. Haven’t you learned anything hanging out on this blog all this time? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Are you guilty of a crime under that provision even though you did not actually cover up a material fact, even though you intended to?

Ok, I’ll answer more of your criminality 101 questions. No, you’re not guilty of a crime that you only commit in your own mind, unless it were “attempted concealment,” in which case yes, you are… at least assuming you took some concrete action in furtherance of your imagined crime, such as, in your example, actually concealing the immaterial fact.

[Gandydancer]

““A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

No, dickhead, “intent to… aid or conceal the commission [of another crime]” isn’t “falsifying business records in the first degree” unless the act that was intended to be concealed actually IS “another crime”. If you only imagine it it a crime but it is not, then your intent was merely to aid or conceal the commission of an actual non-crime and you are only guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree, a misdemeanor on which the statute of limitations has run out.

[David Nieporent]

If I walk into someone's bedroom and shoot him while he's lying in bed, but it turns out (unbeknownst to me) that he had died of a heart attack a few hours earlier, did I have an intent to commit homicide?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It isn't exactly clear how Judge Juan Merchan became a judge as he is listed as "acting" but it appears to be partisan elections.

So a partisan elected official is going to muzzle the speech of the other party's candidate for President? i do not believe that would be upheld.

[Frank Drackman]

To be fair the Judge is a native Colombian, law might be different there.

[OtisAH]

You really think you have something there with the whole “Columbia” thing huh? Doesn’t really seem to be hitting, but it’s early yet. Best of luck. I hope it gets better engagement than your Sandusky bit does. But the important thing is you’re out there trying.

[Frank Drackman]

It's "Colombia" and reasonable peoples (good luck finding any in Manhattan) can disagree whether a Native born Colombian (don't blame me, I didn't knock up his mother in Colombia) might have a little umm Pre-Judas against a former POTUS who ran on "building a wall"

Frank "Native American"

[OtisAH]

Yeah, well, like I say, it’s still early so maybe the high fives will start flying later. Good luck with it.

[Nige]

Lowest of low bars, but it beats posting pictures of the judge's children.

[Frank Drackman]

haven't seen those, do they have their Anchors?

[Nige]

Edgebot goin' after the kids.

[Gandydancer]

To be clear, this “kid” is an adult. And a Democrat operative.

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1643289309011664910

https://archive.is/lW1ID#selection-1842.2-1891.28

[Nige]

Gandy's ok with going after judges' kids, too, it turns out, surprise, surprise.

[David Nieporent]

I love the term "operative," designed to make a routine job sound sinister.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. You get that that was a lie, right?

[Gandydancer]

What was?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That Columbia angle is an interesting point to make at a Russian-founded blog (which, oddly, couldn't make up its mind at first about the invasion of Ukraine) about a defendant who brought a Russian lawyer to the defense table.

Keep up the good work!

[Frank Drackman]

It's "Colombia" Jerry, "Columbia" is the Law School you couldn't get into (that whole "Klinger" thing)

[Gandydancer]

EV is a Tool of Putin?

Spit it out Rev. No need to be coy.

[OtisAH]

We already know he didn’t issue a gag order.

[Frank Drackman]

Good, then "45" isn't violating one.

[OtisAH]

Who says he is?

[Gandydancer]

Just because they don't have actual cause for complaint doesn't mean the whiners aren't whining.

[OtisAH]

So, I asked “Who says he is [in violation of a gag order]”? But since that premise is bullshit now it’s “whining.”

Okay, who is “whining” about Turnip being in violation of a non-existent gag order?.

[Krayt]

This was my understanding, silence the participants to stop influencing potential jurors in the population at large.

However, that could not ever stop complaints of deliberate prosecution of political enemies. A judge silencing that would be a bridge too far.

[Martinned]

How would you propose to tell the difference?

For reference, here is the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which is the basic law on this issue in the UK. I think it's draconian, but then I think jury trials are a terrible idea anyway.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49

[Martinned]

Speaking of why jury trials are terrible, one of my favourite British law bloggers just published an entire blog post on the topic: https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2023/04/07/12-angry-men-the-case-against-the-jury/

[Gandydancer]

This court's desire to conduct a fair trial is nonexistent.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A Backdraft, made famous by a 1991 movie of the same name, occurs when a fire is deprived of oxygen and produces superheated explosive gases, eg carbon monoxide and hydrogen. As these are already heated well above their auto-ignition temperatures, the sudden introduction of oxygen creates an explosion. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnUA04wyHg4

This is why firefighters cut holes in roofs and break windows, the goal being the ventilation of the fire so that the explosive condition no longer exists. What the hysterical overreaction to January 6th and now the crucifixion of Donald Trump are serving to do is create a political backdraft, a very dangerous situation where an inexorably-increasing amount of rage is bottled up without any way to vent.

Like a smouldering fire, this quiet rage is building up in about half the population and some little thing, like a door being opened, is going to trigger an explosion far beyond anyone's expectation. We can (and should) talk about the concept of rule of law dying last Tuesday, but this is far more dangerous. Team Brandon is playing with fire and I don't think they even realize it.

Donald Trump could have dealt with the BLM riots the way Lincoln dealt with Baltimore, but....

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

I think Biden may be gearing up to do to the right what Nixon did to the left in 1972. In 1972 Nixon demonized the anti-war long-haired draft-card-burning pot-smoking free-loving hippie freaks, ran promising to protect ordinary folks ("the silent majority") from them, provoked them to more and more repulsive demonstrations by making visible high-profile arrests, and won in a landslide. Biden remembers this first-hand -- he was already in politics in 1972. He will use the bearded, white-supremacist, Christian nationalist, gun-toting, capitol-invading, FBI-defunding, private-militia types, and he can provoke them to repulsive demonstrations in any number of ways.

Imagine if, six weeks before the Election Day, Biden sent some agents to raid the homes of right-wingers who had a felony on their records, and to search (rudely) their homes for illegally-possessed guns. And imagine if, two weeks before Election Day, the right-wingers responded by staging J6-type events in several cities, and actually committed some murders during some of them.

What do you think the Election would look like then, two weeks later???

The Old Mongoose knows strategy and remembers everything.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"The Old Mongoose" shits his pants and can't remember where he's standing half the time.

[Frank Drackman]

It'll be a landslide, just like Hillary Rodman won with in 0-16

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the J6 protests would be ON election day, although I don't think that is what they would do.

[Nige]

Republicans are alienating everyone themselves with their obsessions about abortion, opposing gun control and their ridiculously fascistic anti-wokism, specifically focused on making life hell for one tiny minority, presumably with an eye to going on to do it for a few others. It’s fucking stupid, but also mean-spirited and nasty. Instead of dealing with problems, they’re making themselves one of the biggest problems. The fact that you constantly engage in this kinds of paranoid war-gaming, only underlines what a bizarre mind-set you've put yourselves into.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"focused on making life hell for one tiny minority"

As opposed to enlightened places such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, most of Africa, etc....

This is like saying that drunk driving laws are "making life hell" for those who wish to drink. No, it's establishing a standard that applies to everyone -- same thing with bathroom assignments.

[Nige]

'As opposed to'

Emulating, you mean.

'for those who wish to drink.'

Being trans or being gay is like being drunk! Decadent and rude! That's why we need laws against them! Etc. You're foul.

[Gandydancer]

No, it's like being disgustingly drunk in public.

Nobody gives a damn if you you keep your degenerate tendencies private.

[Nige]

Great shout-out for personal liberty and freedom there, Gandy.

[Gandydancer]

"Republicans are alienating everyone...."

Nige lives in a bubble and, just like Pauline Kael famously did, imagines that it is a microcosm of the entire country.

[Nige]

If it wasn't true, you wouldn't be so desperate to hang on to the electoral college, gerrymandering like crazy, engaging in various forms of voter supression, and stacking the Supreme Court.

[Kazinski]

That should work.

How did it work out for Nixon, both short term and his legacy?

Not that Biden has a salvageable legacy.

[Frank Drackman]

Short Term Bad, Long Term, not as bad, when William Juffuhson needed Furrin Policy advice he didn't ask Jimmuh Cartuh

[Dr. Ed 2]

The thing to remember about Nixon bashing the "dirty hippies" is that this was after the 1968 Chicago Dem Convention, and all the colleges being shut down early in 1970 after the Kent State shooting, and at least four years of sometimes violent anti-war protests.

We haven't had that.

[Gandydancer]

Hard to see “Insurrection is happening everywhere!” getting more electoral traction than the Floyd Riots did.

[Sarcastr0]

I think Biden may be gearing up to do to the right what Nixon did to the left in 1972

1. What you describe Biden could do is not what Nixon did in 1972. He did different dirty tricks.

2. We don’t live in a political thriller.

[Frank Drackman]

if you call staying in the basement a "Strategy" actually not a bad one, Senescent J's like the Queen Family Truckster, you think you hate him now, wait till you drive him.
"Remembers Everything" he can't remember Common-Law's name (or Title) 1/2 the time, thanks Chy-na when he's in Canada, Cambodia when he's in Colombia, and if I gave the Sec Def's wife a shoulder massage like he did I'd be in Leavenworth,
and because I'm a Doctor and know things, the 0-24 talk is academic, unless the D's are gonna run a Corpse (could happen, has happened(See MO 2000 Senate erection)
And don't call the FBI/Secret Service, just look up the life expectancy of 80 year olds with Alzheimers/Stroke

Frank

[Gandydancer]

A riot in which the rioters "committed some murders" wouldn't remotely be a "J6-type event". A distinguishing feature of the January 6 protest is that the protesters were unarmed and the only murder was by a cop.

[Nige]

'Donald Trump could have dealt with the BLM riots the way Lincoln dealt with Baltimore, but….'

Donald Trump couldn't deal with a trip to the toilet. He only came close to being decisive when he was organising a photo-shoot.

[Frank Drackman]

Qasem Soleimani doesn't agree.

[Nige]

Ryan Owens’ family does, edgebot.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, we're going to compare who had the most Amuricans killed during his term? (and yes, "W" fans, I can't the 3,000+ killed on 9-11)
And since Senescent J finished Afghanistan so well of course we need a new wah with Roosh-a
We're really going to start WW3 when a Roosh-un Tank crosses into Finland??

Frank "Peace Freak"

[Nige]

Someone reformat the edgebot, it's spouting random character strings.

[Frank Drackman]

Thats how words appear to Illiterate Ignoranuses

[Nige]

Don't be so hard on yourself, you're just a li'l edgebot doing its best.

[Gandydancer]

Owens was killed in an operation planned under Obama.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ryan-owens-navy-seal-killed-in-yemen-was-braver-than-america-knew?ref=scroll

[Nige]

Yeah and Afghanistan collapsed under a plan made by Trump. Guess what the common denominator is?

[Sarcastr0]

There was no trucker's strike. Joe Six-Pack did not vote the way you said they would in 2018 or 2022. None of your scenarios about this or that legal tactic being tried and then things getting 'interesting' have ever happened.

You're wrong, you're out of touch, you want bad things for America. Your predictions have never come to pass, and that's a good thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not necessarily -- a dozen small earthquakes are way preferable to one massive one. Trudeau showed how to suppress a truckers strike although I do wonder what the long-term consequences of that will be.

Likewise, I wonder what the long-term consequences of the response to Jan 6th will be. Dayrl Gates was Chief of the LAPD from 1978 to 1992 -- the rage reflected by the Rodney King riots had been building for years.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Even you (a person dumb enough to refer to "the crucifixion of Donald Trump") don't have the courage to actually do anything about it but bluster over the internet. Who exactly are the people that are going to be doing the exploding?

[apedad]

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders opens tenure with this major win

First, the bill is a huge win for teachers. Yes, you read that right. This new Republican governor scored a major win for teachers.

Arkansas teachers presently have a $36,000 minimum salary with the national average a bit less than $42,000. Gov. Sanders destroyed that low bar; raising the minimum nearly 40% to $50,000.

Still more benefits include 12 weeks of paid maternity leave and a scholarship for prospective teachers valued at up to $6,000.

Progressive critics are forever up in arms about protecting rights, but this new governor’s law ensures that all educators "are in compliance with Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Third, the law provides funding for parents to send their children to private schools under a tiered system that begins with students enrolled in an F- or D-rated public schools.

Fourth and finally, the new law doubles down on literacy and the proven science of reading approach, with funding for more reading coaches and grants for parents to hire tutors.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/arkansas-gov-sarah-huckabee-sanders-opens-tenure-major-win

Big THANK YOU to Gov. Sanders.

We all know education levels are one of the biggest discriminators between progressives and mouthbreathers.

Looking forward to Missouri going blue in a generation or so.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We all know education levels are one of the biggest discriminators between progressives and mouthbreathers.

For the sake of argument, assume this is true.

What's your theory as to why teacher's unions and so many government schools churn out dunce after dunce after dunce? Do they not recognize they are making conservatives and thus undermining their own future and their own power base? Are they simply too incompetent to properly educate youth?

Looking forward to Missouri going blue in a generation or so.

Is that some Arkansas inside joke?

[Nelson]

"why teacher’s unions and so many government schools churn out dunce after dunce after dunce?"

That one's easy. They don't.

An American college education is one of the most valuable on the planet. An American K-12 education provides the necessary knowledge to get into American colleges for those who take advantage of it. There are many countries whose education systems don't produce students capable of attending college in the US.

We don't have the very best education system in the world, but we are among the best. I think your bias against unions, teachers, and public schools is informing your assessment of American students. It certainly isn't objective measures that are driving your "dunce" conclusion.

Considering the poor outcomes of homeschooled and religious educations, public schools aren't so bad. Especially when you consider that public schools don't get to choose their students, so they start with an inferior talent pool.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's funny to watch you people talk out of both sides of your mouths.

The government schools are failing, give us more money!

What do you mean the government schools are failing? They're some of the best in the world!

[Nige]

You're a hard-core full-on unapologetic racist anti-semite. You can fuck off.

[Nelson]

You're the one claiming public schools are terrible. I'm the one pointing out you're wrong. That's not talking out both sides of my mouth, it's you saying one thing and me disputing your claim.

Would you like to back up your "dunce" assertion or, per usual, will you just keep saying crazy things with no supporting evidence?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/dropping-academic-scores-prove-the-public-education-system-is-failing

[Nige]

All the worst educational outcomes are in so-called red states.

Oh, and fuck off.

[Nelson]

This is not news. We've known for a long time that the pandemic and the shift to distance learning was, to put it kindly, a complete disaster.

You're trying to take a one-time, deeply impactful event (the pandemic) and pretend that it wasn't responsible for the terrible results. Instead, you're saying, "Public education is failing! With no other reason, students are badly underachieving.". That's not even remotely honest.

Do you accept that the pandemic and the shift to distance learning was detrimental to education?

[Brett Bellmore]

Cost of living, by state. Arkansas is at 90.9% of US average. 90.9% of $42K is... $38K, which is what they'd previously been paid.

So, they really weren't being underpaid at all, they were right at the national average, adjusted for local cost of living.

Now? They're being paid enormously better than the national average, on a cost of living basis. Which is great for them, but isn't she the whole state's Governor, not just the teachers'? Why would anybody but the teachers be excited about the teachers being over-paid?

[Nige]

Of course wages have been stagnating for decades, so average pay sucks.

[OtisAH]

[withdrawn for duh]

[Nelson]

“Why would anybody but the teachers be excited about the teachers being over-paid?”

Because I assume Arkansas parents want their children to get a good education. Arkansas is always one of the worst states for education. If you need more (and better) talent, you have to overpay.

In free agency, the teams that suck have to pay more to tempt players to their team. Arkansas is the Cleveland Browns of education.

[Gandydancer]

What a ridiculous comparison. Schools are not football teams when it comes to dedication to evaluating performance. Or firing for non-performance.

[Nelson]

How exactly are you supposed to evaluate the performance of a teacher who hasn't worked for you yet? Or fire a teacher who hasn't worked for you yet? This effort is about bringing in new talent, not retaining what they have.

It isn't a ridiculous comparison, it's actually quite apt. If you are a team that sucks (and Team Arkansas sucks at education, and has for a very long time), you have to bring in new talent because what you have isn't getting the job done. The only way to improve your talent pool is to entice better people from elsewhere. The only way you have the freedom to fire the crappy people you have is if you have someone better to replace them.

Arkansas isn't a desirable place to live. No one is clamoring to move there. It is an economically poor state with poorly educated citizens, bad wages, very few cultural or outside job opportunities (for those married to non-teachers, that matters), and a highly restrictive culture.

It isn't enticing to top talent. If you don't have success, a desirable location, or a quality culture, you lack intangibles to draw talent into the state. If you don't have any other selling points, you have to offer more money. A lot more money. Which is what Governor Sanders did.

I hope it works. Someone has to break the South out of their dominance of the worst educational states in the country. Hopefully this does the trick.

[Nelson]

This is great news for teachers and students in Arkansas.

Like most Southern states, Arkanses perennially inhabits the bottom quarter of states in education. That puts their children at a huge disadvantage in relation to other states (especially blue states) in getting into good colleges.

This should make Arkansas appealing to teachers looking for a good atmosphere and support from their states. While the cultural policies of Arkansas may turn off some potential candidates, offering $8,000 over the national average in a state with low costs for housing and food should more than overcome that negative aspect.

[shawn_dude]

At the same time, she's also signed a strict anti-abortion law and a law the restricts school bathroom use based on the gender of one's birth certificate. They're in the process of passing a book-banning bill that makes librarians and teachers criminally liable.

Raising teacher's wages is great, but given the way the state government intrudes on women's health choices and students' first amendment rights, I'm not sure it will be enough to improve their hiring pool all that much. $50K starting wage for a job that will hold you criminally liable if one of your students gets their hands on Fahrenheit 451? No thanks.

[Nige]

And the child labour thing.

[Gandydancer]

"... a job that will hold you criminally liable if one of your students gets their hands on Fahrenheit 451?"

You have the most unconvincing fantasies.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What do you think will happen with all this Democrat/ACT Blue dark money donation fraud being uncovered by O'Keefe and citizen journalists?

a.) the Democrat DOJ/FBI will investigate and root out the illegality
b.) the Democrat DOJ/FBI will raid and investigate the journalists
c.) the Democrat DOJ/FBI will ignore it

[Brett Bellmore]

Some combination of B and C, obviously.

[Nige]

It's O'Keefe, so its primary purpose is to give you something to claim everyone is ignoring.

[Michael P]

D) the Democrat DOJ/FBI will investigate and raid some random pilot for Delta

Oh, wait, they already did that. Their excuse was that they gave themselves the wrong hotel room number.

[OtisAH]

Normal people have no idea what you’re rambling about so I doubt you’ll get any real responses. But you will definitely get the responses you want.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Of course your braintenders have censored this information from you. There are FEC records of some people who have allegedly made 10s of thousands of donations through ACT Blue to Democrat candidates. Citizen journalists interviewed some of these people, mostly elderly, and they attest they made no such donations.

This is been shown to be occurring in several states, most recently in Texas.

Public records of people making thousands and thousands of small donations all to Democrats and all through ACT Blue.

The people who control your mind will never tell you about these deeds.

[OtisAH]

Hilarious.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Cold hard proof of election fraud. Just like the DOJ/FBI and other authorities, you simply don't care.

No wonder they keep stealing elections. They won't be held accountable.

It's also funny that there is literally no amount of proof that would convince you our elections are insecure. One of your mind masters claimed we have the most secure elections in history, so that's your reality and you're sticking to it.

[jb]

Huh? What does this have to do with election fraud?

Campaign finance fraud and election fraud are two different things.

[Nelson]

"Cold hard proof of election fraud."

I'll wait for the "cold, hard proof" to be presented under oath.

As the 2020 election fraud farce demonstrated, a whole lot of people who will swear out an affidavit claiming they witnessed fraud suddenly recant when it comes time to perjure themselves.

[Ben_]

D. the Democrat DOJ/FBI will actively help them get away with it, start a sham investigation so they can stonewall Congressional inquiry, and try to find an excuse to arrest ActBlue critics and anyone investigating ActBlue. And they will work with Google and Facebook to censor anything about the topic off of those platforms.

[Nelson]

"O’Keefe and citizen journalists"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! You think James O'Keefe is a journalist and not a huckster! Of the many, many dumb things you believe, that may be the dumbest.

[David Nieporent]

O'Keefe's the guy who got fired by being so greedy that he stole from his grifty organization, right?

[Nelson]

He probably claims he resigned to spend more time with his family.

[Gandydancer]

Your estimates of probabilities are as accurate as one would expect ones based on ignorance and stupidity to be.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Paying people to vote. A group called, Wisconsin Takes Action, offered $250 to voters to sway their friends to vote for Democrat Janet Protasiewicz through an app called, Empower.

https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1643682358921687040

What will be done to these people who harmed our Democracy and violated WI election law?

[Frank Drackman]

They'll be prosecuted, just like Hunter Biden

[dwb68]

Opinion writers get paid to sway peoples votes too. People are not being paid to vote, just to influence. Free speech isnt literally free.

[Nige]

Is it illegal to pay election workers?

[Kleppe]

You don't see anything wrong with "election workers" being remunerated for votes that go to a specific candidate? Lol okay

[Nige]

Candidates hire people to run their election campaign, ie, promote that candidate, you're really, really reaching.

[David Nieporent]

Nothing in that link says any such thing, and of course there's no way to know who votes go for.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That violates WI election laws.

[Nelson]

Somehow I think you are badly overstating the case. As usual.

[ThanksForTheFish]

No it doesn't.

[ThanksForTheFish]

I can't tell if you're intentionally gaslighting, or just trolling.

Nothing about what you posted is illegal.

[Commenter_XY]

Restrict Act....Is it really about a ban on Tik Tok?

Seems to do away with 1A, 4A and 5A rights in one fell swoop.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Democrats gonna Democrat.

[Nelson]

“Seems to do away with 1A, 4A and 5A rights in one fell swoop.”

Possibly not that sweeping, but it is a very concerning piece of legislation. Yes, China is an adversary who is aggressively prosecuting an intelligence war, but that doesn’t mean that any product from a Chinese company is an intelligence tool.

Proof first, then ban the companies for their behavior, not their ownership.

[Commenter_XY]

Chag Pesach Semeach to all my fellow Tribe members. My wish for you is a meaningful holiday, spent with family and friends.

I found an awesome dish for marinated asparagus, and it even has a tenuous connection to freedom. ???? It was a huge hit at my Seder last night. SUPER EASY to make!!! Enjoy.

https://toriavey.com/what-thomas-jefferson-ate-marinated-asparagus-2/

PS: Let it sit in the marinade 5 minutes before serving.

[SRG]

If you're none too concerned about strictness, I can recommend Manischewitz's "Everything" matzos. Easily the tastiest I've ever eaten.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Matzo is merely a tool for stuffing one's mouth with Charoset.

[Commenter_XY]

Hillel's sandwich is tough to beat....unless you use too much Gold's Hot. 😉

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Very true! I also forgot about matzo brei, which is delicious. I should stop badmouthing matzo, I guess.

[Commenter_XY]

On my list to make for Sunday morning.... = matzo brei

[Frank Drackman]

Cgag Pesach Semeach? Well a Krav Maga to you!

[Kazinski]

Kind of a crazy trial going on in DC where a Leonardo DiCaprio is alleging a CCP connected Malaysian funneled up to 30m in embezzled funds to the Obama campaign through straw diners.

"Prosecutors allege Michel illegally helped steer Low's money into then-President Barack Obama's 2012 reelection campaign and then tried to influence the Trump administration to drop a criminal case against Low. In exchange, the Justice Department said, Michel pocketed nearly $100 million dollars."

Grammy winner Pras Michel of the Fugees is on trial for receiving up to $100,000,000.00 in stolen funds.

The Malaysian Businessman is Jha Low the Malaysian Billionaire is holed up in Macau which is Chinese territory.

It all sounds pretty sketchy, but at least there don't seem to be any Russians involved.
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/03/1167777555/leonardo-dicaprio-pras-michel-fugees-trial

[Life of Brian]

funneled up to 30m in embezzled funds to the Obama campaign through straw diners.

Those who cook in straw diners shouldn't char bones.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/guide-understanding-hoax-century-thirteen-ways-looking-disinformation

[dwb68]

If judges are elected, do they get to decide policy and abrogate parts of the law incompatible with their election platform?

[Martinned]

As a practical matter, how would you stop them?

[Krayt]

Isn't the point of electing judges to make sure they have the ongoing general approval of The People?

Yes, there is a logical hole if the judges go about interpreting their constitutions in ways that are arguably, or even obviously false, and The People are fine with that.

[Martinned]

But surely that wouldn't happen?

[not guilty]

In an interview with Sean Hannity, Donald Trump said “This is the Presidential Records Act. I have the right to take stuff. Do you know that they ended up paying Richard Nixon, I think, $18 million for what he had? They did the Presidential Records Act. I have the right to take stuff. I have the right to look at stuff. But they have the right to talk, and we have the right to talk. This would have all been worked out. All of a sudden, they raided Mar-a-Lago, viciously raided Mar-a-Lago.” https://www.foxnews.com/video/6323486968112

I have long been puzzled as to what motivated Trump to retain possession of the documents found at Mar-a-Lago. His comments in the Fox interview suggest that he may have been angling for a financial transaction.

[not guilty]

The situation regarding Nixon was quite different from Trump’s shenanigans. https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/factchecking-trumps-rally-fox-interview/

[OtisAH]

He has always believed that it’s called “The Presidential Records Act” because the records belong to the president. He is an abject moron. He has no understanding, and nobody can convince him even if anyone tried, that it’s called that because it pertains to records generated by, for, and during a presidency.

[Kleppe]

I don't have any evidence for this, but my assumption is the classifies docs Trump kept were correspondence with foreign leaders.

[John F. Carr]

If he asked for money to return the documents, is he in any more trouble than he would be in otherwise?

[Nelson]

That's actually an interesting question.

I'm sure there's some law about selling (specifically, as opposed to giving) classified documents. But if the buyer is the US government is seems like it couldn't qualify as espionage.

Maybe it's something like ransomware, where you are giving back something you took from the owner in exchange for a one-time payment?

[not guilty]

deleted

[Kazinski]

The head of Japans largest energy investment firm is upset that Australia is pulling back on its gas production and exploration.

He says if Japan can’t get enough gas to produce the power they need, they’re going to use coal, not solar or wind: Australia is competing for global investment and the changes we are seeing to Australian policy settings will choke investment and strangle the expansion of LNG projects in this country.

The consequence of these well-intentioned policies will be that the increasing energy demand in our region will be met by coal and not by natural gas.”https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/01/60-billion-investor-slams-green-australia-for-quietly-quitting-on-gas/

It seems that the strategy for alternative energy in the US and Europe is to make wind and solar the only alternative by curtailing gas, oil, and solar, although Europe also uses a lot of Biomass, which while more polluting than even coal, does have the benefit of clear-cutting forests to make way for more wind farms.

But to the rest of the world, Asia, Africa, and South America alternative energy is going to be good old coal.

[Longtobefree]

Wasn't there a time in the past, way back when we still numbered wars (that were actually declared by congress), when we cut off Japan's access to energy?
How did that work out?

[Krayt]

How did appeasing a militaristic dictator who demanded territory for "his" ethnic nationals living there work out?

[Frank Drackman]

Would have worked out a lot better for all the Americans killed in WW2

[Gandydancer]

Hitler's desire for lebensraum was not based on the presence of German national living anywhere.

[Kazinski]

They got their asses kicked.

I know, my father in law was in the Japanese Imperial Army during the war. He told me (a little) about it.

[Gandydancer]

Such fun for us.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Consider a serious proposal to put Trump on trial for treason. Why?

First, because he is guilty of it, and evidence at trial will show that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If he had done nothing else in connection with the January 6 capitol insurrection, Trump's tweet about Pence is enough to connect him to the violence. But there will be much more evidence than that to make the connection. Proof of motive is beyond doubt already in the public record, and actions aplenty connect Trump and the mob.

There will be overwhelming evidence, accumulated during the long interval from the run-up to the 2020 election until yesterday. Trump still means to overthrow the American People as the nation's sovereign, and is still committed to stop at nothing to accomplish it.

Anyone who supposes a treason charge would be legal overreach need only read John Marshall's opinion in the Burr treason case to be disabused. Before deciding Burr had not committed treason, Marshall dissected minutely what would have to be proved to convict Burr. It amounts to a brief to try Trump, and to convict him.

That said, a question whether such a severe step would be wise remains. It would be the wisest possible way to handle the threat Trump and his supporters continue to present. Events since January 6 have marked out dawdling and delay as the path of unwisdom.

What happens to Trump is less important to the security of the United States than the need to chasten his supporters; and especially to make certain no similar attempt is undertaken by a smarter, better organized would-be tyrant than Trump himself. Among political figures who refuse to condemn Trump's crimes, too many such potential figures remain active.

Thus, continued intransigence from senior political figures, and aggressive statements of support for Trump in his defiance remain worse than troubling. They are indicators dangerous in themselves, and unwise to tolerate. Bluster from Governor DiSantis, with its implication of a fortress Florida from which Trump might act with impunity—however ridiculous it might seem—should not go unanswered. Too often in history, threats ridiculed before a crisis as too outrageous for belief, prove later to have been grave.

The most chastening thing that could possibly be done is to put Trump on trial for a capital crime, and prove in court that he deserves execution. Trump and the Trumpists have shown contempt for America's sovereignty, and seem to fear its power not at all. That is intolerable.

Their unceasing agitation, belligerence, and defiance of the very notion of law, is a fact which by itself poses an existential threat to the nation. A capital sentence for Trump is the legitimate remedy.

Even if Trump were not convicted, the occurrence of the treason charge and the trial would do more than anything else possible to renew respect for the nation's sovereign power—and most needfully, to demonstrate the government's determination to protect jealously the sovereign People's prerogative to govern free of challenge by would-be rivals.

Trump's antics, and Justice Department foot dragging, have put that determination in doubt. It has become too dangerous to let that doubt continue.

Finally, if Trump is convicted, it will provide occasion to pardon him, and to announce a reason to do it. Biden should say:

"Although the evidence against the former president proved him guilty, his connection to the violence was impersonal. He did not himself take up a weapon against the United States. He is convicted now because he took charge of a plan for others to do violence, and because they did do it.

Let this trial and pardon stand as an example to others. No one should doubt the sovereign People's determination to preserve our system of government. Had Trump—now convicted and sentenced for a capital crime during which others died—taken up a weapon himself, I would not have hesitated to order him executed. Because he did not personally take up a weapon, he is pardoned. For his own sake the pardon is more than he deserves; he has earned execution. He is pardoned for the good of the nation."

With that in mind, Jack Smith should arrest Trump this week, charge him with treason, and demand that he be held without bail until he can be tried by a jury qualified to find him guilty of a crime for which he could be executed.

Sometimes the safety of a nation depends on its government's ability to recognize an existential crisis, and on the government's determination and energy to put an end to it. Thankfully, that does not happen often. Trump's unceasing agitation and contempt for the People's sovereignty have made this one such case.

[ThePublius]

That is the most deranged screed I have ever read on VC. Wow. Trump treasonous? His supporters contemptuous of America's sovereignty? He should be executed?

I give you this:
"The idea that Trump is a uniquely malevolent figure in American civic life has motivated his adversaries from the start. Indeed, that was the point of Russiagate—to portray Trump as someone who was fundamentally disloyal to America, a traitor. Yet even a cursory look at his policies, as well as his demeanor, shows that he’s squarely within the mainstream of American politics and culture."

From:
Veteran Democratic Operative Linked to Restart of Case Against Trump

If anyone is to be accused of treason, for selling out the nation, for collaboration with our enemies, primarily for profit, it's the Biden crime family.

[Commenter_XY]

The danger is where it leads ThePublius; it would never stop at the execution of one man. There are numerous historical examples where that has happened, i.e. branding your fellow citizens as traitors for their political beliefs and executing them. Communism (numerous countries) comes to mind, Cambodia's killing fields as well; neither example ended well. This is the world that lathrop offers. How nice.

I'll pass.

The bigger question to me is how many lathrops are running around out there in America with the means to effectuate their perverted worldview.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, you mean the perverted world view to use evidence to convict criminals in courts for their crimes? That is what I advocated. What you and your ilk advocates is, "To convict our guy for crimes is too dangerous, because we will convict your guy for nothing, to get even."

Screw that. If you can find evidence to convict Biden, have at it, and I will back you. Or, if you want, start with Clarence Thomas.

[DaveM]

This is a completely mental take, and it is in no way a “serious” proposal. It’s impossible to respond with a serious counter-argument. You can’t argue with crazy.

The “crazy” aspect is that it permits no other outcome than guilt. That’s the same “logic” as a lynching, in other words, there is no logic to it, it’s just rage and spite.

[Stephen Lathrop]

DaveM, no outcome other than guilt? I called for a trial. You get that if a unanimous jury does not find a defendant guilty, the verdict is, "Not guilty," right?

[David Nieporent]

You get that if a unanimous jury does not find a defendant guilty, the verdict is, “Not guilty,” right?

I mean, congrats: along with a deranged screed about treason, you managed to misunderstand our legal system, too. No, the verdict is not "not guilty" if a unanimous jury does not find a defendant guilty.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, my description was the same as yours, but phrased awkwardly. Both express the presumption of innocence. Yours is better stylistically. Congratulations.

Now let's hear you say what is deranged about charging Trump with treason. I have learned to expect you to be the tippy-top expert on every aspect of law, so I look forward to your brilliant take on this one. Try not to assume stuff you don't have citations for. Maybe start with citations mentioning, "wartime," as a restriction on when treason applies.

[Absaroka]

1)Unanimous vote to convict - verdict is 'guilty'
2)Unanimous vote to acquit - verdict is 'not guilty'
3)Vote isn't unanimous either way - hung jury

#2 and #3 aren't the same; for #3 the state can decide to try the defendant again.

[David Nieporent]

You didn't read what I wrote. I copied your description — which is why it was the same as yours — in order to refute it. A lack of unanimity for guilt is not a not guilty verdict. It's a hung jury, and the person can be retried.

As for treason, let's assume that the insurrectionists could be described as levying war, and thus guilty of treason. How does that get you to Trump? His approving of their actions is not a crime, let alone the crime of treason. Maybe he was directly involved in planning, but we most certainly do not have that information at this time.

(By the way, I know you have a weird John Marshall fetish, but Marshall's opinion in the Burr case is not a precedential one. He was speaking as a trial judge, not a Supreme Court justice.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, take a look at the 3 quotes from Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout that I offered to Not Guilty. Are those precedential?

If you want to object to Marshall as a source on American law, go ahead. What better source on treason can you offer to contradict him?

I confess I do not know the law. Like any layman, I read stuff and wonder if I understand it. Like some laymen, I have been doing it long enough to know I can’t trust the plain language of the law to be self-explanatory. So I ask folks like you to set me straight. You can safely assume I am always trolling for corrections.

As for what we know about Trump and violence, we know beyond any doubt he intended an attack on the People’s sovereignty, and continues it still. He does it in public.

We know Trump called a crowd to assemble at the White House on January 6, and that he knew many among them were armed. We know that Trump was pleased that they were armed, and endorsed it. We know he urged those armed people to go to the Capitol, which many of them attacked violently—following mixed messages from Trump, with some messages encouraging violence, and some messages encouraging restraint.

We know that attack happened following extensive planning by Trump and others to stop the vote count then underway in the Capitol building. We know that stopping the vote count was a key part of a larger plan, created in advance and involving many, to create confusion about the election result, delay completion of the election, and keep open a possibility Trump thought existed to corrupt the election result by connivance with state legislators to change electoral votes. We know that to buy time to make that plan work, violence to stop the vote count had become indispensable. We know Trump personally participated in that connivance with some state legislators.

We know Trump attempted to recruit Vice President Pence as a possible co-conspirator, but became frustrated at Pence’s lack of cooperation. We know Trump tried to intimidate Pence. We know that during the violent attack on the Capitol, where Pence was presiding, Trump tweeted a message to the mob to express his disappointment with Pence, which was calculated to enrage them against Pence, which resulted in imminent threats to Pence’s life, along with threats to the lives of many other public officials in the Capitol. We know that legislators temporarily abandoned their duties, to seek safety, in the face of the oncoming mob, and that no reasonable person could suppose they might have done otherwise. We know that Trump expressed approval at that outcome.

We know that Trump admired and encouraged paramilitary groups who assaulted the Capitol in military formation during the attack. We know that on the day of the Capitol attack other members of those paramilitary groups were acting as a personal bodyguard for at least one long-time Trump associate who was present in Washington, and who has been implicated in the scheme to overturn the election. We know that still others among the paramilitary groups had brought a cache of arms to nearby Virginia, to be held ready for violent use that day.

In short, there is extensive circumstantial evidence, at least, of a highly organized plan of attack with a strategic goal to overthrow the election. There can be no reasonable doubt that such an organized and violent attack on the legislature, during the course of its business, constitutes the crime of treason.

That is a brief summary of some of the evidence linking Trump to violence at the Capitol. As you know, there is a great deal more which has already been seen by the public. Some of it touches on Trump’s actions and utterances, some of it touches on neglect of needful action. Much of it reinforces with multiple examples points made above.

As always, a trial might produce evidence to the contrary, or serve up innocent explanations for key points which now seem to connect Trump to the January 6 violence, and thus to treason done for an evident purpose to serve Trump’s criminal ambition.

Given the extraordinary evidentiary picture already before the public eye, it can hardly be the case that possibility for refutation during a trial provides reason not to have a trial. More the opposite.

[David Nieporent]

Nieporent, take a look at the 3 quotes from Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout that I offered to Not Guilty. Are those precedential?

Ex Parte Bollman is a Supreme Court decision, and thus is indeed precedential. (It does not give you what you want, though; the holding of the case is that an inchoate conspiracy is not treason. Everything else is dicta.) What you are attempting to rely upon is his opinion in the Burr case, which was not a Supreme Court case.

But again, assuming for the sake of argument that we can combine these cases and get that the insurrectionists are guilty of treason, that does not get us to your assertion that Trump is. All of your description of what he did above is fine for the history books, and for a claim that he's morally responsible. But you're advocating for a criminal trial, and that requires actual evidence that he was involved in an actual plot to attack the capitol. Much of what you said may well be evidence of various crimes Trump committed, but the "war" that constitutes treason is the mob attack, not the plot to steal the election with fake electors.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, do you think Trump needs to have been at the Capitol during the attack to be guilty of treason? I would not have thought so, if he was otherwise associated with the attack, and intended that it happen. That the attack did happen is of course beyond question. It also seems to me beyond question that by long-standing legal standards it was a treasonous attack.

I think many may look through an obsolete historical lens at the question of Trump's association with the attackers. Today's technology enabled Trump to accomplish out in public, in real time, the kind of monitoring of events, and encouragement of violent activity, that a military leader in any previous era would have envied for its efficiency. That Trump did act in those ways is also beyond question, if perhaps not beyond reach of mitigating counter-argument during a trial.

No one in the 19th century who observed a military leader directing forces from a distance would have concluded that maneuvers by those forces were beyond that leader's responsibility, even if at times they proved beyond his ability to control. I suggest Trump's association and direction of the Capitol attack was closely akin to what any military leader during a previous era could have expected to accomplish amidst the fog of war. The many points touching on motive and tactics I mentioned previously all go to reinforce that estimate.

Note that the more points get added, the sharper Trump's connection to violence seems to look. Were Trump actually innocent, additional information would tend to diffuse the picture, instead of sharpen it. Were Trump actually innocent, he would understand that, and instead of obstructing investigations, he would push for addition of exculpatory facts to the record.

I think enough facts are already in to make the arrest and to indict for treason. I understand and expect that such a momentous prospect might give pause even to intrepid prosecutors.

That is not at all the same as thinking it is wise to delay. I worry that sudden violent reversals in the nation's political posture could happen at any time. They could go far to suppress by intimidation any intent to put Trump on trial, and by that method remove the one remedy with a reasonable prospect to calm continued unrest.

Trump has made it clear he aims for a contest of sovereignty. Those kinds of contest can scarcely be resolved except by brute force. I think a trial now is thus a wiser alternative than a wait to see what additional evidence might turn up, during a countdown toward calamity.

It would not bother me to see Trump acquitted—although I think evidence sufficient to convict him is already known—because however such a trial came out, it would chasten Trump's supporters, and put a practical brake on impulses to use force instead of politics to govern the nation.

To leave the Trump abscess in place seems to me more dangerous to the nation than the pain to lance it, and put an end to its destructive potential. What happens to Trump himself seems trivial by comparison.

Trump has earned his trial. He should get it. The nation would be healthier afterward, and maybe Trump would be too. That would be fine with me.

[David Nieporent]

Nieporent, do you think Trump needs to have been at the Capitol during the attack to be guilty of treason?

No, of course not. It's not his physical location that is at issue, but his role.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, I take that to mean you concede the point that Trump need not have been violent himself to be guilty of treason, so long as he joined (or led) the violent purposes of others who actually were violent and treasonous. Am I right?

[David Nieporent]

Concede? Was that point ever in dispute? Being a coward is not a defense to treason.

[Kazinski]

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

You like the idea of charging Trump with "Treason", but you don't know what the word means:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Even a successful coup or a violent revolution is not treason.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, that's what I previously would have told you. Then I read Marshall's Burr decision. You should read it. Marshall said in so many words that if Burr had violently attacked federal government installations in New Orleans, that would have satisfied the requirement to levy war. Marshall then diced levying war further, and concluded it comes down to an act of violence, against the federal government, with an eye to preventing a government activity. That's a paraphrase, so go read it yourself.

[not guilty]

Treason is a wartime offense. War against the United States must actually be levied. Conspiring to wage war does not constitute treason. Chief Justice Marshall opined in Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 126 (1807):

To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the court have been committed, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, the distinct offenses. The first must be brought into operation by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried that in a case reported by Ventris and mentioned in some modern treatises on criminal law, it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying war. It is true that in that case the soldiers enlisted were to serve without the realm, but they were enlisted within it, and if the enlistment for a treasonable purpose could amount to levying war, then war had been actually levied.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nothing in the Constitution, nor in Marshall, mentions, "wartime."

Conspiring to wage war does not constitute treason.

Exactly. Conspiracy is not violence. Acts of violence define war.

But one act of violence against the government can be an act of war—at least within Marshall's interpretation. There does not have to be an invasion, a foreign enemy, or even a declared civil war. War means organizing a body of men, who commit violence against the government, to interfere with legitimate government activities. If evidence can show Trump did that, then Trump is guilty of treason.

Also from, Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout:

But if the constituted authorities of the United States should be suppressed but for one hour, and the territory of Orleans revolutionized but for a moment, it would be treason.

And again, from the same case:

If soldiers are levied and officered, with a treasonable intent, and equipments prepared, so that they can readily lay hold of their arms; although no men are actually armed, although only five men in a detachment should march to assemble at a place of rendezvous, and although there should be no warlike array, yet it would be treason. Any thing which amounts to setting on foot a military expedition, with intent to levy war against the United States, is treason.

Again from the same case:

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

See? The treason/not-treason watershed—the line between mere conspiracy and levying war—is not to be surveyed by means of the grandeur of the forces assembled, or by reference to nations in violent competition, or by probability of success, or by any other reference or inference, except by one simple question of fact—was a single warlike act, however slight, actually committed against the United States.

A month ago I would have agreed with you. Not anymore. Enough evidence against Trump is already public to make it clear a treason trial is justified.

I am capable to presume Trump's innocence, and wait to hear any counter-evidence or technical legal arguments which might acquit him. I would be fine with acquittal on the basis of either the law or the evidence, after a trial. I have already said the wise policy would be to put Trump on trial, and pardon him if he is convicted.

On the other hand, neglect to charge Trump to the full extent his criminal conduct justifies would be unwise. It would invite continuation of Trump's war against the United States, either by him, or by others among his followers.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Damn. I mean, just....damn. Get help, Lathrop.

[Gandydancer]

I didn't read that immense wall of text since the first couple of sentences were enough to demonstrate that you are an ignorant loon.

Treason is defined in the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Gandydancer, putting that definition in the Constitution was a good idea. Too bad you never learned what the definition was meant to encompass. Trump did what the Constitution defines.

You have no notion what, "levying war," means. You have fallen into plentiful company by accident, but you are being stupid on purpose.

I put Supreme Court citations which explain what you don't know in a comment you refused to read. The citations leave no doubt at all that Trump levied war against the United States, as defined by the Constitution.

If you think you were taught otherwise, you had a bad teacher. More likely, you are just making it up, because you think war must mean something really big. Turns out, it doesn't.

[apedad]

YouTuber vows to keep making videos after being shot during mall prank gone horribly wrong

“I was playing a prank and a simple practical joke, and this guy didn’t take it very well,” (Tanner) Cook told Washington, D.C.-based CBS affiliate WUSA on Monday. “He didn’t say anything to me.”

Loudoun County Sheriff Mike Chapman said the shooting occurred after a fight broke out between two men in the food court.

Alan W. Colie, 31, stands accused of one count each of aggravated malicious wounding, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and discharging a firearm within a building.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/youtuber-vows-to-keep-making-videos-after-being-shot-during-mall-prank-gone-horribly-wrong/

I think we can all agree there’s ZERO sympathy for either jerk.

I’ve been to this mall several times and it would piss me off to no end if a pranker tried to disturb me while I was eating my food-mall teriyaki chicken – but I wouldn’t shoot the guy either.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not saying the guy should have up and shot him, but you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. And this guy seems not to have learned that lesson.

[Michael P]

I am willing to extend the law for lethal self-defense to cases like this. Other 'pranks' in similar vein have sent people to the hospital -- it's hard to tell how far someone will go if they think Internet lulz justify assaulting someone.

[Kazinski]

He needs to keep getting shot until he gets the concept.

[bernard11]

Responsible gun owner.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

Lol. Lmao.

[Michael P]

Yes, it's hilarious that even Democrats are dumb enough to think that is a decent web site design.

If they think they had a point, making people scroll to read it is counterproductive.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“I’m too lazy to read about comical corruption at SCOTUS and that’s Democrats fault” is not the own you think it is.

[Gandydancer]

The article is off the bottom of the screen and it’s not even obvious that it’s there. So, yes, “terrible page design” was my first reaction as well.

Anyway, that Thomas has a billionaire that invites him out on his yacht, etc., won’t be of as much concern as Joe getting paid through his druggie son Hunter and other members of his clan until and unless Thomas fails to recuse himself from a case said billionaire has a stake in. And if that happened propublica shouldn’t have buries the lede behind that idiot billboard. It used up my patience entirely.

[Nige]

Poor baby. Actual reportage versus dumb stuff from who-knows-where, no wonder you guys hate it.

'Thomas has a billionaire'

The billionaire has him.

[OtisAH]

I’ve seen you bitch that a two sentence post using nothing but one and two syllable words was “too wordy.” So of course you’re crying because a long-form investigative journalism piece can’t be read without having to scroll. Fekkin’ hilarious.

I will say though that whatever talk-to-text program you use to communicate here is pretty damn impressive. Syntax, spelling, sentence structure, it’s all pretty good.

[OtisAH]

One correction: It wasn’t that the post was too wordy. It was that he used too many fancy words. Sorry for the error,

[Michael P]

Link or it didn’t happen.

But it's funny that you think that has anything to do with some retarded web trick that forces people to take significantly more action to read whatever screed that dumpster fire of leftist virtue signaling hoped to convey.

[OtisAH]

Hilarious. It happened. I laughed at you then for it. And this is definitely happening so bookmark it for the next time.

[Nige]

That's a self-own and a half.

[SRG]

I wish I could say I was surprised, but it's hardly inconsistent with what we know about him already.

Crow acknowledged that he’d extended “hospitality” to the Thomases “over the years,” but said that Thomas never asked for any of it and it was “no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends.”

It must have slipped Clazza's mind to report this - again, and again, and again.

[Bob from Ohio]

What does "Clazza" mean?

[SRG]

British diminutives are often formed by abbreviating a name and then adding a schwa. Done like that, it’s sometimes called the Etonian diminutive. The best example – though with a slight modification – is the English slang word “soccer”, formed from shortening “Association (football)” to “Assoc” and thence “soccer”.

There’s an additional wrinkle for names with a middle “r”. The “r” is replaced by a “z”, hence Barry becomes Bazza, Gary becomes Gazza, etc. The schwa is optional, though, so often enough you might hear “Baz” or “Gaz”.

Hence Clazza.

[Bob from Ohio]

From your past history with the justice, I just assumed it was racist.

So its just a stupid usage. Much better.

[SRG]

Meanwhile, if you can move on from your dainty sensibilities, how do you propose to defend Thomas from this evidence breach of ethics if not, indeed, law-breaking?

[Snorkle]

That's not how "bob" plays. He demands to speak to the manager about some trivial word choice and then pretends he refuted your entire point.

He's the undisputed victor of the arguments going on in his head.

[Bob from Ohio]

“bob”

Don't miscapitalize me!

[myself]

Deliberately ironic?

[Gandydancer]

"...how do you propose to defend Thomas from this evidence(sic) breach of ethics if not, indeed, law-breaking?"

By observing that if there's any evidence of a breach of ethics or of law-breaking you haven't produced it here.

I didn't bother to read the article once I got past the idiot billboard. TLDR and the content of the billboard didn't elicit any interest. I mean... he accepted trips on the billionaire's yacht and stayed in his mansion? Are you kidding me?

[Nige]

Yes, and didn't declare them, those are ethics violations, and possibly against the law for federal employees.

[Michael P]

There was no obligation to report such things. This was just unhinged leftists playing "gotcha" and hallucinating rules that they want to apply asymmetrically.

[Brian Thomas]

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/financial_disclosure_filing_instructions.pdf

From Page 1 (since I know you're not a fan of reading or scrolling):

WHO MUST FILE and WHEN?

JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES are required to file an annual report by May 15 following each calendar year in which they performed their duties for more than sixty (60) days.
5 U.S.C. § 13103(d).

JUDICIAL OFFICERS are defined in the Act as the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the judges of United States courts of appeals, United States district courts, .... 5 U.S.C. § 13101(10).

[Bob from Ohio]

Gifts from actual friends don't need to be reported.

[Nige]

Ah, yes, my BILLIONAIRE 'friend!' This BILLIONAIRE is my best 'friend!'

[LawTalkingGuy]

That's not true at all.

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/financial_disclosure_filing_instructions.pdf

[Gandydancer]

"Not true at all."

Sure it is. Nothing in the filing instructions say otherwise, and the actual document you need to consult is the Judicial Conference Regulations on Gifts https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf The general rule is "A judicial officer or employee is not permitted to accept a gift from anyone
who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court or other
entity served by the judicial officer or employee, or from any other person
whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or
nonperformance of the judicial officer’s or employee’s official duties." The word "friend" appears three times, all giving de minimus exceptions to the general rule when there is a "matter" that would normally raise a concern. In the case uinder discussion pro-publica failed, so far as I noticed, to identify any "matter" which would make Thomas accepting the hospitality of his billionaire friend an issue.

[Nelson]

The CEO of Ratheon is suddenly "actual friends" with everyone on the Armed Services Committee.

Nothing to see here!

[Gandydancer]

Raytheon is presumably always has an interest in seeking official action from members of the Armed Forces Committee. What is this billionaire seeking from Thomas? I'm open to listening to your argument, but you actually have to make one.

[Nige]

What does the right wing Republican megadonor billionaire want with the Supreme Court justice? I think he wants you to defend ther blatant corruption, is what he wants. Good job.

[Nelson]

It's not just hom, it's the people who do want to influence the court and know Crow is owed many favors by Thomas. Fruend of a friend is just one step away.

[SRG]

From Part V:

the reporting exemption does not include: • gifts other than food, lodging or entertainment, such as transportation that substitutes for commercial transportation;

There is no exemption for friends.

So why did you lie?

[Noscitur a sociis]

You may have noted that the linked guidance was updated in March 2023. The previous guidance, dated November 2021, has this to say:

Personal hospitality need not be reported. Personal hospitality means hospitality extended for a non-business purpose by one, not a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of that person or his family or on property or facilities owned by that person or family. Section 109(14).

https://fixthecourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Instructions-to-file-FDs-for-2021.pdf

[LawTalkingGuy]

That’s not a categorical exclusion of gifts from friends. Like Bob said. He was wrong.

And that doesn’t really address how travel (like flying on jets) would be included under “personal hospitality”

[Gandydancer]

Since the billboard claims "flies on his private jet" rather than ":flying on jets" that appears to be covered by "on property or facilities owned by that person or family".

[Nige]

The argument here being, if the person is rich enough to *own* the jet, it’s ok. Look at you finding loopholes for corruption!

[NOVA Lawyer]

That's not what it says. At all.

[Michael P]

See that bit at the bottom of the first page, "Revised March 2023"? They revised the reporting requirements last month.

Leftists can't read, probably because they have been taught so hard that their feelings are the only thing that matter.

[LawTalkingGuy]

[Magister]

The requirement for judicial officers (including Supreme Court justices) to file was in the "Ethics in Government Act of 1978".

[Michael P]

Laws are implemented by the federal government using more than just acts of Congress. There's a hierarchy, from constitution and treaties to statutes to regulations to guidance material, with executive orders and policies and government-internal orders and more for good measure, generally adding details and unfortunately scope as they go down the hierarchy. In this case, the judiciary clarifies what must be reported through the instructions linked above, and those instructions change from time to time.

[Nige]

D'you think Thomas checked regularly to see if the updates made his actions magically less corrupt or not?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The stupidity and transparent dishonesty of this sophomoric hit piece is nicely represented right up front:

If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000.

As if the plane and yacht were chartered exclusively for Thomas and his wife. That's like estimating the value of a cruise someone takes with Carnival based on the cost to run the entire ship.

[Nige]

Nice to have access to a Supreme Court judge while on the same flight or cruise paid for by your friend the right wing billionaire, eh?

[NOVA Lawyer]

So the value he received was just $100k or $50k? You're a joke, quibbling over the precise value of the lavish gifts he received and failed to report in contravention of any reasonable interpretation of the ethics rules.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

He’s a fucking disgrace to the Court. Always has been and always will be.

He should be impeached, at minimum.

[Kazinski]

Well get the votes and have at it, short of that he can do whatever he wants.

[Nige]

Weird response to massive, blatant corruption.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not corruption. Crowe has never had a case before the S/C where he had a personal interest.

You just hate Thomas.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. I think you just like corruption.

[Nige]

Of course it's corruption. Trump has left you utterly degraded. Crow doesn't have to be involved in cases to influence Thomas by showering him with largesse, just have an ideological interest,

[Gandydancer]

He's influencing Thomas to do what Thomas is already inclined to do by not calling him a house nigger? For shame!

[Nige]

'Here's lots of 'not money' *wink wink* for doing things you would *wink wink* have done anyway! By the way, if any of the groups in which I have an interest come up before you, well, have another cruise!'

[Nige]

Oh, and it seems he's got you to call him that for him.

[Nelson]

A word in his favor: he remains loyal and faithful to his wife, who suffers frequent dissociative episodes and persistent paranoid delusions about nefarious forces stealing elections.

Living with a person with such crippling mental challenges can be exhausting, but Justice Thomas remains true to Ginny. Good on him.

[Nige]

Crow gives her lots of money too.

[Snorkle]

I think he was talking about Crow. Gin Gin is sort of the mascot in that relationship.

[Gandydancer]

The "too" implies Crowe gives Thomas money, but all I see alleged is hospitality.

You on the other hand come across as lying scum.

[Nige]

Well you aren't looking too carefully, are you? You've already admitted you can barely handling reading the article.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So you’re now on the record as being perfectly ok with blatant corruption and a complete lack of ethical behavior.

It’s what anyone who reads your partisan bullshit would have expected.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

your partisan bullshit

*snort*

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Be careful that you aren't too verbose. I wouldn't want you to have a stroke trying to conjure up a coherent thought.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Hell, I expended far more verbiage on your stupid straw man than was warranted.

[NOVA Lawyer]

An expected response from the party of Ayn Rand. It's all will to power and if you can get away with it, do it. Disgusting.

[Nige]

https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1643973544857178114

'A detail from our story today: Ted Cruz tweeted this photo of Clarence Thomas swearing in 5th Circuit Judge James Ho. Turns out this is in billionaire Harlan Crow's private library, and flight records show Crow's jet dispatched to DC and back to Dallas before + after this event'

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You almost have to admire their brazenness.

[Gandydancer]

I suggest you locate "the gift exception for travel expenses to attend law related events" in the relevant documents before further farting-out of your idiocies.

[Nige]

Gandy's hard at work finding corruption loopholes.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Why do I suspect that if George Soros were doing the exact same things for Justice Sotomayor, we would be hearing a different tune from you?

[myself]

Don't worry. Republicans will urge him to resign when they have the Presidency again.

[Gandydancer]

Not me. Trump already blew his opportunities to put someone on the Court as good as Thomas. I'd prefer him to hang on until 2028 if he can.

[Nige]

Can't have that billionaire waste his investment, right?

[bernard11]

Waiting for Blackman to follow up his post on Protasiewicz with comments on Thomas.

How long will it take?

[Gandydancer]

Since there's no reason for him to connect the two, no sooner than otherwise.

[NOVA Lawyer]

lol

[Kleppe]

Dems have decided it's good for the country to charge their chief political opponent with crimes that rely on three separate novel legal theories to succeed. And when people question the wisdom of doing this, the Dems solemnly chant "no one is above the law." Yawn.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Thompson

Yeah republicans would NEVER do that.

[Kleppe]

The fact that you think the linked case is even worthy of being referenced in connection with what Alvin Bragg is doing is embarrassing. It's one thing if a political opponent committed a clear cut violation of law. But what is the benefit to the country in indicting Trump on this house of cards? Apparently it's too much to ask to not invent wholly novel legal arguments to charge political opponents with crimes. Democrats are scum.

[LawTalkingGuy]

But it’s just fine for Republicans to do that to normal people to make a political point!

“No one is above the law” means that Trump gets to be subject to bullshit charges just like everybody else for once.

Everyone else in the country is at risk of this. Indeed most people might not even see a courtroom because they’ll be subject to police force, including killings, for bullshit things that also aren’t crimes.

Republicans liked this system (that they created) until it started focusing on people they like. Now they’re crying. It’s pathetic really.

[Randal]

Yep. This is what being "tough on crime" looks like.

[Gandydancer]

I, too, was puzzled by the supposed relevance of the Georgia_Thompson prosecution. But now LTG has made explicit his argument… and it is that bringing bullshit charges could happen to anyone, so why not pick out Trump for them.

This is obtuseness beyond measuring. The “[picking] their chief political opponent” bit is important. Whether Georgia Thompson was innocent or guilty the reason for picking her doesn’t seem to be that she was a significant political opponent of the prosecutor. Prosecuting her wasn’t “an attack on democracy” and the Trump prosecution is, unlike any claimed to be that by his opponents, exactly that.

[Randal]

I think Trump can take it.

When conservative prosecutors "pick on" random innocent black people, it's thousands of people, not just one, and they don't have the means to fight back.

Equal justice for all!

[Michael P]

Democrats asked whether U.S. Attorney Biskupic was pressured by the White House or the Justice Department to prosecute Democrats, as other U.S. Attorneys allegedly were in the Bush administration Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Jurors defended their verdict, and some Democrats, including former Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, who conducted a parallel investigation, said that Biskupic was not politically motivated.

You're right: Republicans wouldn't prosecute someone for blatantly political purposes.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well they SAID they didn’t for for political purposes. So that must be true. Never mind they tried to use this smear the Governor and at the same time the Bush admin was in the process of firing US attorneys for not prosecuting democrats enough (something which caused Alberto Gonzalez resigned over).

But they said it was honest and not political bullshit so it MUST be true.

[Michael P]

Note that Democrats, including one who investigated the issue, agreed that there was no political motivation in that prosecution.

Democrats cry foul every time anyone tries to enforce the law consistently against them. They are currently underprosecuted -- for political reasons -- so prosecutors applying standards without regards to party would result in more Democrats being prosecuted.

[LawTalkingGuy]

LOL LMAO. It's HILARIOUS that you actually believe this. I mean this is truly incredible. They're not being prosecuted because republicans don't have the goods. There were four years of republicans running DOJ. They got Nothing. Durham investigation was a joke.

[Nige]

I can't think of a single instance of even token protest about a Democrat politician being prosecuted for corruption or anything else, let alone this messianic bullshit.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That too. Republican US Atty goes after Blagojevich? Immediate impeachment and removal by Illinois Dems. (Trump commuted his sentence lol)

I think the one that raised the most eyebrows among Dems was the Don Siegelman prosecution. And that was in the context of the US Attorneys scandal and Karl Rove, so it made sense to raise some questions about it.

[DaveM]

The worst part of “no one is above the law” is that it is so horribly, cynically untrue in actual practice. We have legions of examples of people “above the law”. And so many of them are politicians by trade. We have a wolves guarding the henhouse situation for sure.

As a goal, yes, absolutely no one should be above the law. Nor beneath it, either.

[OtisAH]

And now we have one fewer example of that. That’s a good thing.

And I’m not entirely sure what clever point is thought to be made with the “no one is beneath the law either” bit that’s been making the rounds this week. But a far better known and longer lived saying is “We are all equal under the law.”

[DaveM]

We have to say "no one is beneath it either" because of self-serving prosecutorial discretion and novel legal theorizing. It's a human system. One has to account for human failings. That's why.

[OtisAH]

We are all subject to the law, which is often and commonly phrased as being “under the law.” Which is another way of saying we are all beneath the law. How turning that on its head and claiming we are *not* all subject to the law then addresses alleged “self-serving prosecutorial discretion and novel legal theorizing” is beyond me,

[Nige]

Better formulation is no-one *should* be above the law, but it's neither a legal nor a socially acceptable argument for letting this one guy off.

[DaveM]

The cynical part is not acknowledging that the principle is being honored more in the breach than in the following, so in fact no one has a leg to stand on.

An even better formulation would be no one *is* above the law, but we have fallen far short of enforcing this standard lately. Starting with case X, we are going to bring cases W, Y, and Z also into compliance.

[Nige]

That formulation, is, sadly, aspirational rather than actual, but you know what would help? Getting serious about tackling white collar crime.

[DaveM]

What could be more "actual" than naming the people who you think are being held above the law, and saying what you're going to do about it, though? See, you just can't have a double standard here. If it's a good practice to name Trump, then you have to name the others who are in a similar situation.

Not to bring up the Clinton case here (we all have bad memories of that time), but this was the very thing that chaffed me the most about how James Comey decided to handle things. He basically re-defined the standards for secure documents so she could be declared not guilty.

It ought to stick in our craw when powerful people in positions of high trust get white glove handling.

[Nige]

She got named plenty, though, and also investigated and subjected to highly publicised hearings that went on for decades. You should probably highlight people who haven't been investigated, or activities that are legal but shouldn't be, or activities that are effectively legal for some because when rich people get caught doing them, they just pay off some fines.

[DaveM]

I agree, Clinton certainly didn't get off without consequences, but my gripe wasn't with Clinton, it's with Comey.

A more recent example would be the way that the FDIC bailed out the powerful people who had put in hundreds of billions over the insured limit into the SVB. Yet another example of the connected people getting special treatment above the law.

And like I said, there are legions of these examples, lately. I'm not pretending there's anything identifiably partisan about it, it's just the party-in-power vs. the party-not-in-power.

[Nige]

It was maddening, wasn't it? The whole thing was so obviously crooked and dumb and arrogant.

[Kleppe]

"it’s neither a legal nor a socially acceptable argument for letting this one guy off"

Letting him off of WHAT? You're still pretending that there was even a colorable violation of criminal law in this case. How about not inventing an entirely new crime through three novel legal theories to punish political opposition? Is that a bridge too far? This is my earlier comment about Dems mindlessly chanting "no one is above the law" in action.

[Nige]

Guy Who Engages In Complicated Schemes Involving Loopholes And Financial Shenanigans And Hiding Behind Lawyers Gets Charged With Complicated Crimes Related To Loopholes and Financial Shenanigans And Hiding Behind Lawyers. ‘Those laws don’t count and aren’t even real,’ wail supporters.

[Gandydancer]

There's nothing "complicated" about the charges against Trump. They're either entirely bogus or beyond the statute of limitations.

[Nige]

Then his legal team will have a field day, no doubt.

[Krayt]

“No one is above the law” is a subset of “Everyone is equal before the law”, which also includes no selective prosecution of political enemies, nor turning the investigative power of government against political enemies so you can hurt them.

This is payback for Bill Clinton, as well as Donald “Lock Her Up!” Trump’s breezy attempt at same rhetorically. This means you, stupid Republicans saying Bill Clinton’s impeachment was something wildly different. You set out to hurt him, churn endlessly looking throughis papers, “wherever it leads”, I think hack prosecutors say, apply process crimes and so on

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Then Democrats facetiously say now, “We’re not doing that to hurt an opponent! We just feel a payment to shut up someone who would embarrass the candidate is a campaign contribution that should be listed and we will tear the whole thing down over it.”

“We’re not doing this to hurt a political opponent oh boy he can’t run again, maybe, oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy!!!”

[Nige]

Can't do the crime don't do the time.

Can't time the the crime don't do the do.

Timing the crime can't do the don't.

Etc.

[Gandydancer]

Your brain is broken and drivel is coming out your nose.

[Nige]

Crime can't the do, time do the don't.

[Ben_]

Because they just say anything. They’re just talking points.

Anything that looks like a principle is just a temporary pretense, used to attack others. Then immediately forgotten when they want to take an action themselves.

[SimonP]

This is the right way to do it. Trump is getting due process. His lawyers can poke holes in the legal argument, and a judge will decide whether they have merit. He's not barred from running for office or even winning. He's right back to campaigning.

If the charges end up being tossed, Bragg has egg on his face, maybe gets primaried/voted out in his next election. Not a big deal.

Contrast this with the Republican strategy, which relies on grabbing power and waiting for the lawsuits to roll them back. Just look at how DeSantis is dealing with Disney. Disney criticized his anti-LGBT policies. So he took away their special district (probably not legal). When it became clear that would result in a big tax hit for nearby residents, he brought back the legislature to craft a solution - keep the district, but put in place a corrupt, governor-appointed body to govern it. Then he put a bunch of cronies on it, who were champing at the bit to use their power over land use and infrastructure within the district to impose preferences on Disney-produced content (also probably not legal). Now Disney has achieved a contractual end-run around the corrupt board, and DeSantis has ordered an investigation into their actions (just more legal-ish harassment).

That's the Republican model. Screw due process. Do whatever you want and wait for someone to care enough to sue you. Do things that aren't legal and then pass laws that make them legal. Stack the courts with corrupt judges who will bless your approach.

You want to see dubious legal theories? Wait until you see what these uppity county DAs come up with when trying to find a reason to indict the Clintons or Bidens. Trump and the Trump Organization at least were in NYC for a time. I don't know how someone in bumfuck Idaho is going to get jurisdiction over Bill Clinton.

[DaveM]

"Then he put a bunch of cronies on it, who were champing at the bit to use their power over land use and infrastructure within the district to impose preferences on Disney-produced content"

Citation needed.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ron-desantis-stacks-new-disney-oversight-board-with-his-donor-pals

[DaveM]

Thanks, yeah, that's what I thought, it's just an opinion. Your description of this as the Board "imposing" its content preferences is a bit over the top, but hey, all opinions are a bit over the top, that's to be expected.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I didn't describe anything. The other guy did. The article listed factual information about the realtionship between DeSantis and the board members (i.e. cronies).

It included a DeSantis quote: "“I think that all of these board members very much would like to see the type of entertainment that all families can appreciate,”

This strongly implies that the Board, who would be governing the land use, would like a say in content created by Disney.

I don't see how this is an "opinion" those are the basic facts about this arrangement.

[SimonP]

Seems to me the opinion is likely to be spot-on, considering that the Board members are upset that they don't have the same kind of power over Disney that they thought they would have. Do you think they're disappointed they won't be able to get into the nitty-gritty on land use restrictions within the special district, or debates about plumbing and traffic capacity?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump is getting due process. "

In Manhattan?

Dem prosecutor, Dem judge, Dem jury.

I suppose from the Dem point of view, the"Orange Cheetoh" is getting the process "due" him.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The jury has already been seated?

Wait- this isn’t just another one of your dipshitisms, is it?

Damn, you got me!

[Bob from Ohio]

Its Manhattan, Trump got 12% of the vote. Its a pretty good prediction.

[Nige]

Should have done his criming elsewhere.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If you knew literally anything about criminal law you’d know trump is getting WAY more process than the vast majority of defendants ever get.

Compare trump to Kalief browder for instance.

Also on its extremely rich for you to pretend to care about due process considering you think segregation era trials were “fair” and have said that “due process is a bullet in the head” in regards to Gitmo detainees (some of whom were minors and many of whom had weak cases against them).

[Bob from Ohio]

Hey, I can't help it if the Democrats who run NYC kept Kalief Browder in jail so long. Maybe you should take it up with them.

[Nige]

Never mind that guy, Bob’s got a famous, dodgy, wealthy politician to protect!

[Frank Drackman]

But the Judge is Colombian so he can at least roll his R's

[SimonP]

Well, his "peers," once upon a time - before he happened upon the MAGA grift.

[Kleppe]

"You want to see dubious legal theories? Wait until you see what these uppity county DAs come up with when..."

Can you not even muster the common courtesy to wait for the subjects of your ire to actually do something before crying hypocrisy? Or is this the latest manifestation of left-wing hallucinations?

[SimonP]

Conservatives just hate it when their game gets called out before they can execute it.

It's always the same two-step. "We didn't say that!" And then you do. "Well, it's different now!"

[Kleppe]

"Conservatives just hate it when their game gets called out before they can execute it."

You've managed to cram two instances of mind-reading into a single sentence. Impressive.

"It’s always the same two-step. “We didn’t say that!” And then you do. “Well, it’s different now!”

If the person you're addressing can answer your post by merely repeating what he wrote the first time, your post was poorly reasoned and non-responsive. Do better.

[SimonP]

It's not "mind-reading." You fuckers telegraph what you intend to do to each other and then pretend like "the libz" aren't in on your secret code. We call it out, and you whine and cry about "mind-reading" like it's so unfair that we, I dunno, see when you're complaining about "grooming" that you're going to ban LGBT issues from high school, or ban gender-affirming care for adults, or restrict interstate travel for abortion, or take kids away from parents, or whatever else it is today that it wasn't supposed to be yesterday.

It's all so disingenuous. You act like fascists and then complain we don't take your "ideas" seriously. You lie about your intentions and then accuse others of bad faith when they see through your lies. We can't have a serious debate over policy any more because you're constantly disputing factual reality, refusing to concede any simple point that might imply a slight softening of your ultimate, ideologically-driven views.

You're not interesting or complex enough for "mind-reading" to be necessary. You're simple-minded fascists wasting your opponents' energy in a larger struggle you intend to win by brute force.

[Gandydancer]

"This is the right way to do it."

There is no "right way" to corruptly use the prosecutorial power.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Dems solemnly chant “no one is above the law.”"

Its really, "To my enemies, the Law"

[Nige]

Republicans just love voting for crooks.

[shawn_dude]

"Lock Her Up!!"
"Hang Mike Pence!"

I'd take "Trial by jury!" any time over the other two.

[Kleppe]

Dems object to GOP words. GOP object to Dem actions. Private citizens chanting "lock her up" about Hillary justifies state actors inventing new categories of crimes to turn the criminal justice system on Trump in Shawn's mind, apparently.

[shawn_dude]

Or, you know, Trump committing crimes justifies Trump being charged with crimes and having those go through the criminal justice system.

[Kleppe]

In order to convict him of what he's been charged with all the Dems have to prove is: statute of limitations shouldn't apply, a federal crime can count as the second crime under the state law, and he doesn't have to have been convicted of the second "crime" at all. Easy peasy, good jorb

[shawn_dude]

"The Dems" don't have to prove this. The prosecution does. I don't think there's any real debate over how difficult this might be, but if they do manage it, it isn't "the Dems" that did it.

As of Feb 2023, there were 464K registered Republicans in New York City. (Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond.) There's a 9% chance he'll get at least one registered Republican on his jury.

[Martinned]

A what % chance???

[Gandydancer]

"Or, you know, Trump committing crimes..."
Or, you know, complete bullshit.

[Nige]

The guy behind Trump University would never commit crimes!

[Frank Drackman]

OK for a "Change of Pace" (get it)
Loving the new MLB rules (Braves 5-1 BTW) games actually watchable.
Now if they could only even up things for the People of Southpaw-ness

Frank "Lefty" Drackman

[Martinned]

In other exciting news, as we speak the ICJ is delivering its judgment in Guyana v. Venezuela. By the end of the day, half of the territory of Guyana might belong to Venezuela.

https://www.icj-cij.org/case/171

[Martinned]

Never mind, it was still only a preliminary judgment. The merits case is proceeding, no idea when the ultimate judgment might come.

[Frank Drackman]

Tip: Don't drink the Koolaid

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like trouble:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Supply-Chain/China-weighs-export-ban-for-rare-earth-magnet-tech

This gives ammo to the already growing isolationist/protectionists in the US government.

[Kleppe]

Is it trouble because of the thing itself, or because it "gives ammo" to your political opposition?

[Sarcastr0]

Why not both?

[Gandydancer]

Why did you only specify the one?

[Ben_]

Only because environmentalists won’t let us mine rare earths in the US. Environmentalists shut down relatively clean, relatively safe production in the US in favor of China's relatively dirty and dangerous mining industries.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, yeah, it sucks we outsource our environmentally costly requirements to keep America (relatively) pristine.

But this issue is not just about mining; it's about the entire supply chain - processing, and manufacture are also not something we do.

And we don't invest or engage enough in other countries with rare earths.

Environmental concerns are legit; I know you want us to just wreck our environment to 'help America' but that's because you're a fool. I do see opportunity in cutting the red-tape that comes along with the regs.

[Ben_]

The environment doesn’t get better by moving the destruction to China. It gets worse because China doesn’t have protections in place.

Rare earths could be mined in the US, with relatively clean and safe mines. The rest of the supply chain could be here or anywhere else.

But environmentalists want, first and foremost, to make Americans' lives worse. Turning a blind eye to environmental destruction in China is part of that ethos.

[Nige]

Bloody hell Republicans are becoming aware of the US outsourcing its pollution and destructive extraction practices to other, usually poorer countries. There's hope yet.

'But environmentalists want, first and foremost, to make Americans’ lives worse.'

Cancel that, another floating, flexible, one-size-fits-all thing.

[Frank Drackman]

kind of hard for 2 bullion Chinks to hold their breath.

[Sarcastr0]

You're just so unserious, Ben. Making up villains to instantiate your selfishness as virtue.

[Ben_]

Amazing how rare earths mining is somehow all about me when you have nothing else worthwhile to offer.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't care shit about rare earths. Just more ammo for your unserious idea that environmentalists want to make Americans’ lives worse.

No, they don't. You're just selfish, and add some hatefulness to salve your conscience with resentment.

Your short circuiting all actual debate into insisting liberals hate Americans makes you really shallow, if high-energy.

[Ben_]

And yet environmentalists still shut down mining and production in the US and send it to China where the environmental destruction from it is actually a lot worse.

And you want to distract by focusing on me.

[Bob from Ohio]

"environmentalists want to make Americans’ lives worse"

If they don't want it, they are pretty good at it.

4 hours to cycle my dishwasher, twice the old one. You can't start it after dinner and have it ready to empty before bed.

Toilets need flushed twice.

They forced people to buy those horrible curly bulbs which cost 5 times a regular bulb but never lasted as long as advertised, not ever.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird no one has issues with their dishwashers taking 4 hours or except for right wing cranks.

Also notable is you not caring about the benefit to the actual environment. Just your toilet not flushing your turds quite as hard these days.

And my light bulbs last longer than ever by a lot. You're absolutely wrong/lying about that switchover.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why do new dishwashers take so long to complete a normal cycle?
That's the downside of lower water and energy use
Published: April 23, 2014 04:15 PM" Consumer reports [well known right wing cranks]

LEDs are not the curly bulbs I mentioned either.

[Absaroka]

"And my light bulbs last longer than ever by a lot. You’re absolutely wrong/lying about that switchover."

What Bob said was "but never lasted as long as advertised, not ever". That mirrors my experience with compact fluorescents - they never lasted anywhere near the claimed life. I think the claimed life, to the extent it was accurate at all, only applied if you never cycled it off and on.

And I think they also didn't last as long as incandescents, either. It sure seemed like I was changing them more often.

LEDs are another kettle of fish; the first couple of years may have been a little spotty, but since then they have been awesome.

(n.b. I'm not even arguing that banning the 60W incandescents was bad policy, just that my experience mirrors Bob's)

[Sarcastr0]

"How long should a dishwasher run?
If you have a new dishwasher, you may notice that your first cycle runs for a fairly long time. This could be due to sensor calibration, so don’t interrupt this cycle! Instead, let it run its course. This will help your sensors adjust to ensure good performance. Check out this explanation of dishwasher cycles for their typical cycle times and uses.

If subsequent dishwasher cycle times seem to take longer than necessary, there are a few possible explanations. First, it may be due to your dishes. If your dishes are especially dirty, the dishwasher sensors will default to a longer wash cycle to ensure they’re cleaned properly. If you have hard water, limescale or mineral buildup, this could interfere with sensors and cause them to default to a longer setting."

The only place 4 hours shows up is under this table:
Heavy Wash: 2.75 to 4 hours

Seems like you got a shitty machine, and are overusing it. Or you're lying. I give most people the benefit of the doubt, but you've said lying for political purposes is good.

And CFL bulb last a lot longer than incandescent. You're flat wrong about that.

[Frank Drackman]

Just don't look up where the power to light your light bulbs is coming from. You might not get the answer that you want

[Bob from Ohio]

Forget it Absaroka, only Gaslighto's experiences matter.

Everybody else is lying.

[Mr. Bumble]

Anyone care to explain how longer run times are more "efficient"?
My 40 year old Kitchenaid dishwasher completes a pots and pans soak/scrub cycle (the most intensive cycle) in about an hour and fifteen minutes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"40 year old Kitchenaid "

My 25 year old one had similar results before it broke.

Gaslighto will probably say you are lying though.

[Absaroka]

"Anyone care to explain how longer run times are more “efficient”?"

I'm not sure, but I think it might be more soaking and less spraying. Imagine a plate that has food bits dried on - if you spray it just a little and wait, it will take less water (and energy to heat that water) than just hosing it until it's clean w/o any soak time.

Just guessing, though.

[jb]

"Anyone care to explain how longer run times are more “efficient”?
My 40 year old Kitchenaid dishwasher completes a pots and pans soak/scrub cycle (the most intensive cycle) in about an hour and fifteen minutes."

They're more efficient because they use less energy and less water. Basically, they spend a lot of time soaking dishes and less time "scrubbing" them.

Many (most?) modern efficient dishwashers also have an express mode that lets you use more energy and water if you want to go faster and use more inputs.

[Ben_]

“Anyone care to explain how longer run times are more “efficient”?”

It’s some numbers on a spreadsheet. Maybe they are completely phony. Maybe they are good and genuinely show an energy savings. Maybe in between.

You can be absolutely sure they don’t value you at all. Your quality of life simply doesn’t matter to them -- except when they actively want your life to be worse.

[David Nieporent]

What kind of mentally ill person thinks that groups lobby for energy efficiency not because they think energy efficiency is a good thing but because they sat there asking themselves, "How can we make Ben_'s life worse"?

[Ben_]

They actually just place zero (or negative) value on the quality of Americans' lives and a high value on completely abstract environmental notions. The result is that they make rules to make Americans' lives worse.

Environmentalists affirmatively value creating hardship because any compromise to avoid hurting Americans threatens to show they’re not serious about their environmentalist religious faith.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"4 hours to cycle my dishwasher, twice the old one. You can’t start it after dinner and have it ready to empty before bed.

Toilets need flushed twice."

On these issues, you are in fact, full of shit. Your toilet comment ironically proves it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well maybe he is and that requires the double flush, but as usual you are really the one who is full of shit always offering your uniformed opinion as fact.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

My dishwasher and toilets all work just fine.

Come back when you have something original to say. I'd normally restrict your invitation to return to only intelligent comments, but I don't expect that to ever actually occur.

[Gandydancer]

My toilets DON’T work fine and if that’s because my shits are bigger than yours I still shouldn’t have been forced to buy toilets that require a plunger to get them accepted.

And then there are the showers that spit on me. My ex-wife got a black market plumber to fix that after the inspection.

Not to mention that my bathrooms and kitchen have separate switches for normal bulbs and fluorescents because the builder had to install the latter to meet code and they don’t work worth a damn, so that he couldn’t sell the houses unless there were actually adequate sources of illumination.

At least I can still cook with gas.

[OtisAH]

16% of the world’s rare earth elements are mined in the Mojave Desert.

[Sarcastr0]

I just read that!

All that is sent to China for processing these days, though.

[OtisAH]

Me too. I didn’t know we had rare earths in North America. Apparently there’s more to be found too.

[Sarcastr0]

High entropy alloys are another area of research, but really early on. But there is some signs that the right mix of like tin and cobolt and iron can mimic a rare earth.

[Frank Drackman]

It's like Oil and Water, the Earth is continuously making more. Unless you're one of those crazy Creationists who think it was all created by Hey-Zeuss

[shawn_dude]

Why do you think Musk dropped his first battery factory in Northern Nevada? There's a lithium mine right there.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This gives ammo to the already growing isolationist/protectionists in the US government."

Yes, the Chicom action is bad for that reason.

[David Nieporent]

The thing to keep in mind is that "rare earth elements" is a misnomer; they aren't really that rare. China produces them presently for various reasons, but they're found in other parts of the world.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“rare earth elements” is a misnomer; they aren’t really that rare

It’s not a misnomer at all. They occur naturally in Earth’s crust in abundances ranging from 66.5 ppm, or about 0.0067% for Cerium all the way down to Promethium’s scant 1×10^-15 ppm…or 0.0000000000000000001% (that pretty damned rare). While I generally dislike citing Wikipedia on most subjects, it’s usually pretty good when it comes to mathematics and hard sciences, and this snipped does a particularly good job of explaining the term:

“Though rare-earth elements are technically relatively plentiful in the entire Earth’s crust (cerium being the 25th-most-abundant element at 68 parts per million, more abundant than copper), in practice this is spread thin across trace impurities, so to obtain rare-earths at usable purity requires processing enormous amounts of raw ore at great expense, thus the name “rare” earths.

Because of their geochemical properties, rare-earth elements are typically dispersed and not often found concentrated in rare-earth minerals. Consequently, economically exploitable ore deposits are sparse.”

[Nelson]

In completely unshocking news, Baltimore found at least 150 Catholic pediphile priests who were shielded and protected by the Catholic Church over the past 80 years.

https://apnews.com/article/baltimore-archdiocese-sex-abuse-report-7d5d3af098da59a1c9313a246566638c

"The Baltimore report says church leaders were focused on keeping abuse hidden, not on protecting victims or stopping abuse."

Gee, you think?

"The nearly 500-page document includes numerous instances of leaders taking steps to protect accused clergy, including allowing them to retire with financial support rather than be ousted, letting them remain in the ministry and failing to report alleged abuse to law enforcement."

I'm sure this was just 150+ isolated cases of pedophiles who were really, really sorry, so no reason to actually report it to authorities.

" Neil Adleberg, 74, who was arrested last year and charged with rape and other counts. ... Officials said he coached wrestling at a Catholic high school in the ’70s, then returned to the role for the 2014-2015 school year. The alleged abuse occurred in 2013 and 2014"

I thought they stopped protecting people back in 2002 when they finally got exposed. You mean they didn't? I'm shocked.

Can the people falsely accusing almost 4 million teachers of 'grooming' at least acknowledge that this is what organized pedophilia looks like, not reading a book to kids that has two dads?

[Kazinski]

A Florida Grand Jury says the federal government is facilitating child sex trafficking:

“In reality, ORR is facilitating the forced migration, sale, and abuse of foreign children, and some of our fellow Florida residents are (in some cases unwittingly) funding and incentivizing it for primarily economic reasons.”

https://news.yahoo.com/florida-grand-jury-focused-unaccompanied-190652727.html

[Bob from Ohio]

2 a year.

Bad but let's do Baltimore City Schools in that time frame. Its gonna be more.

[jb]

Sure, why don't you find us some examples of Baltimore City School principals covering up for pedophile teachers and then we can have a conversation about it.

[Nelson]

"2 a year"

Good to know that there is a minimum number of protected pedophiles tbat you are comfortable with. For completeness, how many victims per pedophile is OK in your view? And how many times would the Church have to relocate those pedophiles before they deserved to be condemned?

Two a year, from a single city, with multiple victims due to Church protection.

Now expand it to every city across the US. The number of protected pedophiles gets staggeringly large pretty quickly. Because they are enabled by the Church, the number of victims is almost mind-numbingly huge.

"Bad but let’s do Baltimore City Schools in that time frame. Its gonna be more."

Doubtful. But let's do the exercise. Keep in mind that there are roughly 100 times as many teachers as priests in the US. So, please. Find me records of at least 1500 pedophile techers in Baltimore who were knowingly enabled and protected by their school systems.

I'll be here waiting.

Teachers, generally, aren't pedophiles. The individuals who are aren't systematically protected by their co-workers and their bosses. When judgements are made against them, the school districts don't claim bankruptcy to avoid paying the judgements against them.

Let me know what you discover about pedophile teachers in Baltimore. We're all anxious to see your proof.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Sexual Abuse by Educators Is Scrutinized
By Caroline Hendrie — March 10, 2004

The best data available suggest that nearly 10 percent of American students are targets of unwanted sexual attention by public school employees—ranging from sexual comments to rape—at some point during their school-age years, Ms. Shakeshaft said."

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, you dropped a discussion about victim rates in a discussion about numbers of victimizers.

[Nelson]

"nearly 10 percent of American students are targets of unwanted sexual attention by public school employees—ranging from sexual comments to rape"

You seem to misunderstand the topic. We aren't talking about the number of victims. We're talking about the number of pedophiles and he eneablement and protection offered by their co-workers and organizations.

Also, you are making a false equivelence between rapists (the Catholic offenders raped their victims) and people who did everything from make inappropriate comments to rape.

It's almost like you are trying to be an apologist, but there's no objective evidence to support the "teachers are pedophile groomers but religious leaders aren't" fantasy.

[Nelson]

Bob? Or any other "teachers are pedophiles but religious and secular cultural conservatives aren't" crowd?

Anyone? If you use the word "groomer" regularly, this is your chance to point out why you're right.

[Sarcastr0]

Moving a conversation from above to a more convenient place:

QA: I don’t think it’s necessarily cruel to not take some people’s money and give it to others (even if the other’s sure could use it).

Sarc: the New Deal shows how not doing that is pretty awful; caring for the fallen is a baseline duty of society.
And what Brett wants is worse – to take away support people currently have. Yeah, that’s cruel.

QA: if I give an amount to the homeless shelter and then decide to reduce the amount I give, even if I know the need is equal or greater this year, o don’t think cruel describes that. Less generous maybe.

Sarc: the issue with your analogy is that you are presumably one among many supporting the shelter – some churn is going to be fine.
The government is in a much more singular position, supporting many programs all by itself.

QA: Even if everyone giving money to the shelter decides to give less (say because of current macroeconomic issues) I can’t see that as cruel, just less generous at most.

[Sarcastr0]

The issue is that the upshot is cruel. People who had a certain status quo now suddenly do not. If you are responsible for setting up that status quo, I believe that means you have some responsibility for the pain caused by withdrawing it.

Add in that in the modern era, we believe that the government itself has as part of it's mission to support the poor, weak, infirm, etc. cutting that off is also a dereliction of duty.

That does NOT mean I think there is no room to reform entitlements, only that it must be done carefully, noting the costs of the change in addition to the benefit of saving money/avoiding waste, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

And my position is that reverting to 2019 levels of spending is not, by any sane standard, cruel austerity. It just isn't.

[Sarcastr0]

Your position where you don't bother to discuss where the cuts would come is childlike more than cruel.

[Brett Bellmore]

Establish that the US was a dystopian hellhole in 2019. Go ahead.

[Sarcastr0]

Once again, you don't understand how change works, or transition costs.

No, you do understand that, you're choosing not to because you like the aesthetics of your policy more than the reality of implementation.

[Frank Drackman]

Where do I get one of those wind-powered computers that you have.

[Randal]

jb does the math below. It turns out that returning to 2019 spending levels, even adjusting for inflation and population growth, would not get us anywhere close to a balanced budget. Just another made-up Brettism.

[Commenter_XY]

I got lost at the '2019 spending level is cruelty'. I get that there are some practical considerations...can't screw with most social spending (SSA, medicare, etc). Who would want to? Answer: no one.

But there is no way that rolling back defense spending, DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, and Congressional and Executive and bureaucratic staffing levels to 2019 levels is cruelty. Stop.

What you fail to answer effectively are the lost decades from the Japan (meaning, investment) historical example. High government spending and high debt levels do restrict growth. That is the observed phenomenon. Overlay a decade (or two) of low returns here in the US, and tell me how that works out. Especially with historically elevated inflation. You talk about cruelty? How many pension funds go belly up because of sustained low returns.

You do know what happens in that scenario of low returns, right? Very smart people do very stupid things, like try to chase yield with exotic debt instruments and investment returns with more risky ventures.

I am not seeing where a downward trajectory of overall federal spending is a bad thing. I do think an outcome of the debt ceiling discussions has sequestration in the mix, ultimately.

[Sarcastr0]

High government spending and high debt levels do restrict growth

How? Crowding out?

It's not hard to see where these cuts would fall, Commenter. And as you said it's not discretionary spending. And it's not social security, or Medicare. Concentrate that spending reduction on the poor, and lets go to Dickensian England!

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, we're talking 2019 levels of spending: Establish that 2019 was a dystopian hellhole, or STFU, because you don't even have the beginning of an argument. You're just emoting your dislike of spending cuts.

[jb]

Brett: just to understand your proposal. You're saying that we should uniformly cut back all government spending of all types to 2019 levels? So we'd cut back Social Security, defense spending, and NEA funding so that they are all be exactly the same as 2019?

Some obvious implications:
- Social security spending per capita would decrease in both nominal terms (about 4% due to an increase of about 2.5M beneficiaries) and more significantly in real terms (inflation has been about 19% over that period). I'd imagine a ~25% decrease in real spending power would make a pretty huge difference in whether a lot of old people can make ends meet or not. Pulling out the rug on folks who have been told they can expect this income stream seems at least reasonably cruel to me.
- I'm not sure how you'd model the changes to Medicare to bring its spending back to 2019, but you have similar challenges with more participants and an increase in the cost of delivering care per capital but with a need somehow to keep spending constant. Presumably you'd need death panels or some other way of rationing care in a way we don't do today. In any case, most old people are going to have significantly worse healthcare than they do today. That probably ends up looking cruel in a lot of cases.
- Assistance programs to the poor like SNAP and TANF would certainly have to reduce real benefits. Given how these programs are already pretty poor safety nets, it feels fairly cruel to make people even hungrier than they are today.

[Ben_]

^ Pretending that one line in an internet comment is a complete Federal Budget bill.

[jb]

Brett's trying to propose that balancing the budget is simple. Absent a more substantive proposal that actually makes nuanced tradeoffs, it seems reasonable to try to extrapolate from what he has bothered to write down.

[Ben_]

You post your budget first. Then we can all start to take this seriously.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one advocating for change.

The US posts it's budget about once a year.

[Ben_]

No I’m not. I’m advocating against the bullshit of pretending one sentence is a complete budget proposal and then arguing against some imaginary line item in that budget.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Brett doesn't find cruelty to be a drawback.

He doesn't care about the disabled or the poor. I assure you though, he's happy to receive his SSA benefits and doesn't want THOSE to be cut at all.

[Frank Drackman]

the "Poor" that have $1,000 phones, get Taco Bell delivered?, and free Birth Control (that they don't use, dammit) Good!

[Sarcastr0]

No we're not talking about the 2019 levels of spending in this thread, Brett.

[Absaroka]

"And what Brett wants is worse – to take away support people currently have. Yeah, that’s cruel."

Your view is that merely supporting people at the same level (adjusted for inflation) as they were being supported just 4 years ago is cruel?

Welp. My wife and I are living on a pension/annuity that has a COLA cap of 3%, so we are indeed a bit less off than we were in 2019, because recent inflation was more than 3%. By your definition inflationary budgets are cruel, I suppose?

This bears repeating: inflationary budget deficits are good for those who receive more, adjusted for inflation, than they did before. They aren't so hot for people who don't get full inflation adjustments. And some of those people aren't exactly rolling in dough.

This isn't a play for sympathy; having lived through double digit inflation, and seeing the ongoing deficits, we planned for significant inflation in our retirement, and we're doing fine. But it's important to remember that tax-n-spend isn't good for everyone, and the people hurt aren't just the upper crust.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett isn't adjusting for inflation. He's not asking for a freeze; he's asking for a reduction.

[Brett Bellmore]

Brett was, in fact, explicitly adjusting for inflation AND population growth.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair enough. Though I was not the only one who found that unclear.

But you're still missing actual implementation. At this point, given how many people have pointed that out, one can only assume it is on purpose.

Your formulation that 2019 was a fine spending level in 2019 so why not in 2023 is naive. Just piss-poor policymaking.
But when that's pointed out you just repeat yourself. Because you're not here to debate, you're here to sloganize.

Until you address arguments, you're going to be left out of actual discussion.

[Absaroka]

"Your formulation that 2019 was a fine spending level in 2019 so why not in 2023 is naive."

This started in response to an assumption that the deficit can only be solved by raising taxes, never by cutting spending. Brett's response was simply that life wasn't dystopian with the spending levels of 4 years ago.

ISTM that the notion we can only ever balance the budget by increasing taxes seems like the height of naivety. So today we have to raise taxes 27% over 4 years ago, and increase the budget as a share of GDP from 21 to 25%. What's the plan for 2027, another four years down the road? Do we bump up taxes to 29% of GDP? And four years after that? You have to either assume we will never ever increase spending again (which kind of sux as recessions/wars/pandemics come along), or the budget monotonically increases, or from time to time we actually have to control spending.

That congress will never increase spending seems ... unlikely (and indeed, there will be contingencies where they should increase spending). That we can just keep using up more and more of the GDP forever is pretty obviously not workable. That leaves you with sometimes having to cut spending.

One can argue about how much, or whether now is the time, or what should be cut. But the notion that raising taxes must always be the solution is just silly.

[Nelson]

"the budget by increasing taxes seems like the height of naivety."

I think it's worse than that. It's impossible to tax ourselves out of the deficit, never mind the debt. The only way it will ever be possible is to cut spending as well.

However, Brett's simplistic idea is sophistry at its most basic. It sounds good, but when you consider only one thing, it falls apart.

That thing? Laws have been passed in the past four years that make going back to 2019 literally impossible.

Can we go back to the total budget amount from 2019? Theoretically, yes.

But what gets cut to allow for four years of new costs? With the House in the hands of Rs who don't oppose spending, but do oppose anything Ds try to do, is there any chance that there could be any agreement on cuts? In the middle of a Presidential campaign (and yes, everything will be measured with the 2024 election in mind)? I don't see it.

"But the notion that raising taxes must always be the solution is just silly."

I think that's a very ... kind way to say it. I would use "unsustainable", as you pointed out in your post.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That thing? Laws have been passed in the past four years that make going back to 2019 literally impossible."

It's literally impossible to change laws?

[Nelson]

So all that has to happen to go back to 2019 budget totals is to have Congress repeal every laws in the last four years that include funding in them?

Sure. Why don't we just reverse the rotation of the Earth while we're at it?

[Gandydancer]

"The rotation of the earth" and "laws since 2019 that add new spending" are not equally irreversible, and pretending that they are is absurd.

There is of course no guarantee, or even a high probability, of our Congressvermin and their masters doing anything right, but that doesn't make taxing our way out of this any more plausible.

[Commenter_XY]

One argument for 2019 as a good start point: it is pre-pandemic.

[jb]

FWIW, I think in this case the math doesn't work out. 2019 spending was $4.4T. Between population growth and inflation you'd need nearly $5.4T to match that in 2023. 2022 revenue was $4.9T, and so far 2023 revenue is a bit behind 2022 so you'd still be running something like a ~10% deficit in this formulation.

[Randal]

I was going to try to find some time to do this math so thanks.

I mean it was obvious Brett was just making it up since he always is, but it's nice to show everyone else.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough, I was eyeballing a graph.

So, let's say 2007. No question at all there, prior to TARP.

Was 2007 a dystopian hellhole? Didn't seem dystopian to me.

I'm getting the impression that Sarcastr0 thinks that, no matter how high spending gets, it is always categorically evil to reduce it. At all.

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty have explained why that’s not the question to ask, Brett,

Being stubbornly ignorant before many explanations is not the sick argument you take it for,

[Gandydancer]

No, neither you nor anyone else has “explained” why non-dystopian earlier spending levels aren’t a good basis to estimate what we really need to spend now. (And they included a lot of unnecessary shit, so we ought be able to get away with less. That the pols will be hard to chivvy in the right direction is no answer to anything. Guess what: Getting them to tax more is hard, too.)

The Feds can’t just keep raising taxes forever. What’s your limiting principle?

[Randal]

The country is different than it was in 2007. There are more retirees taking Social Security for example.

So if the implication is that we should return to the same budget we had in 2007, does that mean you plan to cut social security?

If not, then you need to point to what you would cut instead, remember you have to cut it below 2007 levels to compensate.

In other words, sometimes expenses change.

I haven't even looked to see how much the increase in spending is due to the debt service itself.

[Sarcastr0]

As to the COLA thing; there seems an obvious and easy fix for that.

[Absaroka]

>Brett isn’t adjusting for inflation. He’s not asking for a freeze; he’s asking for a reduction.

He's not asking for a freeze at current levels. I haven't heard whether he wants to revert to an inflation adjusted or nominal 2019 number.

>As to the COLA thing; there seems an obvious and easy fix for that.

I, and a lot of retirees are all ears!!

[Sarcastr0]

Inflation reduced or not, he wants a reduction, not a freeze. So same level as 4 years ago seems a bit of spin; it's a reduction. And the way humans work with change versus absolute state a reduction hurts.

I don't understand why we don't index everything to inflation. That we haven't done so by now seems the triumph of political optics over economics.

[Absaroka]

>Inflation reduced or not, he wants a reduction, not a freeze

Sure, but the challenge is: what was so bad about 2019? It didn't seem like a Dickens novel to me. If it wasn't cruel then, why is it cruel now? You haven't answered that. If the GSA motor pool spending reverts to the 2019 value, that doesn't strike me as especially cruel.

>And the way humans work with change versus absolute state a reduction hurts.

Well, sure. But for example the legislature frequently didn't change state salaries for several years, while inflation was ticking up. I didn't like it, but I'd hardly characterize the Washington state government as 'cruel'. We just cut some of the fat out of the budget those years. And before you assert there isn't fat to cut in government budgets, I worked for both the fed and state for years.

>I don’t understand why we don’t index everything to inflation.

Imagine an insurance company paying a fully COLAd annuity. The only way to safely do that is with TIPS. In fact that's true for everyone - nominal treasury bonds are only safe if you are using them to pay nominal obligations. So people would stop buying nominal bonds in favor of TIPS.

I wouldn't think you would like that, because one of the historic ways governments dig themselves out of spending holes is to just inflate away their nominal debt. When that debt is all indexed to inflation they can't do that anymore, so all of a sudden you darn well have to balance the budget.

(also, as a nit, you pay tax on the interest from I-Bonds and TIPS, so you fall behind inflation by your tax bracket every year)

[Brett Bellmore]

"When that debt is all indexed to inflation they can’t do that anymore,"

Sure, they can. They do it by lying about the inflation rate.

[bernard11]

They do it by lying about the inflation rate.

This crap again.

No one is lying about inflation rates. Except you, maybe, and your sources.

[Gandydancer]

They lie about the inflation rate all the time. For example, anything that refers to "core inflation" is a lie.

[Nelson]

"They do it by lying about the inflation rate"

Is this the inflation version of the labor participation rate supposedly making the unemployment rate "fake"? Because that one is first-order idiocy.

[Sarcastr0]

Abrasoka, the challenge is implementation; in transition costs. In all the stuff that you have to do in reality.

one of the historic ways governments dig themselves out of spending holes is to just inflate away their nominal debt
I think that's a fair point, but also has a bad history; there are other ways to get out of debt seems like would be better. I dunno, though. You have a good point about inflation and debt having a relationship we should not erase.

[Nelson]

I think that keeping a close eye on the debt-to-GDP ratio is important. Also, finding a way to have an agreed-upon way to measure the interest on the debt (probably one of the most manipulated numbers in macroeconomics) would be very beneficial.

[Frank Drackman]

Well the Inflation is predicted to be "Transitory"

[Gandydancer]

Another lie about inflation.

[Krayt]

Somehow people survived 30 years ago with much less per capita.

The idea this would be some cruel (much less deadly) thing is a lie.

As tech progresses, life is better now than ever before. Ergo we need less ameliorative action by government as the years go by.

But spending, including borrowing, is tied to the size if the economy, and is used to buy votes. There is no great thing going on here, just lying hot air by politicians, and we, the stupid people, buying into it.

[Sarcastr0]

People survived for years? What an amazing metric.

[Gandydancer]

Yeah, and without the taxing and spending rates you want.

It's would be amazing that you think it is amazing to notice that if I though you had a functioning brain.

[SRG]

Brown v Louisiana

I: won't bother summarising as KBJ's summary is clear enough.

Yet again, judges second-guess what a jury would have done with evidence hidden from the defence. It seems that prosecutors have no real incentive to hand over exculpatory evidence before trial. If they wait until post-conviction, there's always a decent chance that the courts will say that well, it wouldn't have made a difference, and of the courts do permit the appeal, they're no worse off than before. It's a prosecutor's option.

And of course the lower court's reasoning here is bullshit. If I confess and name but one other person as an accomplice, of course that's evidence that persons not named were not accomplices. My guess is that the court decided that Brown deserved what he got, so no appeal for you!

[SRG]

Re Dr Ed's link - the thread being too deep by now...

De-dollarisation is inevitable. It will raise US borrowing costs, but will also increase exports and hence benefit export-orientated US companies. It won't be hyper-inflationary because the dollar won't decline by that much.

[DaveM]

When you say "it will raise US borrowing costs", I have some numbers for folks to think about.

- The national debt is $30 Trillion
- The average interest rate is 2%
- The annual cost is $600 Billion

If de-Dollarisation chases away enough institutional investors so that the interest rate becomes 3%, then the annual cost would be $900 Billion per year. Nearly a trillion dollars in interest payments alone.

The government doesn't have anything like that in extra funds available, so they might think to borrow it. That would force us into a doom spiral of debt: borrowing to pay interest on what you've already borrowed. Or, they could just devalue the currency by letting inflation rise an additional trillion per year.

Either way, a very frightening prospect. The United States is living on borrowed time.

[apedad]

"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem." If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." J. Paul Getty

Those folks (including the Chinese), who own the $30T debt should be the ones worrying.

[Absaroka]

1)A lot of the people who own that debt are Americans, e.g. retirees (both directly and via pension funds and insurance companies, e.g. to fund annuities). Stiffing them would not be nice.

2)If you just say 'Eff the Chinese, let's just stiff them' you are going to learn to live on a balanced budget, because no one is going to be willing to buy your debt anymore.

(I jest - someone will buy it, at high enough interest rates you'll be sorry you defaulted. 'Just charge it and then go bankrupt' is not a fun ride when all is said and done.)

[Ben_]

I mentioned this before, but 56% of self-described "liberal" "white" "women" age 18-29 say they’ve been diagnosed by doctors to have a mental health condition:

https://notthebee.com/article/56-of-liberal-white-women-age-18-29-have-been-diagnosed-with-a-mental-health-condition-

Congratulations to The Good Guys on making your daughters unhappy and mentally unhealthy. Your sons are also doing a lot worse than others' sons.

You guys could stop making everything in the world about your personal self righteousness and vanity at any time. It’s working out badly for everyone, but especially badly for young "liberal" men and women.

[Nige]

Wow, you know enough about their mental health to diagnose the causes? Creepy. Although, of course, it could just be that liberals are better about recognising and dealing with mental illness. Whereas you want to reinforce the attached stigma. Then you pretend to take it seriously whenever there's a mas shooting! One American in five will have some sort of mental health illness in their lifetime.

[DaveM]

It's insanely hard to argue cause and effect on things like "mental health", there are just so, so many variables -- to say nothing that it would be unethical to perform the kinds of experiments on people you'd need to suss out causation.

However, the correlation between people who report they are happy and people who were raised in a traditional household is very strong, both as a signal and longitudinally. But are the traditional households the cause of people's happiness, or are happy people just more predisposed to forming traditional households? Impossible to tell, I think.

Nevertheless, I think it stands to reason that whatever kind of household one forms, that children will flourish best when the situation is a stable one -- at least until the children near adult age.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't make up blame for mental health issues for your own partisan rageaholic bullshit; pretty fucked up, that.

[Ben_]

Liberal kids' mental health crisis is all about me. Who would have thought that?

You’re pretty bad at this today.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the asshole diagnosing the parents as the problem.

Stop being an asshole.

[Ben_]

Maybe it’s school teachers. But that couldn’t be, because school teachers tell us that they can never be expected to accomplish anything because parents are the problem.

[Sarcastr0]

Still being an asshole.

Finger pointing is a dumb exercise. An even if it were not, you are doing it for partisan reasons, and don’t know shit.

Stop being an asshole.

[Ben_]

Parents are responsible for their children and it’s not finger pointing to say so.

[Nige]

Responsible parents look out for their children's mental health. People like you just tell them to shut the fuck up, apparently.

[Gandydancer]

Libtards encourage irresponsible parenting.

See, for example, the libtard judge in C.M. v. J.M. discussed in an earlier thread on this blog.

[Nige]

‘Shut up and conform, kid, or Baphomet’s going to eat your soul!’

[Ben_]

Nige thinks he’s doing kids a favor by telling them they should eagerly go ahead and be freaks and outcasts. Because of how awesome that works out for people.

Tell them to try heroin while you're at it, Nige. Normal people say heroin is bad. Are you going to let kids to "conform" to that idea?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They don't even know if they're actually sons or really daughters.

lmao

[Ben_]

Tell your kids (indirectly, by actions) that they don’t matter because only the special people matter. Then give them a way to become the most special of the special by saying they have gender confusion. See what happens.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

OK, I see many prosecutions (not just the one you’re thinking of) where innocent people get indicted and then get cleared at trial, after paying lots of money and enduring great vexation. We also see cases of innocent people taking pleas after indictment, and later it turns out that, oops, they were innocent all along.

So let’s see how this idea grabs you:

Let the U. S. Supreme Court incorporate the grand-jury right against the states. But don’t let them stop there. Have them give a ringing opinion, suitable for quoting to grand jurors when they begin their duties. The Court could focus on these points:

-grand juries serve as a barrier between innocent suspects and false felony charges.

-they’re supposed to look critically at the evidence, and they should even ask to see the entire case file if they have questions.

-the grand jury can even ask the suspect (or lawyer) to provide what the suspect considers to be exculpatory evidence.

-Given the prevalence of plea bargains, the grand jury may be the *only* jury to hear a case.

-No buck passing (“any problems with the prosecution will come out at trial”)

and

-A grant jury indictment is a jurisdictional prerequesite for felony cases, so no waiver of indictment as part of a hasty plea bargain.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Also, grand jurors should be able to ask the judge for advice on any legal point they may find obscure or confusing.

[ducksalad]

Further suggestion: Restore some of their independence by:

– Specifically instructing them that they have the power to (a) take initiative independent , or even in direct disobedience, of the prosecutor, (b) publicly censure the prosecutor, or (c) indict the prosecutor him/herself. If it makes people feel better the instructions could add that the power should be used rarely and with discretion.

– Have a widely announced day in each session for the general public to bring concerns before the grand jury. On this day no one from the prosecutors’ office can be on the premises.

[Noscitur a sociis]

indict the prosecutor him/herself

For what, exactly?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'd say if the grand jurors present the prosecutor or one of its witnesses for misconduct, the court should appoint its own special prosecutor - and if the special prosecutor finds the regular prosecutor, or his witnesses, provably committed crimes, then ask for an indictment (or sanctions on the regular prosecutor).

[Randal]

I'm super happy to see the "tough on crime" right wingers suddenly realize that being knee-jerk pro-law-enforcement and anti-defendant has some very serious problems.

But giving all the power to secret grand juries is absolutely not the solution. And if you just make the grand jury into the regular jury, you haven't really solved anything... really all you've done there is to take away the grand jury.

The solution is to make frivolous prosecutions more costly for the state and less costly / onerous for the defendant. Fortunately, lots of policy changes have both effects at the same time, like taking away all the little avenues for the state to coerce people into waiving their rights during the process.

1. Waiving your right to due process by agreeing to "donate" a specified amount of money to the government and/or "volunteer" for a certain number of community service hours in exchange for your case being dropped. I don't know how this is even legal, it seems like a statutory bribe.

2. Waiving your right to due process and a speedy trial by agreeing to "deferred prosecution," under which you have to suffer parole-like restrictions for a period of time before your case is dismissed, on thread of it not being dismissed if you disobey.

3. Waiving your right to a trial by your peers through coercive plea-bargaining.

I don't blame people for accepting these various deals. They're probably in the best interest of the defendants who take them. But their existence means that it's really cheap and easy for prosecutors to file all sorts of poorly-justified charges. Very few of them go to expensive trials, and at the same time they're raising money off the ones that don't through these extortionary fees, fines, and mandatory donations. Charges should have to be either dismissed outright with no strings attached or taken to a speedy trial, no other outs, other than maybe an option of a guilty plea if there's a way to make them not so coercive.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I’m super happy to see the “tough on crime” right wingers suddenly realize that being knee-jerk pro-law-enforcement and anti-defendant has some very serious problems."

Which tough-on-crime right-wingers have endorsed my ideas?

(Alternatively, perhaps you could give a link to one of my tough-on-crime-right-right wing posts)

"But giving all the power to secret grand juries is absolutely not the solution."

It certainly isn't. I share your indignation against those people in your head who hold the wish to give grand juries "all the power."

"And if you just make the grand jury into the regular jury"

Who's this "you" who wants to turn grand juries into regular juries?

[Randal]

the grand jury may be the *only* jury to hear a case

On the whole your ideas seem to be about moving elements of the trial, such as weighing evidence, into the grand jury phase. That's what I mean by "giving them all the power." The trial should happen at the trial.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I was stating the situation as it exists, and as it would exist in the absense of any reform.

"-Given the prevalence of plea bargains, the grand jury may be the *only* jury to hear a case."

Why did you leave out the first part of the sentence?

And just as important, why are you shooting the messenger?

[Randal]

I'm not intending to be shooting the messenger. I'm shooting the message. I never disparaged you personally.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It’s disparaging to have my argument misrepresented, even if it was totally through an honest (albeit egregious) mistake on your part.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think pretty much every defense attorney would agree that Hurtado was a good thing for criminal defendants, and that your proposal would be a bad one.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It would be bad to tell grand jurors that they are supposed to protect innocent suspects?

Or to tell them to look critically at the evidence?

Or for them to look at exculpatory evidence?

Or to avoid buck-passing?

Or for them to seek legal advice from the judge?

Or that a defendant shouldn’t be allowed to waive indictment?

Which of these would be a bad idea?

Or is it the presence of regular people in the criminal justice system which is the problem?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Or do you mean that substitutes for a grand jury, like a “preliminary hearing,” are better?

In that case, maybe a defendant *could* be allowed to waive his right to a (reformed) grand jury and trust in a preliminary hearing instead, assuming he isn’t pressured to waive the preliminary hearing too?

If the preliminary hearing is indeed better, surely suspects will choose it and it wouldn’t be necessary to *forbid* them from having their case heard by a grand jury? How is it doing them a favor to forbid them even the option?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And we’re in the era of Bostock, so we have to take a literalistic approach to legal language.

The Bill of Rights mentions probable cause, but that’s in the context of warrants. There’s nothing about probable cause for grand juries. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, especially now that the Court is into being super-literal about language.

So grand juries can require something beyond probable cause, like did they actually think the suspect did it?

Whereas in preliminary hearings, probable cause is the standard.

[Gandydancer]

In preliminary hearings, probable cause is pretended to be the standard.

Mostly they're just exercises in rubber-stamping.

FIFY

[John F. Carr]

Assorted news from Massachusetts:

In the Pioneer Valley (the other progressive stronghold besides Cambridge), a candidate for School Superintendent had his job offer revoked due to his use of the microaggressive word "ladies". https://www.gazettenet.com/Easthampton-School-Committee-superintendent-search-50473440

In Boston, the Supreme Judical Court held that the mayor could dictate COVID vaccination policy for city employees notwithstanding the general duty to collectively bargain. It's one of those cases where the court is supposedly deferring to a decision by somebody else, but feels the need to comment that the decision was right.

Massachusetts has agreed to pay $40 million to certain police officers because tests are racist. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/04/01/metro/state-agrees-40m-settlement-police-sergeant-promotion-exam-bias-suit/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Will Smith is on record saying "we need to cleanse America of Trump supporters", Jane Fonda is on TV saying that conservative politicians need to be murdered.

The Democrat DOJ keeps political prisoners. Democrat DA's target opposition presidential frontrunners for felonies.

When do the Good Guys start fighting back? And what will that look like? I know what it looks like when I get on bended knee and pray each night, but those are just my hopes and dreams. What do you think it will look like when White Christian Normals start fighting back as dirty as the Democrats and Jews have been fighting for our genocide?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Getting on bended knee regularly is apt preparation for the future of a culture war casualty in modern America.

You will continue to comply, clingers.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I seem to recall you on Saturday morning cartoons, living in a skull-shaped castle surrounded by constant thunderstsorms.

Of course, you were a bit less x-rated back then.

[Frank Drackman]

Jonny Quest!!!!! I think it was this episode...While doing atmospheric research in the African savanna, Dr. Quest uncovers an inaccessibly high plateau, populated by prehistoric cavemen, who have been trained as slave laborers for diamond mining by (the Reverend) Klaus Heinrich von Dueffel, a Nazi war criminal in hiding.

[Brett Bellmore]

And here I was thinking it was Castle Greyskull in "He Man and the Masters of the Universe".

[Frank Drackman]

Again with the Complying, Bended Knees, Klingers, you remind me of "Zed" from Pulp Fiction. (Butch should have used the Chainsaw)

[Nige]

'as the Democrats and Jews have been fighting for our genocide?'

Welp.

[Krayt]

Sometimes I think poster opposition to Democrats are actually Democratic operatives trying to poison the well by spouting full blown Nazi level rhetoric.

I mean, there can't possibly be people out there who think this, right?

[Nige]

There was a major and gleeful pile-on when another commenter called Clarence Thomas 'Uncle Tom.' This guy has made remarks like this multiple times. None of the commenters who piled on cares.

[Noscitur a sociis]

For what it's worth, that's because I've had BravoCharlieDelta on ignore more or less from the roll out of that feature. Not guilty made enough substantive comments that I resisted until their blatant noxious racism got to be too much for me.

[not guilty]

I am still amazed at the number of commenters who conflate a refusal to genuflect to Clarence Thomas with racism. I surmise that playing the racism card is far easier than defending the man's career as a shameless toady.

[Super Scary]

That's pretty funny because Kirkland seems the same way, but for the other side.

[apedad]

"When do the Good Guys start fighting back?"

Just remember . . . the winners write the history books and get to decide who the 'Good Guys' are.

And you are NOT on the winning side.

[Ben_]

Aborted children don’t write history books.

And no one reads that crap anymore anyway.

[apedad]

AH! It makes sense now.

That's why you think Nazis are so great!

(YAAAAAY Godwin!!)

[SRG]

By definition, children are not aborted.

[Ben_]

And yet the aborted still write no history

[SRG]

Indeed. They're still not children.

[Ben_]

he said, to zero others who are interested in the distinction.

[SRG]

Not an argument.

[Ben_]

Because no one cares to play your silly word game

[SRG]

You dishonestly frame the abortion issue by arguing that fetuses are children. You're the one playing word games.

[Ben_]

he said, still saying the same thing even though it was clear long, long ago that no one was the least bit interested.

[SRG]

And yet you still found it necessary to reply

[Krayt]

I support abortion, but I reject this rhetoric. It is adopted by both sides. The correct answer is it is ok to abort babies.

There. No problem with rhetorical distortion. One doesn't need sophistry as justification.

[Frank Drackman]

Abortion has resulted in some 60 million fewer Afro-Amuricans since 1973, so there's that.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are you trying to make me Pro-Abortion?

[Ben_]

It prevents them from writing history books lionizing their parents though.

[Super Scary]

This the way. I don't have any personal problems with abortion, but people twisting themselves into pretzels to not claim they are killing babies is distasteful. Why is it so hard for them to admit to what they are knowingly doing?

[Randal]

Really? I feel like it's not a baby until it's born, and it's awkward to say that you're aborting the potential baby or aborting the babification process.

The babification process is called "pregnancy," so "aborting the pregnancy" makes the most sense. Some people "abort the fetus," but I feel like that's a new usage for "abort" that's not really necessary. You abort the transaction, you don't abort the money. You abort the race, not the racehorse (or the jockey!)

[Bob from Ohio]

"By definition"

Definitions change, like marriage for instance.

You wan to de-humanize them so its easier to kill them.

[Gandydancer]

By YOUR definition the aborted (even those aborted when nothing but their heads remain in the vaginal canal) aren't "children", but no one is required to agree with you.

[Frank Drackman]

or commit murder/rape/armed robbery, in fact any crime, when's the last time a Fetus shot up a School?? Yay Abortion!

[OtisAH]

US population in 1973: 211.9 million

US population in 2022: 333 million

Worst. Genocide. Ever.

[Frank Drackman]

So if 6 million Germans "Replaced" 6 million Executed Jews in Poland it's not Genocide??
Stick to being an Elevator.

Frank

[Gandydancer]

What are the numbers if you exclude the Replacements and THEIR spawn?

[David Nieporent]

It's hard to think of two people with more power in the U.S. than Will Smith and Jane Fonda!

[Reallynotbob]

Whatever one thinks of the DANY indictment of DJT, the argument that the underlying crime being aided or hidden cannot be a federal crime is bad legal analysis. It's not a jurisdictional issue, and here's why:

If a person sitting in NY makes false business entries in an NY company's ledger in an effort to defraud a bank into making a loan to a Connecticut company to purchase Connecticut real estate, you have the same phantom "problem." The CT state law governs the fraud/theft from the bank (as might federal statutes if the bank is federally insured or regulated). The CT state laws do not reach the NY bookkeeping conduct. The NY laws do not reach the CT transaction. But the res and mens rea of the NY bookkeeping activity are "to conceal another crime," albeit one recognized in CT. NY law probably requires (I haven't checked the case law on this point) that the CT crime also be an NY crime if performed in NY territory. That is how predicate felony enhancements work, in any event.

So it's not a question of "enforcing" federal law. It doesn't matter if CT prosecuted the bank fraud at the time of indictment, or ever. It matters that the intent of the NY crime be of a specific sort--to conceal another crime wherever that may have been perpetrated.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I agree that the underlying crime, if there was one, certainly could be a federal crime.

But if they’re going to convict him of a crime which is contingent on a federal crime he hasn’t been convicted of, don’t they have to, in effect, convict him of the federal crime, too? By which, I mean, they have to, as a prerequisite of the state crime, prove the federal crime to the same standard of proof that would be necessary for a conviction?

They can’t just assume that he’s guilty of it, after all.

[apedad]

The NY law states: A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

". . . when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime. . . . "

So the NYDA (nor the Feds) wouldn't have to convict Trump of a crime.

The NYDA just has to show there was, 'intent to commit another crime.'

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree

[Brett Bellmore]

But the case Bragg presented was based on the aid in concealment fork, where apparently the crime concealed was an illegal campaign expenditure.

[Reallynotbob]

It's pleaded in the conjunctive using "and" for the legal language. So the indictment is for aiding "and" concealing. The DA can choose to prove either or both at trial, and still secure conviction, because proof of either is legally sufficient to support the conviction.

[Kazinski]

Well one point there that needs some more attention is "defraud".

Both NY and federal law require that someone actually be defrauded, that is "To deprive of some right, interest, or property, by a deceitful device". From what I've heard, whatever the payments were characterized as they were not deducted from Trump's taxes.

If the payments however they were listed in his business records were not deducted from his taxes then both the NY and Federal courts will dismiss the case because there is no fraud unless Trump received some money or avoided paying some money based on the "falsified" business records.

If you will remember one particularly famous case "Bridgegate" where 2 NJ officials were convicted of fraud for lying about the reason for closing 2 lanes on the Fort George bridge. Federal prosecutors charged them with fraud for lying in an official document. The Supreme Court threw out the convictions because they didn't lie in an effort to get money or a benefit for which they were not entitled.

NY law has the same requirement for fraud.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You should probably leave the legal opining to someone who bothers to read the statutes and isn’t a partisan fool such as yourself.

Your understanding is unsurprisingly wrong.

[David Nieporent]

The problem is that people hear random things on Twitter or cable news and then start repeating it.

NY law has the same requirement for fraud.

It does not. The definition of fraud under NY law is much broader than the federal one as narrowed by SCOTUS.

[Gandydancer]

The act Trump intended to conceal still has to actually be a crime.

And Cohen's giving Trump's money to Daniels wasn't one even if his reimbursement was to be collected in arrears.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts the jury would be instructed on the predicate crime and told that it had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before they could move on to the main crime. To prove accessory after the fact to murder the prosecution must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a murder. That sort of thing.

[Reallynotbob]

That's right. I would just note that apedad has it right -- the predicate condition is an intent, not completion of the other crime.

[John F. Carr]

I can see at least two ways for intent to be construed here:

1. Trump must believe that another crime has been committed, and Trump made false entries with intent to conceal it.
2. Another crime must have actually been committed, Trump had knowledge of the essential facts, and Trump made false entries with an intent to conceal it even if he didn't think the facts proved a crime.

Let's say the other crime is a campaign finance violation that turns out to be illegal despite Trump's belief that it was legal. Trump is guilty under standard (2) and not guilty under standard (1).

[Gandydancer]

3. If what Trump intended to conceal from prosecutors (if he did) was not in fact a crime then his intent to conceal it was not in fact intent to conceal a crime, but intent to conceal a non-crime

[shawn_dude]

[IANAL] Is it required that Trump truly believe it was legal/illegal or is the legal standard something fuzzier like "known or should have known?" And if he or his paid agents went through a lot of effort to disguise the payments, isn't that evidence that they knew something wasn't right? Or does the prosecution have to prove what Trump actually knew and believed at the time?

[Ridgeway]

I am 99% sure that is how it would work in NY too. Since the secondary crime is an element of the charged offence, it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Life of Brian]

Since the secondary crime is an element of the charged offence, it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This seems to me to be the elephant in the room. When the secondary crime is so inextricably part of the first crime, how can someone be indicted on the first crime without committing to what the second crime actually is?

Too-clever interpretations of the NY law that allegedly allows Bragg to play coy on this little detail miss the point: at bottom this is effectively indicting someone for being a bad dude, details to be filled in later. That doesn't seem like a particularly good line to cross.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You should read the NY statute perhaps.

The 'secondary crime' does not need to be proven to have occurred.

[Gandydancer]

The statute doesn’t anywhere say that.

And the issue is not whether the “crime” occurred, but whether it was in fact a crime. Without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of that there’s no proof that what Trump allegedly intended to conceal meets the first degree criterion.

[bernard11]

One thing I'm curious about here is how the Trump Organization treated these payments for tax purposes.

Is paying hush money to someone the CEO had an affair with tax-deductible, either in NY or federally? It doesn't seem that way to me. If not, isn't there tax evasion here, once you actually falsify the records and then use those falsified records to calculate your taxes?

Even if the company could deduct it on the basis that it was some sort of compensation to Trump, it seems he would have to report it. Who thinks he did?

[Life of Brian]

Is paying hush money to someone the CEO had an affair with tax-deductible, either in NY or federally? If not, isn’t there tax evasion here

Cohen made the payment, and Cohen paid taxes on the 2x grossed-up reimbursement. And Fed/state ended up with far more tax revenue from Cohen on the $260k as individual income than they would have had the Trump Organization directly paid the $130k and then paid corporate taxes on that. What's the evasion exactly?

[Randal]

The evasion is if Trump deducted the "legal fees."

It doesn't matter at all that someone else paid too many taxes. You still have to pay your own taxes.

[Life of Brian]

It doesn’t matter at all that someone else paid too many taxes. You still have to pay your own taxes.

Yeah, ok, dude. This is the same sort of small-minded, outcome-oriented pedantry that gave rise to this indictment in the first place.

On the reported facts as we have them, the settlement/NDA transaction was structured in a way that maintained the very nature of its mutual secrecy, while giving the taxing authorities far more than they were due. Show me one -- just one -- circumstance where that sort of transaction resulted in a double assessment, much less criminal prosecution.

[Randal]

You can always call tax evasion "transaction structuring." Defense by euphemism is probably not Trump's best option.

[Life of Brian]

Whew -- good thing I didn't do that, then!

No tax evasion occurred. Were it that even remotely that clearcut, Bragg might have had the cajones to include it in the indictment. As it is, this is just part of the background whispering campaign meant to distract from the facially legally insufficient charges.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is inconceivable that you are a lawyer. Not even a South Texas College of Law Houston would have written that.

[Randal]

You really don't seem to understand what's going on.

this is just part of the background whispering campaign...

Whispering campaign? The tax issue was raised in Bragg's "Statement of Facts" accompanying the indictment.

... meant to distract from the facially legally insufficient charges.

It's directly relevant to the charges, which require an intent by Trump to conceal a crime. Bragg is floating tax evasion as that crime.

No tax evasion occurred.

That doesn't even matter. Did Trump try to cover up tax evasion? That's what matters. Maybe he did, even though the tax evasion itself would never realistically be charges.

Personally, I think even if there was tax evasion, it's irrelevant, because that wasn't the purpose of falsifying the records.

[Life of Brian]

The tax issue was raised in Bragg’s “Statement of Facts” accompanying the indictment.

I've read the SoF. Either you haven't, or you're straining the word "raised" to the breaking point. Feel free to quote the actual language if you disagree.

Bragg is floating tax evasion as that crime.

Points for candor, if unintended. He's "floating" various tortured ideas in a press conference because he's still trying to figure out an actual theory to indict... oh wait a minute.

No tax evasion occurred.

That doesn’t even matter. Did Trump try to cover up tax evasion?

Yeah, I was about to respond to this as though it were a serious statement, and then I saw your prancing around with Wuz elsewhere and it was painfully clear there's no point. You have your fervent religious belief about this magical statute where the only thing required to turn an out-of-time misdemeanor into an indictable felony is to parrot some boilerplate from the statute and then try to scrape together a theory -- included the supposed secondary crime (or even non-crime!) -- later. That's of course your fervent religious belief to have, but I'm going to pass.

[Randal]

Just to be clear, it was wyot who "parroted the boilerplate." I would never do such a thing.

Otherwise you're pretty much spot on. And no, it wasn't unintentional.

[Gandydancer]

Trump’s reporting the payments to Cohen as a business expense was indeed tax evasion. It was a personal expense. But in the context of Bragg’s case that’s irrelevant.

But he didn’t pay Daniels through Cohen in order to evade taxes, he paid Daniels through Cohen in order not not leave his fingerprints on the payment to her. HE didn’t sign the NDA, I understand. So what he was intending to conceal was not a crime.

And the tax fraud is past the statute of limitation for criminal prosecution.

Maybe the Feds and NY State and NYC can still collect taxes on the extra taxable income of Trump Corp, (and maybe Cohen is due a refund if he didn’t report the payment as an expense to him) but that’s not the case Bragg is prosecuting.

All this has been said many times. What’s your excuse for still straw-manning?

[David Nieporent]

It was a campaign finance violation. It may also have been tax evasion. And while his intent in falsifying records may or may not have been in part to evade taxes, it absolutely was to hide illegal campaign spending.

[David Nieporent]

But if they’re going to convict him of a crime which is contingent on a federal crime he hasn’t been convicted of, don’t they have to, in effect, convict him of the federal crime, too?

No. You've been told this repeatedly. Committing another crime is not an element of this crime.

[Gandydancer]

In order to intend to conceal that you've committed a crime the act must at least arguably be a crime and not merely be an act that you think is a crime. Void for vagueness anyway means you get the benefit of the doubt if there are two possible interpretations of the law and there isn't controlling precedent.

[M L]

The President of El Salvador posts this on Twitter:

Think what you want about former President Trump and the reasons he’s being indicted.

But just imagine if this happened in any other country, where a government arrested the main opposition candidate.

The United States ability to use “democracy” as foreign policy is gone.

https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1643334584082345986

[Sarcastr0]

No, running for President doesn't make you immune from being charged with crimes. No one is above the law.

You and the President of El Salvador seem unclear on the concept of democracy.

[Krayt]

Repeated over and over, we wouldn't be here but for fishing expieditions against political opponents. That the crime may be real is irrelevant. Things like the 4th Amendment are about stopping the king from using the power of government investigation to hurt political enemies by looking for real law violation in fishing expitions and selective prosecution.

"Oh no, Trump may pardon himself!"

NY DA: I'll take up the slack at the state level. Send me all you find, feds. We'll git 'im!

QED

[OtisAH]

Of course what actually happened was Mueller forwarded anything they came across that was not a federal crime or a crime under his charge to the more appropriate agencies for them to do as they will. I’m sure you’d prefer he ignore potential criminality if it had nothing to do with his purpose, but that’s not how law enforcement is suppose to work.

[Gandydancer]

Mueller didn't do anything. His dementia was a bad as Biden's. "Steele dossier? Never heard of it."

[Reallynotbob]

Or.... don't do crimes.

[shawn_dude]

Now do Whitewater...

[M L]

Sarcastro, I agree with you, and I disagree with the premise arguably implicit in Bukele’s post that being a high profile politician means it doesn’t matter what you might have done that could be criminal.

However, it is important to think about how this is perceived around the world, and it is noteworthy that Bukele said this.

An alternative, more charitable interpretation of the tweet is that Bukele is NOT saying that being President makes you immune from being charged with crimes, and he's NOT saying that anyone is above the law. Rather, he is simply saying that when a government arrests the main opposition candidate, this has effects on the foreign perception of that country. Those perceptions may be right or wrong, but either way, they just are.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure if you should take uncritically tweets from foreign leaders as indicative of worldwide public perception.

In fact, you absolutely should not. It's not notewothy outside of diplomatic circles, and maybe not even there.

You are smart enough to know this. It's not hard to see where you were trying to go here.

[M L]

I'm not taking uncritically tweets from foreign leaders as indicative of worldwide perception. I'm taking them for what they are, nothing more or less.

Do you agree that my last paragraph is a possible interpretation of his tweet?

[Sarcastr0]

This is foreign policy and you are offering it for fact.

[Gandydancer]

It's not just "perception". This is a stitch-up.

[Bob from Ohio]

"MEXICO CITY, April 5 (Reuters) - Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on Wednesday said he does not agree with the criminal charges brought against former U.S. President Donald Trump.

"Supposedly legal issues should not be used for electoral, political purposes," Lopez Obrador told a regular news conference. "That's why I don't agree with what they are doing to ex-President Trump."

[OtisAH]

Besides the obvious motivation a foreign leader might have for downplaying and dismissing criminal charges being filed against a fellow, though former, national leader, Lopez also has to consider the growing MAGA movement to invade his country.

[Frank Drackman]

and you can say it, he's just an ignorant Spick who should be trimming your Hedges, we get it.

[OtisAH]

Don’t attribute your filthy thoughts to me, douchebag.

[Gandydancer]

Nah, your actual claim is that he's a criminal spic only interested in Presidential immunity, and his stated perception that the indictment of Trump is "for electoral, political purposes” is a lie, even though it obviously is.

[apedad]

Un - fucking - believable!

ML and Bob are paying attention to El Salvadorian and Mexican politicians, because, you know, ML and Bob are such staunch supporters of our Latin American neighbors.

GTFO

[Ben_]

It’s all about you Bob and M L!

Every despot who uses this example to arrest a reformer — nevermind because Bob and M L … something, something ... Latin America.

The arguments are amazing today.

[M L]

"staunch supporters of our Latin American neighbors."

Yes I am.

[Sarcastr0]

You Joe it so well for years!

[Gandydancer]

That doesn't parse. Dementia getting to you, too?

[SimonP]

If these people followed international politics at any time other than when foreign political leaders say something nice about Trump, they'd think twice about citing AMLO, when it comes to political corruption and manipulation of the justice system. The man just took steps to undermine the country's electoral board, which oversees elections. Maybe not the best bedfellow for the election-deniers.

[Ben_]

AMLO is bad, therefore it’s totally cool to show world leaders how they can arrest reformers on unserious charges.

[SimonP]

It's a bit late for MAGAts to start worrying about how U.S. domestic politics might inspire bad actors overseas.

But let's be real. Republicans have learned a lot about authoritarian takeovers from other now-less-democratic countries. They're following the playbook in red states around the country. We're very solidly middle of the pack, in terms of democratic backsliding. Personally, I'd welcome renewed concern for that trend, from the right. Unfortunately, standing up for the principle that an obviously corrupt former president should never be held accountable for his actions puts you on the wrong side of that trend.

[Ben_]

Name calling means you have no arguments. Bark as much as you want.

[SimonP]

And tone-policing means you are just looking for the nearest exit from an actual debate, you fucking moron.

[Ben_]

Keep barking. No one to stop you.

[Randal]

This is Ben's go-to escape hatch. He used to make himself invisible by putting his hands over his eyes, but he somehow thinks this works better.

[Gandydancer]

I don't have to give a damn about the words of Mexican or El Salvadorean pols to throw them in the faces of Lefty clowns who normally caterwaul about supposed foreign perceptions of the US.

[shawn_dude]

Undermining democratic elections?! I'll see your AMLO and raise you a Jan 6th.

[Kazinski]

It's not just them, if you've lost Vox:

PJ Media
NEWS & POLITICS
Alvin Bragg Might Be in Serious Trouble Following Trump Indictment
BY MATT MARGOLIS 11:56 AM ON APRIL 06, 2023

Alvin Bragg Might Be in Serious Trouble Following Trump Indictment
AP Photo/Mary Altaffer
Alvin Bragg might fancy himself a hero of the radical left for indicting Trump, but his desperate efforts, which included charging Trump 34 times for the same alleged crime, may have serious consequences for him.

A source familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital that the House Judiciary Committee is contemplating summoning Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and two prosecutors who quit his team last year to testify before Congress.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) have been pressuring Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his office for answers since last week, just days before the extraordinary indictment and arrest of a former U.S. President. Jordan and Comer have requested that Bragg testify before Congress.

On Wednesday night, the same source told Fox News Digital that the House Judiciary Committee is seriously considering issuing subpoenas for Bragg and the two prosecutors who resigned from his team last year, Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne (who worked under Bragg’s predecessor Cyrus Vance), to appear before the panel and give testimony.

Related: I’m Not Sure Bragg Even Knows the Crime He Claims Trump Committed

During Trump’s arraignment on Tuesday, the indictment was revealed in court by presiding trial Judge Juan Merchan, and the indictment proved to be very underwhelming to experts and pundits on both sides of the aisle.

“It is what I thought it was going to be in terms of the payments that were made; the falsification of the records is really tied to the payment that was made to Stormy Daniels. In terms of a case that’s being brought against a former president, it’s a little underwhelming,” CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero told anchor Jake Tapper.

“There is something painfully anticlimactic about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of former President Trump,” Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox, lamented. “And there’s a very real risk that this indictment will end in an even bigger anticlimax. It is unclear that the felony statute that Trump is accused of violating actually applies to him.”

[Ben_]

I didn’t see this before I posted it below.

Every leader in every country can now say democracy is quaint and unenlightened. Dems, by their example, gave all world leaders the green light to arrest reformers and opposition candidates on unserious charges.

[Nige]

Most people in most countries don't venerate Trump and don't think holding him accountable is sacrilege.

[shawn_dude]

Maybe they're more worried about their own citizens getting the idea that national leaders can be held accountable for crimes.

[Ben_]

They aren’t going to arrest themselves. And they have a newly obvious incentive to make sure they can never lose power, no matter what. Someone as dishonest and corrupt as today’s Dems might be the next guy.

Luckily, Dems show the way: they can just arrest any and all challengers on nonsense charges. No worries if they do that.

[M L]

Robert Kennedy posts:

The Fed just announced it will introduce its “FedNow” Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) in July. CBDCs grease the slippery slope to financial slavery and political tyranny.

While cash transactions are anonymous, a #CBDC will allow the government to surveil all our private financial affairs. The central bank will have the power to enforce dollar limits on our transactions restricting where you can send money, where you can spend it, and when money expires.

A CBDC tied to digital ID and social credit score will allow the government to freeze your assets or limit your spending to approved vendors if you fail to comply with arbitrary diktats, i.e. vaccine mandates.

The Fed will initially limit its CBDC to interbank transactions but we should not be blind to the obvious danger that this is the first step in banning and seizing bitcoin as the Treasury did with gold 90 years ago today in 1933.

Watch as governments, which never let a good crisis go to waste, use Covid-19 and the banking crisis to usher in a new wave of CBDCs as a safe haven from germ-laden paper currencies or as protection against bank runs.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/15/long-awaited-fed-digital-payment-system-to-launch-in-july.html

https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1643658603885101073

His concerns are valid, and this all seems pretty likely to happen sooner or later, with the ever increasing government power and centralization trajectory we are on. But setting that aside, my questions are:

1. Is this really a CBDC?

2. Where does the Fed get the authority to do this, whatever it is?

[Sarcastr0]

Robert Kennedy is a crank, his concerns are not valid, and you're also a crank.

[M L]

Any thoughts on the questions I posed?

I agree by the way - it's totally wacky to think the government would ever do something like surveil finances, seize assets, or force you to get a vaccine. *eyeroll*

[Brett Bellmore]

Just as crazy as that the President might ever nominate to be Comptroller of the Treasury a literal USSR educated communist who advocated nationalizing all private savings.

Some things are just too implausible to happen, amiright?

[M L]

Come on, let's not get too crazy here.

[Kazinski]

See my comment below about FDR seizing all the gold in the country by executive order in 1933.

[Randal]

1. No, unwad your panties, FedNow is not a CBDC. You know how today you can "wire money?" It's just a new version of that, but faster and cheaper.

2. Facilitating money transfers is like a core function of the Fed, you know. So.... Congress?

Federal Reserve Financial Services is an integrated organization within the Federal Reserve that is responsible for managing critical payment and securities services that foster the accessibility, integrity and efficiency of the U.S. economy. Through its relationships with about 10,000 financial institutions nationwide, the Federal Reserve provides equitable access to a system that facilitates more than $5 trillion payments each day. Federal Reserve Financial Services, delivered via a secure FedLine® network, include FedCash® Services, FedACH® Services, Check Services, Fedwire® Funds and Securities Services, the National Settlement Service and more.

A CBDC would, by definition, not be denominated in dollars. It might be easily convertible to dollars, possibly even 1:1, but it would be its own new currency.

[Brett Bellmore]

Faster, cheaper, totally not anonymous, totally capable of transactions being disallowed by the government. Which is what ML was pointing out.

[Randal]

Do you comprehend this conversation?

FedNow is not a currency, so it has nothing to do with cash or replacing cash.

It could replace wiring money, but wiring money is already not anonymous and is capable of being disallowed by the government.

So you think the existence of wire transfers "greases the slippery slope to financial slavery and political tyranny"?

I mean, you probably do, but that's pretty dumb.

[Ben_]

Nayib Bukele, the President of El Salvador writes what we all already know:

“Think what you want about former President Trump and the reasons he’s being indicted.

But just imagine if this happened in any other country, where a government arrested the main opposition candidate.

The United States ability to use 'democracy' as foreign policy is gone.”

Every leader in every country now has an example to show how democracy doesn’t matter. Elites in the US are giving them all the green light to arrest reformers and opposition leaders.

[David Nieporent]

Former leaders in other countries — first world countries — are routinely prosecuted.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Net n' Yahoo in Israel, whatever happened to him?

[Ben_]

Despots arrest challengers. Now they can truthfully say they are following Democrats' example.

[Sarcastr0]

If you were serious, you'd leave this country you describe as so awful in so many ways.

But you're not; you're just impotent and frustrated.

To make yourself not that, try to do some mutual aid or local political work. Might be better for you than whining on the Internet.

[Ben_]

Sarcastr0 thinks it’s cool for corrupt leaders to persecute people into leaving their homeland.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I don’t think that’s wats happening. One clue is you keep this childlike tantrum up insisting it is happening over and over again, but but not taking any actual action.

You don’t even believe your own weak argument,

[Nige]

According to you, they can't arrest the corrupt leaders, because that would be a bad example?

[Kazinski]

Yesterday was the 90th anniversary of the 2nd* most fascist act of any American President:

“So, on April 5, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102. This forbade “the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates” by American citizens. U.S. citizens were given until May 1 of 1933 to turn in their gold. In exchange, they would be compensated $20.67 per ounce. The penalties for refusing to turn in gold were set by an amendment of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 and were set as a fine of up to $10,000 and/or a prison sentence of up to ten years.”https://www.usgoldbureau.com/news/what-was-1933-gold-confiscation

It’s just inexplicable now that the president could, by executive order, make holding gold illegal, and just as outrageous use penalties from a law issued in 1917 for a completely different purpose to insure compliance.

The good news of course is the courts, through such canons of law like the major questions doctrine wouldn’t allow a president, or perhaps even Congress to get away with that today.

* Most fascist would have to be executive order 9066 that interned Japanese Americans, which was also issued by Roosevelt (what a coincidence).

[Randal]

Oh, compliance insurance is my favorite kind of insurance policy.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, no one cares about your gold bug nonsense.

Try educating yourself somewhere other than a website trying to sell you something:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Probably not in the scope of current executive power, but quite a bit more nuanced than your take, both in substance and implementation.

And, of course, the Major Questions Doctrine doesn't have anything to do with this.

[Robert]

Prof. Volokh has written a series of fascinating articles about large-libel models for AI-generated content. He cited instances where ChatGPT referred to nonexistent published material to produce defamatory text about a named person. What's troubling is the suggestion that ChatGPT made this up out of whole cloth which, as a software algorithm, it is not capable of doing. The only way it could have happened is if the false material was supplied to it by a human. Even legal beagles with minimal technical knowledge have to learn to avoid magical notions of computers being able to act on their own agency apart from humans.

[Ben_]

Showing everyone you don’t know the first thing about GPT.

It mimics the structure of what others say. If Jon Smith can be quoted as saying something in the NY Times, it’s trivial to substitute Frank Sanders for Jon Smith, and Washington Post for Ny Times. And anything else: dates, times, words in the quote, anything.

Think of it as Mad Libs. Except instead of changing one bit, you change them all.

It doesn’t have intentions and no one input false events.

[Robert]

"... it’s trivial to substitute Frank Sanders for Jon Smith, and Washington Post for Ny Times." Trivial?? That would be a pretty major screwup given the reputation that GPT has garnered and the obvious truth-testability of a statement of this kind.

[Ben_]

"That would be a pretty major screwup…"

According to whom? What makes you think anyone authoritatively told ChatGPT that?

[shawn_dude]

I don't think you understand how generative AI works, either.

Two or more factual sources can easily be blended into a false story in the same way stable diffusion AI blends images to meet a design request.

Consider the old movie trope of a villain cutting out words from a magazine and gluing them together to form something new. Sure, all of the words came from other sources, but they are now blended out of their original intent and context to form something new. For a computer to do this requires no "agency apart from humans."

[Robert]

So GPT can claim it didn't mean to defame anyone, it's the fault of its shoddily written software, after it has touted its amazingness to the world and gotten the public to believe that it operates as some kind of oracle.

[shawn_dude]

ChatGPT is a piece of software. It cannot claim anything anymore than an excel spreadsheet can make a claim. The software is not shoddily-written when used as intended. Your misunderstanding of what the software does and is intended to do reflects on you and not the software, its developer, or the company that owns it.

ChatGPT will write you functioning, or nearly functioning, software based on a simple, verbal request. That's fucking amazing. (Good thing I'm not a software developer any more.) It will also write credible-sounding narratives about anything you can imagine. It can even do some math based on lazy descriptions that work out as expected (more or less... sometimes less.) Compared to almost anything that has come before, it's a marvel.

But, and it's a big but, the software also comes with a massive disclaimer that it can be wrong, sometimes very wrong, and people should be careful with it.

[Bob from Ohio]

White House Press Secrtary Jean-Pierre: "LGBTQIA+ plus kids are resilient. They are fierce, they fight back."

In Nashville at least. With guns.

[Nige]

Yeah, against this kind of shit.

[Frank Drackman]

Well Audrey Hale sure made her "Choice" to bad she didn't let the victims make theirs.

[Nige]

The Edgebot’s trying to formulate a thought, everybody, stand back and pretend you’re interested, or not.

[MoreCurious]

Time to switch to a better topic?

(1) Who is the greatest male golfer of all time?

(2) Who is the greatest male golfer still playing?

[Frank Drackman]

Ty Webb of course
Ty Webb (Still playing (in Haiti)

Frank "No, Homo. Much better now though"

[Martinned]

Why is that a better topic? The answer is Tiger, the answer is always Tiger. Tiger is the only reasonable answer, no debate possible.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.news9.com/story/642f121cb5d8a4072ac6eb54/oklahoma-ag-asks-court-to-vacate-richard-glossip-conviction

SCOTUS was very eager to have this person executed painfully.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You may be referring to this 2015 decision by the Supreme Court

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-7955%26quot%3B

...which dealt with 8th Amendment issues, not guilt or innocence.

As far as wanting him to die painfully, Justice Alito accepted that Glossip had *not* established there would be severe pain.

Maybe I missed some damning quote?

[LawTalkingGuy]

The damning part was where the Supreme Court wasn't interested in whether someone is guilty or not while debating whether they should have an excruciating death.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

On what basis would an American appellate court, in an Eighth Amendment case, conduct research into a convict's guilt or innocence?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Whether someone who didn’t do a crime should be killed to death in a painful way seems like a relevant consideration for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Maybe we can borrow from those countries where appellate courts get to conduct factfinding about a convict's guilt?

But as I understand it, we haven't adopted that system.

If Glossip is innocent, I don't see why he should be killed at all, even kindly and usually.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Who cares if “we haven’t adopted that system?” That’s not a defense of anything, that’s just further damnation of a group of people who think the only relevant questions are about finality and procedure as they debate whether and how to torture someone to death.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Am I correct that he was locked up in OK prison for a quarter century?

If he’s innocent, he shouldn’t even be in prison for a week, and not even in the nicest prison in Club Fed.

I don’t see the relevance of debating how someone should be punished if, in fact, they’re innocent.

A day in prison would be too much.

[Ben_]

"I don’t see the relevance of debating how someone should be punished if, in fact, they’re innocent."

Self-congradulation is a substitute for relevance in your discussion. At least on one side.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If he’s innocent,"

The main witness wants to recant after al these years. That's it. Proof of innocence!

Most of these "exonerations" are only that, a witness decades late decides to change his story. Who knows why? guilt, pressure from anti-death penalty fanatics [that's you LTG], bribes, they are also criminals. Its weak but our court system falls for it.

Then of course you can't retry since the main witness has said two opposing things. Reasonable doubt!

Then the "exoneration" goes into the books as "innocent man almost murdered" for weak minded fools [that's you LTG] to use as propaganda.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You are an absolute ghoul and a very very bad person.

[Frank Drackman]

Poor Guy got married twice while on Death Row, hasn't he suffered enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bob from Ohio is a real law-and-order guy . . . until an un-American insurrectionist or a bigoted, lying, deplorable ex-president gets arrested.

I will celebrate his replacement, as will most people on the right side of history.

Carry on, clingers.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bob,you’re completely full of shit on this.

Here, educate yourself.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/detaillist.aspx

[Kazinski]

Well they have to address the issues before them, if Glossip had already exhausted his appeals on guilt or innocence then probably that's the only issue left in their quiver.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Again. Missing the big picture here.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

-Twitter designates NPR as “state-affiliated media”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2023/04/06/twitter-npr-account-state-affiliated-media/11612530002/

-The New York Times loses its blue checkmark after refusing to pay the new fee

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/twitter-pulls-check-mark-main-new-york-times-98303394

How can we discuss other, trivial issues during this crisis in our history?

[Bob from Ohio]

The yowls of angst about NPR are fantastic!

[Frank Drackman]

National Pubic Radio?? is that the Station that's always trying to get my old car and begging for money?? Strange Business model.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

As great as the whining, whimpering, and wailing of the Volokh Conspirators, their fans, and the rest of the culture war’s bigoted, disaffected losers?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

ABC News blurred out President Trump's campaign donation line from his podium. They do not do this for other candidates.

We know that clearly violates norms, does it also violate any law?

[Sarcastr0]

Or they fucked up.

But nah, it's for sure evil evilness.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

haha yeah, they accidentally blurred out only the donation text line on the podium...

haha yeah that's totally the most obvious reason

[David Nieporent]

We know that clearly violates norms, does it also violate any law?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The FCC has an equal time rule. Censoring one candidate in a way that diminishes him with respect to another certainly violates the principle of that.

You being a Democrat probably never heard of this rule.

[Nige]

Once again we see Trump playing the media like a harp from hell, etc. Who knew his ranting and raving about them would come back to bite him?

Oh, and fuck off, you racist anti-semite.

[OtisAH]

Broadcasting his “Pity the Poor Billionaire” rally on network television is a violation of equal time requirements and is censorship? Cool story, bro.

[David Nieporent]

You being an idiot think I am a Democrat.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

My bad. Socialist bootlicker.

There, more accurate now.

[Nige]

'They do not do this for other candidates.'

Do they need to?

[Ben_]

In a survey, Americans were asked how many unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019.

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/04/05/its-not-that-they-are-ignorant-its-that-so-much-of-what-they-know-isnt-so-n541739

54% of Very Liberal people surveyed said the number is more than 1000. Many said more than 10000. Even for just Liberal, many said more than 1000.

Washington Post keeps a database. The number is 12.

This data makes more sense in light of the Pew survey on mental illness I referenced above. Or maybe this survey informs that one. False understanding of the world and getting kudos for massively exaggerating every negative thing isn’t great for their mental health.

[Martinned]

Only 12??? Well, that's allright then.

[Nige]

Assuming you believe the cops about how many of the rest were armed.

[David Nieporent]

Even if you do, you have to accept their definition of armed. "Okay, he was 50 feet away from us, standing still, facing away from us, but he had a knife, so it's okay that we shot him." Of course, anyone who's driving is armed with a car.

[Ben_]

Go ahead and claim the Washington Post is lying about the number being 12.

[Nige]

I said the cops are probably lying about how many were armed.

[Frank Drackman]

only 12? Dirty Hairy Callahan could do that in an afternoon.

[Ben_]

What were the circumstances of each event? Which of the 12 were unjustified? Why?

An unarmed man can strangle a child. Or bash someone’s head into the pavement. Shooting someone doing that can save an innocent life.

How many did you think it was? Are you extremely out of touch with reality, or just mildly ignorant of it?

[Michael P]

It's unfortunate that some on the left seem to be serious about carrying out a "trans day of vengeance".

[Ben_]

Not surprising though.

[Nige]

There's no mention of such a thing anywhere in the report. Well done spreading the hate, though.

[OtisAH]

That was last Saturday and it didn’t happen, dummy.

[Michael P]

In related news that denialists will deny happening, violent leftist insurrectionists attacked the state houses in Austin (TX), Frankfort (KY), Nashville (TN) and Tallahassee (FL) all in the last week.

I am not holding my breath for the usual suspects to demand indefinite detentions and federal prosecutions for these insurrectionists.

[Nige]

There was, of course, no violence, no insurrection, and no attack, just as there was no violent incident in your first link above. Now you're screaming about stuff that didn’t happen, always a bad sign in authoritarians.

[Randal]

So you're liking the term "insurrection" now? Ok, glad to know that "debate" is finally settled.

No one ever demanded an indefinite detention of anyone involved in Jan 6.

Was there violence at any of those protests? I actually don't know. If there was, the sure, prosecute it.

But not all violence turns a protest into a riot, and not all riots are insurrections... even ones that take place at statehouses. To be an insurrection, the purpose of the violent riot needs to be to take over the government.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Cruel and unusual punishment, or quite possibly the single most effective crime deterrent ever devised? You be the judge.

"2 former jail guards sentenced after playing 'Baby Shark' to inmates on repeat"

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/nation-world/former-jail-guards-punished-inmates-baby-shark-sentencing/507-542957c0-b682-46bf-9979-24141fe07218

[Frank Drackman]

I like Baby Shark do-do-da-do Baby Shark Do-do-da-doo, dammit, now I'll be humming that for days.

[not guilty]

The Tennessee General Assembly has voted to expel two of its black members for the heinous offense of speaking in the well of the House to urge enactment of gun safety measures without having been recognized to speak. A vote to expel a third (white) House member who spoke alongside the two was unsuccessful. https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/06/tennessee-expulsion-vote-democrats-justin-jones-gloria-johnson-justin-pearson/70079929007/

IOW, two representatives have been expelled for being uppity.

In Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966), a unanimous SCOTUS ruled that expulsion of an elected member of the Georgia House of Representatives for his criticism of the Vietnam war was reviewable in federal court and that such expulsion violated the First Amendment.

[Frank Drackman]

"Expelled"
so do they have to go to "Summer Legislature"???
does the Expulsion go in their "Permanent Record"
Seem to remember a Hissy Fit when some Congressman yelled that Barry Hussein was lying (he was, would have been easier to yell when he wasn't lying)
Love the expelled members hair styles, apparently it's still 1975 in Tennessee.

Frank

[Nige]

This blithering by the edgebot is probably as close to a coherent argument that doesn't boil down to 'it's okay to shoot kids the only question is what type of gun' Republicans have while their authoritarian clownshow alienates everyone who isn't praying at the foot of Trump's cross.

[Michael P]

They were expelled for participating in an insurrection, not for being uppity.

No surprise that you're dishonest about applying the standard that you previously set.

[not guilty]

There was no insurrection. No demonstrators broke into the Capitol, no one was arrested or injured, and no property was damaged. No one entered without going through security. No members of the public stormed the House chamber floor. Some protestors were in the gallery of the House (two balconies overlooking the House floor). Some were in the lobby outside the House chamber. Three House members went to the well of the House and spoke without having been recognized.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/04/tennessee-capitol-protest-heres-what-did-and-did-not-happen/70075823007/

[David Nieporent]

A censure would have been appropriate. Legislators should not be participating in unauthorized demonstrations on the floor of the legislature. Expelling them was bullshit.

[Randal]

Fortunately, it sounds like their respective districts can just reappoint them on Monday.

Usually that doesn't happen because the expulsion is for a good reason like misconduct.

But where it's just for ideology, right back they go.

This seems like a serious miscalculation on the part of the Republican house leadership in TN. I mean, obviously their contempt for democracy was their first-order mistake. But their second-order mistake was engaging in bad politics. They just gave these guys and their cause an amazing amount of national publicity, and somehow, once they're reappointed, turned them into martyrs with power.

[not guilty]

The County Commission in Shelby County (Memphis) and the Metropolitan Council (Nashville) will select interim representatives, pending a special election to fill the vacancy. The expelled members are eligible to seek appointment/election.

[David Nieporent]

This seems like a serious miscalculation on the part of the Republican house leadership in TN. I mean, obviously their contempt for democracy was their first-order mistake. But their second-order mistake was engaging in bad politics. They just gave these guys and their cause an amazing amount of national publicity, and somehow, once they’re reappointed, turned them into martyrs with power.

They were also planning to expel three members. Then they decided to only expel the two black men, and allow the white woman to stay. It's like they're embracing the cartoonish supervillainy.

[Randal]

You mean like this? https://wegotthiscovered.com/social-media/marjorie-taylor-greenes-cruella-de-vil-ensemble-leaves-state-of-the-union-viewers-wondering-who-wore-it-better/

[Nige]

No surprise that you have no standards.

[not guilty]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is calling for Justice Clarence Thomas to be impeached for taking luxury trips and outings on yachts and private jets owned by Dallas businessman Harlan Crow. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3937388-ocasio-cortez-calls-for-thomas-impeachment-after-report-of-undisclosed-gifts-from-gop-donor/ While I am definitely no fan of Justice Thomas, I think a call for impeachment is overblown.

Thomas is a buffoon who does not deserve to be on the Court. He should have been prosecuted years ago for serially filing false financial disclosure forms contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1001, but that ship has sailed. That having been said, I haven't seen evidence that Mr. Crow had business before SCOTUS, and I think Thomas here deserves the benefit of the doubt.

[David Nieporent]

Stephen Gillers, an ethics expert — who, anyone who is familiar with him would know, is no friend of Thomas's — says that the version of the disclosure rules in effect at the time of these gifts were unclear, and it's questionable whether he violated them. (They're clearer now, but that postdates Thomas's filings.) As such, impeachment is a dead letter even if the votes were there, which of course they're not.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t know SCOTUS ethics laws, so won’t opine on that.

But apparently these trips were written up about 20 years ago in the LA times, and Thomas just started covering them up for 2 decades.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

Really shitty, aristocratic behavior. And I say that as someone who thinks Thomas is actually a pretty smart Justice, if one with some pretty insane views and a chip on his shoulder to rival some commenters on here.

[Sarcastr0]

From a little blog I like you may not have heard of:

“Arrested Development” is just chock-full of touchstones for me — from “I’ve made a huge mistake” to “Why should you go to jail for a crime someone else noticed?” to “Steve Holt!” Lately, when I look at the lame shit conservatives offer as a defense of their policies and actions, I mostly flash back to Michael Bluth’s quietly resigned “I don’t know what I expected.”

Take Washington Examiner columnist Byron York explaining to his readers why the Tennessee House took the extraordinary measure of not censuring but removing two Democratic members — both elected representatives of their districts, both of them black — for chanting with gallery gun-law protestors on the floor of the House:

Democrats bristle when anyone compares what happened that day to Jan. 6. Nobody died at the Tennessee protest, they say. No windows were broken. There were no battles with police. That is all true. So in that sense, no, March 30 in Nashville was not Jan. 6 in Washington.

Instead, call it a small-scale variation on Jan. 6.

Really, the only sensible answer to that is “eat me, you blow-dried dork” or some variant thereof.

Other conservatives have adopted York’s angle and a few have managed to make it even dumber. The rightwing glurge site RedState, for example, calls the protest a “transurrection” which is incoherent except as a childish trick to try and blame the recent Nashville shooting, which is the cause of the protest, on trans people rather than on the gun lobby that (as the protestors know) rules the Republican Party.

But, you know what? I don’t think that’s going to work. Oddly, conservatives’ increasingly anti-democracy aggressions — with which I’m sure they hope to discourage and dismay their opposition — actually have me a little more hopeful for the future than before.

True, Republicans and conservatives are getting more overtly fascist: In the states they control they’re passing absolutely insane anti-abortion and anti-trans laws, and demonstrate their contempt for the “small government” they pretend to promote when it suits them by, as Ronald Brownstein reports at CNN, “taking aggressive new steps to seize authority over local prosecutors, city policing policies, or both.” Add to this the voter-suppression and gerrymandering that have become their primary electoral tools, and this latest nightmare in Tennessee, and it’s clear that the consent of the governed is something Republicans and conservatives not only don’t expect to win but are determined to rule without.

This is also evident in their out-loud support for their corrupt and thuggish leaders. The Trump indictment has gotten all of them, from the Just-the-Tip Trumpers to the most rabid gold-toilet-sniffers, to step up and denounce the very idea that their hero should be held to the same standards as other white-collar crooks. And now that Clarence Thomas has been fully outed as a receiver of illegal donor benefits, they’re trying the same shit to defend him.

I can see how, from a certain perspective, this could be discouraging. After all, Republicans behave as if the rules don’t apply to them for a very good reason: So far they have not. Conservatives willfully belie all their professed principles to defend corruption and minority rule (and bullshit neoliberals enable them and tell us it’s not so bad).

Well, it is that bad — so bad that it is possible people who hadn’t seen it before are seeing it now.

I talked the other day about a Wall Street Journal poll that had the right-wingers convinced America had lost its way, at least partly because it showed that a lot of people didn’t share their narrow point of view. Polls are also showing that the wingnut campaign to make normies adopt their swear-word “woke” ain’t working.

And we all saw the recent election results in Chicago and Wisconsin. As with the “red wave” that never came in November 2022, the voters knew something that the wingnuts and trimmers predicting defeat didn’t know — that conservatives are actively and obviously fucking shit up and normal people want no part of them.

It puts me in mind of when I knew the Democrats had real problems in 1994, when the powerful House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski was indicted for abusing his franking privileges to the tune of half a mil. (Something else to remind your wingnut friends about when they claim Trump’s indictment is unique.) It was a sign that the jig was up, and presaged the Gingrich wave.

It’s not a perfect analogy. Back then norms were less fluid, and Democrats did not try to brass it out as Republicans do now. And we must remember that conservatism is now a full-on death-cult, and its votaries will say and do anything to get out from under the sentence of history.

But when I see those young protestors in Nashville cheering Justin Jones and Justin Pearson for standing up and standing with them — well, they look a lot more like the future than the cronies and crackpots who are trying to hold the future back.

Have a good weekend.

[Michael P]

That's a lot of words to say "this is the kind of insurrection I approve of, so I refuse to call it an insurrection".

[David Nieporent]

And your post is a relatively terse way of saying, "I am an idiot."

[not guilty]

Michael P, what facts support your claim that there was an insurrection in Nashville? Please be specific.

[David Nieporent]

For most of the past seven years, the unofficial motto of MAGA is "IKYABWAI?" (That's "I know you are, but what am I?", for the uninitiated.)

In recent years, the application of that rule has involved seizing on words they hear used by normal people when talking about MAGA, and then repeating them over and over again. Three that stick out to me are, "Whistleblower," "election interference," "insurrectionist."

1) After the first impeachment, when it was revealed that Trump had illegally tried to extort a foreign country to announce a fake investigation of Trump's political opponent, people used the term "whistleblower" to describe the person who reported this. So MAGA has started using the word "whistleblower" to apply to any person who accuses any non-MAGA individual or institution of anything. Regardless of whether the person is telling the truth or reporting insider information or is just whining.

2) Russia attempted to help Trump get elected. That is not even remotely in dispute. The nonpartisan Mueller investigation found that, the Republican led SSCI found that. (Whether it was merely approved of by Trump or whether Trump was actively involved is the only dispute.) The media and Dems labeled that "election interference" by Russia. So now every single act by anyone that might impact an election — a social media company deletes a pro-Trump post, people try to register other people to vote, whatever — is relabeled "election interference," even though Americans are 100% allowed to attempt to influence if and how other Americans vote. They are not "interfering" by doing so; they are participating.

2) While denying that J6 was an insurrection, MAGA now accuse anyone who protests anything in any way, regardless of whether those people were actually trying to overthrow the government the way the J6 people were, of being "insurrectionists."

[Randal]

My favorite, literal example of this was Trump in the third Hillary debate. “You’re the puppet! No! You’re the puppet!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu0Bn3ulcOk

[Frank Drackman]

That was great, especially Hillary Rodman's smug look thinking she had already won.

[Frank Drackman]

this versions funnier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR5Uiyi52bg

[Michael P]

Protesters obstructed elected representatives, made threats against the safety of lawmakers, and forced the legislature to abandon the chamber rather than conduct their business. Pretty much exactly the same things that the left claims constituted a J6 insurrection.

[not guilty]

Uh, none of what you say is true of the demonstration in Nashville. There were no obstruction or threats. In particular, the legislature never abandoned the chamber. Where are you getting your information?

[not guilty]

Michael P, are you willing to admit that you are making shit up?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Michael P.

[shawn_dude]

They beat cops, climbed the ramparts and smashed open windows and doors to gain entry? Some of them were armed? Did they go hunting for specific people with an intent to harm or kill? Were they chanting "Hang (insert name here)!" while building a gallows? Did Tennessee police have to barricade the room and shoot someone who tried to breach? How many of the politicians were filmed fleeing the violence? Did they smear their own feces on the walls?

Or, did they stand on the floor and just shout slogans?

Get some perspective.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

fasist death cult sounds like a good name for a rock band

[not guilty]

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, has reversed the District Court's dismissal of indictments of three January 6 defendants and ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) prohibits the conduct alleged in the indictments. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/F435A13F03207AF28525898A004F9D45/$file/22-3038-1993753.pdf The District Court had opined that the statute, which prohibits corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding or attempting to do so, does not apply to assaultive conduct, committed in furtherance of an attempt to stop Congress from performing a constitutionally required duty because the indictments do not allege that the defendants violated § 1512(c)(2) by committing obstructive acts related to a document, record, or other object.

[not guilty]

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk today issued an order staying the effective date of the Food and Drug Administration’s September 28, 2000 approval of mifepristone and all subsequent challenged actions related to that approval. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067.137.0_11.pdf

This result oriented Memorandum Order and Opinion does for jurisprudence what Christian Szell did for dentistry.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Here, the associations’ members have standing because they allege adverse events from chemical abortion drugs can overwhelm the medical system and place “enormous pressure and stress” on doctors during emergencies and complications."

That's not how any of this works. By this absurd standard, any medical professional can challenge any drug the FDA ever approves.

His reasoning does not get any better as the standing argument unfolds. It actually devolves into raw speculation to facilitate the outcome he was chosen specifically to provide.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do know what the Washington Monument syndrome is, right? That's when bureaucrats, faced with a spending cut, deliberately maximize the pain to the public.

For instance, in the last shutdown, they deliberately shut parks that were being run on arrangement with private companies, and were revenue sources, not sinks, just to inconvenience the public extra.

Bureaucrats do this because the absolute last thing they want happening in a shutdown is the public deciding, "Huh. This isn't so bad, maybe we should just not restore the spending levels and call it a day."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When the government "shuts down", 80% of it is still running. And everyone still gets paid.

It's fucking hilarious that you ignorant bootlickers of the State actually believe the entire federal government, every institution, gets shuttered.

[Commenter_XY]

That is the scariest part to me, QA. Completely bi-partisan.

Am I wrong though...this Restrict Act has very little to do with banning Tik Tok. I abhor this like I abhor the ironically named Patriot Act.

What about you?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I should’ve said “Federals are gonna Federal”.

There’s not much daylight between a Federal Democrat and a Federal Republican.

So thanks for that new (to me) information.

[Brett Bellmore]

Raising teachers' pay isn't remotely guaranteed to make them better teachers. Just better paid.

Barring some serious efforts to measure teacher performance, and make the higher pay continent on it, it just means teachers end up wealthier while doing the same job.

[Brett Bellmore]

“We have two parties here, and only two. One is the evil party, and the other is the stupid party. ... I'm very proud to be a member of the stupid party. ... Occasionally, the two parties get together to do something that's both evil and stupid. That's called bipartisanship.”
M. Stanton Evans.

[Sarcastr0]

Raising teachers’ pay isn’t remotely guaranteed to make them better teachers. Just better paid.

I'm not sure you understand how a talent pool works.

[Sarcastr0]

No consequences for your own dumbassery, just liberal plots.

[shawn_dude]

This would be easier to swallow if, when the Republicans last controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, they had actually followed through rather than ratchet up spending and deeply cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations. The whole "spending is out of control" hysteria only pops up when there's a Democrat in the White House. The best years we've had for reducing the deficit is also, unironically, during the Clinton and Obama presidencies.

[Voize]

There is a trope called Washington Monument Syndrome, coined half a century ago. It is supposedly intended to put pressure on legislators, not to indoctrinate the public.

If by “the last shutdown” you mean the 2019 one, I don’t know what park shutdowns you refer to. National parks stayed open though without staff, them being among the 380,000 federal employees furloughed. There were suggestions they should have been closed for health and safety reasons since there were no sanitation services being provided, but instead Trump’s Secretary of the Interior allocated entrance fees to park maintenance and sanitation, an action the GAO later reported was unlawful without authorization from Congress.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that, as a general rule, private sector employers actually measure performance, which is why they tend to get what they pay for.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't want to be the one to tell you there's no Easter Bunny, but nobody really cares about Women's Basketball, they just pretend to to be polite, like how you pretend to be interested in your co-workers vacation or children's accomplishments.

[DaveM]

I think the real issue is she probably feels a bit guilty for going a bit over the line and displaying some bad sportsmanship, and is trying to cover it up by pointing out that other players are just as bad. She's not wrong about that, but of course that's no excuse for bad behavior.

She says she doesn't pay any attention to social, but she also says that she saves screenshots of all the mean ones. Well, which is it?

I'm not a sports fan, but I do know that a certain degree of trash talking is expected, it's the psychological part of the game. If you go over the line, I think a simple admission is enough to diffuse the situation.

[Kazinski]

It's not racism, it's sexism:
"Men have always had trash talk. ... You should be able to play with that emotion. ... That's how every girl should continue to play."
- Caitlin Clark

[jb]

There's some ways in which Reyes' behavior might be distinguished from Clark's in the previous game, but you can see why people might think there might be a racial element to people's reactions when Clark and Reyes both used the Cena "you can't see me" gesture and only Reyes got any kind of pushback for it.

[Gandydancer]

I gather Reyes objected to the Head Dementia Nurse inviting the runners-up to the WH to get a participation award, but I have as much disinterest in female basketball as anyone else and have no idea what race card playing you are objecting to. How about a name or a link?

[NOVA Lawyer]

If you're going to make this point, you're the one with work to do to show that the difference in treatment of Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese (get her name right if you want to have credibility) was not because of race.

The most that can be said is that Caitlin Clark's was not seen as widely and, perhaps, in typical fashion, it is the second person who does something that gets in trouble. But neither of those go to the substance of the action.

Trash talking is a thing in sports, particularly in basketball. Using Caitlin's own taunt was not being a "jerk". And the alleged "victim" or her jerkiness defended her, pointing out that she and others trash talked the same.

So now, to do the work you need to defend your point, you have to both explain the differential treatment and explain why Caitlin Clark, who knows far more about basketball culture than you and far more about the specific situation in this tournament than you, says that you are wrong.

Also, if you followed the criticism of Angel Reese online, at all, it was often explicitly racist. Setting aside whether her actions were ideal, the huge blowup over her actions unquestionably had a racial element to it.

The fact that you cannot even get the name of the tournament MVP right suggests you are not equipped with the knowledge of the sport or the situation to back up the point you are trying to make about Angel Reese. Your utter failure to engage with the crux of the matter, differential treatment (are you even aware that is the issue?), also suggests you aren't conversant in the relevant facts enough to make judgments about a 20 year old basketball player.

If this was your attempt to appear evenhanded in dealing with matters of race, count it a fail. You owe Angel an apology. Including for getting her name wrong.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The problem with all of the popular approaches to climate change is that the energy solutions and limits being imposed by governments don’t actually work technically, so when a low (but greater than zero) carbon energy source like natural gas is cut off the entities that are tasked with the practical chore of providing the energy are forced to go with something that they’ve got supply of and facilities to generate with. That’s almost always coal.

So the do gooders, in their zeal to do good, are forcing the generation of more carbon emissions.

[Longtobefree]

What is this thing you call women's basketball?
Even the supreme court justices (well, at least one) can't define "woman" anymore.
The winner in a women's race event is no longer the first woman (I can define woman) across the finish line.

[Sarcastr0]

This blithe cynicism is really common throughout American history and is also the dumbest shit.

[Nige]

This is the sort of shit you spout when you've completely given up.

[Commenter_XY]

Concur...Restrict Act is evil and stupid (e.g. bipartisan), Brett. I am actually hoping a POTUS Biden would the good judgment to veto it. I don't want even more restrictions on my 1A, 4A and 5A rights beyond those I have now. That is what I am concerned about.

It is not about the politics; it is about our individual civil liberties.

[Martinned]

they tend to get what they pay for

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsLUidiYm0w

[Martinned]

It's almost as if seemingly simple things sometimes turn out not to be so simple. Now do gravity.

[Nige]

The end-logic of this is the legal codification the category of 'woman' through strictly enforced and carefully scrutinised standards of feminine appearance, clothing and hormone levels, with genital inspections for anyone who does not meet those standards. They're already doing it to kids in Kansas.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, but it lets Brett feel smart.

[Brett Bellmore]

The thing about blithe cynicism about government is that it's generally correct.

[Gandydancer]

The dumbest shit is reliably everything you post.

[Michael P]

Objects with mass attract each other in proportion to the product of their masses and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between them.

It's almost as if seemingly simple things actually can be explained if you bother to try, instead of work hard to obfuscate them.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is a great answer! In 1687. There have been some developments since then.

[Martinned]

Yeah, that's a completely incorrect description of what gravity is or how it works.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don’t think so.

Wiki says: “Merchan became a judge in 2006, when New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg appointed him to the Family Court of the City of New York, Bronx County.[6] He remained in that role until 2009. Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau appointed Merchan as an Acting Justice in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, Criminal, in 2009, and he has served on in that position since that time. In this position, Merchan presides over felony criminal trials”

Ballotpedia says: “The justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York are elected to 14-year terms in partisan elections. Candidates are selected at partisan nominating conventions to appear on the general election ballot.

To serve additional terms, justices must run for re-election. Justices must retire at the end of the year in which they turn 70 years old; however, retired justices may serve until the end of the year in which they turn 76 years old if they are certified as competent every two years.”

I’ve seen elsewhere both that he has been serving since 2009 and that his term expires 2028 — but 9 + 14 = 23 so his appointed term should expire this year at the latest.

[Nige]

No, fossil fuel companies and governments that refuse to recognise the climate crisis and the risks posed by carbion emissions do that. Activists, scientists and engineers have been crying out for joined-up international approaches for ages. This is what happens when you ignore them or prefer that lovely fossil fuel money.

[Frank Drackman]

In Gravity?? Nope.
and not in Sex either

[Don Nico]

It's still a good answer in the weak field approximation (which is most of the time).

[Don Nico]

Why do you always resort to the "conspiracy theory" ploy rather than answering Brett substantively?

[Sarcastr0]

Don - because Brett needs to show his work.

He's positing a government plot with his only proof being speculation based on his own feelz that government employees are unprofessional and bad.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

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

What a bunch of ignorant people the bootlickers always end up being.

[Randal]

The substantive answer is, "that's a conspiracy theory, Brett, once again." What other answer is there? Do you waste time trying to logically rebut flat-earthers' silly "arguments" one by one? Do you think it would have any impact, even if you did? Someone who believes in conspiracy theories is well past reasoned debate.

So you know, don't blame Sarcastr0 for Brett's obsession with conspiracy theories.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why do you always resort to the “conspiracy theory” ploy rather than answering Brett substantively?"

Because they don't have a substantive response, and don't understand what a conspiracy theory is.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are you people seriously idiots? You've never heard of Washington Monument Syndrome even after I linked it?

[Martinned]

Yes, that is a bit of a head scratcher.

[apedad]

And have also conveniently forgotten that judges/justices (and their families), shouldn't be targeted.

Trump judge, family have received multiple threats since arrest: report

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3937148-trump-judge-family-have-received-multiple-threats-since-arrest-report/

[Kazinski]

Crowd chants don't quite rise to the level of a 2 year effort by prosecutors.

[Sarcastr0]

I do like that formulation. And I agree with it - consequentialist morality is not what I'm saying.

But 'knowing' is a potential mens rea - i.e. understanding and accepting the consequences. And also one is responsible for a situation which one caused.

You are opening up an interesting additional front of discussion with your 'didn't do enough' bit.
The government isn't like an individual - it does have affirmative responsibilities to support it's people. What enough is? That's a question; but it is not ridiculous to think the answer could be more.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fat chance he'll veto it, he's in on the progressive conversion of America into a police state.

I've been saying for a couple decades now that we've been accumulating all the bits and pieces of a police state, in terms of such things as domestic surveillance.

Now we're in the assembly phase.

[Frank Drackman]

That may be the stupidest thing you've ever written, which is saying something. You have to be something to define it?? Might want to get that "Low T" checked

[Krayt]

You are always travelling through the 4-dimensional spacetime continuum at c, the speed of light. Mass warps this 4-dimensional continuum, so in order to continue at c, something has to give, and its your speed through time. Hence time is slower the greater the mass nearby. This manifests as an acceleration, hence acceleration and gravity aren’t just similar phenomena, but the exact same one.

I think this is still wrong, but closer.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a perfectly fine working approximation unless you're designing a GPS system or live on a neutron star. It's not like the Lense-Thirring effect alters how you steer your car, or you desperately need to reset your watch after climbing the stairs.

[Frank Drackman]

didn't change things, Earthlings still fall at 32 feet/sec/sec

[Brett Bellmore]

Speaking as an engineer, we've mostly been crying out for more nuclear power. It's really the only already available power source that's zero carbon, and reliable.

Wind is just a joke outside of some very specialized locations, and solar at best is unavailable about 14 hours out of 24, and not even that when the weather is bad. The amount of storage necessary to make solar into something that looks like a reliable source amounts to weeks of storage, not hours.

In theory you could compensate by creating a globe spanning grid, but that just creates the potential, indeed essential certainty in times of war, of globe spanning blackouts.

I happen to think that SPS's might be the solution, but the Greens will probably go gonzo over the idea of gigawatts of microwaves coming down from space.

Nuclear, by contrast, just WORKS. And it has accumulated a safety record nothing else can match.

[Gandydancer]

There is no "climate crisis".

[Nige]

Yes, yes, people have supposedly been crying out for nuclear and yet it's never been made attractive or viable. You know when you have a problem approaching that can't be deflected, tricked or negotiated with so you actually have to knuckle down and come up with actual solutions that work and which people will accept rather than your personal pet solution that's fantastic in theory but nobody actually likes? That.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes, if they were forced to transition from gas to nuclear that would be great and would lower carbon emissions. Unfortunately the gas supply is being reduced right now and there is no excess nuclear capacity to switch to. Nor is there much additional nuclear capacity on the horizon - if anything it’s going the other way as the anti-carbon crusaders are shutting down existing nuclear capacity. I guess somehow this makes sense to them, but it really demonstrates how climate change policy is being driven completely by politics while science and technology and practical limits are being completely ignored.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon (man!) Senescent J flies everywhere in his Solar Powered Air Farce1/Marine 1, Drives in those Electric Kevlar plated SUV's, and has the only 1967 Corvette that has a windmill.

[ducksalad]

He won’t veto it, but it doesn’t have much to do with being progressive.

The bill further empowers the executive branch with lots of discretionary authority described using expansive language. No POTUS from either major party would be likley to turn down such an offer.

Note that four POTUSes from two parties have been mostly uninterested in scaling back the Patriot Act, the War Powers Act, and various emergency clauses.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a dumb bill, Brett. But the idea that it's part of some progressive plot to turn America to a police state is a deeply silly notion.

[Nige]

‘as the anti-carbon crusaders are shutting down existing nuclear capacity.’

The fossil fuel industry loves that you keep blaming everyone but them for a major competitive technology not flourishing.

‘while science and technology and practical limits are being completely ignored.’

Tough shit. They were warned decades ahead of time that this was coming down the tracks. Whining about limits and anti-carbon crusaders won't hide the fact that they have fucked almost every person on the planet except the rich by refusing the address it seriously in a timely fashion.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's good that nuclear energy would lower carbon emissions, but have they ever solved the long-term problem of what to do with spent fuel rods?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, I read Einstein's "Relativity" paper which you obviously haven't, or if you have, it loses something in translation, and it wasn't called "Relativity" but "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"
Yes, it changed the "Perception" of Gravity, didn't change the effects.
And his Brownian Motion paper was actually more impressive, he just did that in an afternoon of doodling, like Will Hunting,

Frank E=MC something

[Martinned]

It's almost as if I chose gravity as an example exactly for that reason...

[Frank Drackman]

the GPS thing refers to Time Dilation which is a feature of Special Relativity, not General Relativity. I hate when people mix up their Special and General Relativity!

[Sarcastr0]

Engineering is no physics.

Maybe it's fine for an engineer. It's really bad for a physicist. Misapprehends the process at issue completely.

[Frank Drackman]

So you're saying Heterosexual Women can't define women??
OK, I get that Helen Keller might have had some problems at first (probably didn't, when you lose one sense the others sharpen, I can certainly recognize the "Scent of a Woman" (I don't just watch Eastwood/Jim Carrey movies all the time)

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

It's fine if you're just doing math. But Newton's theory supposedly gives a 'how/what.' That is utterly wrong.

[Michael P]

Yes, because you emphasize bad-faith pedantry over the effects that matter for everyday life. Thanks for proving the point!

[Life of Brian]

I agree it's quite an apt analogy to the gender benders. You and yours are scrambling around trying to scrape up a handful of nitpicky exceptions to try to cast doubt on the 9-sigma rule.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. Yeah, this is a difference between you and I. I’m an institutionalist; the government serves the American citizenry, but is not an empty vessle for the voter’s interests.

Not all reductions in spending are cruel, but the effect on people (not just citizens – people) should be taken into account. But also, yeah, lower taxes is a benefit. Though pay attention to who is getting those lower taxes! The GOP’s last few tax cuts have not been great in terms of who got them.

I also don't think we're overtaxed at the current juncture. But that's a line-drawing issue and less interesting than these baseline how to think of the problem questions.

[DaveM]

Ha, good one. Hadn't thought of that! Sure, that's possible, too. Like I said, insanely hard to suss out cause and effect on this.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, till it happens.

[Kazinski]

France has proved that nuclear is safe, scalable, consistent, and reasonably cheap when people don't go out of their way to obstruct it.

[Nige]

Then everyone do what France did.

[Bob from Ohio]

"government serves the American citizenry"

LOL It serves itself.

[Sarcastr0]

Shush, Bob, adults are talking.

[Bob from Ohio]

"certain degree of trash talking is expected"

Now but it has not always been so. Just part of society's recent decline.

[Bob from Ohio]

Heterosexual white girl. Maybe the WNBA ought to try a few.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, you are.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't even follow sports and I know this is wrong.

If you only follow sports so you can feel angry and white, you're doing it wrong.

[Frank Drackman]

it's called a "Neologism"
for example,
"Don't go to Disney World on days there are lots of Neologsims there"
"(whispering) Boy! there's enough Neologisms here to make a Tarzan movie!"

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

Everybody gets threats. Sometimes judges have people fly across country to kill them and appear in front of their home with guns.

[Frank Drackman]

Love the Heterosexual white girls. Especially when they make out'

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don’t even follow sports" yet I will comment about it.

[Michael P]

You might want to check your assumed facts there, chief.

[Michael P]

That would be a remotely relevant point if anybody understood the processes involved in transgender identity -- for example, whether there's an underlying biological cause or if it's primarily mass delusion. As usual, you misapprehend the point at issue totally while projecting that onto others.

[Kazinski]

The oil companies are sitting pretty they aren't being hurt. The government is reducing competition and driving the prices of alternatives sky high. I've done quite well in oil company stocks the last few years, and will continue to invest in them.

And why is it the oil companies that are responsible for coming up with alternative solutions? How many jets, or train locomotives does GM or Ford make?

[Nige]

The oil companies buy up alternative energy Co's then sideline them, sabotage them politically, sabotage them with propaganda. They work to both to monopolise alternative energy and slow its development.

If you think the oil companies are powerful on their own, the oil companies and the automobile and airline industries combined are off the charts.

Sure we wrecked the planet, but for a while there Kazinski got a good return on his investment.

[Nige]

Especially everybody who threatens to hold Trump accountable for anything.

[bernard11]

But the idea that it’s part of some progressive plot to turn America to a police state is a deeply silly notion.

To Brett, every thing he doesn't like is part of that kind of plot.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Which is exactly what people in on the plot would say.

[shawn_dude]

Well, Trump = Jesus (apparently), so punishing Trump is punishing Jesus!

[Have you noticed all the MAGAts comparing Trump to Jesus recently? MTG was spouting that nonsense this week and even in these comment threads they're saying Trump is being "crucified." WTF?! Doesn't that violate the first rule of the 10 bad things God says not to do?]

[Gandydancer]

That wasn't his motive for going after Kavanaugh.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, YOU don’t.

The higher wages will keep the bad teachers who will work at least another 3 years so their pensions are calculated on these higher wages. And what you fail to understand is that the union will demand that all of the steps on the pay scale be adjusted on the basis of this new minimum salary -- this percentage increase will be given to all of the existing teachers with seniority.

Yes, higher pay will attract better *new* teachers, but in an era of declining enrollments, few new teachers will be hired.

[Gandydancer]

I'm sure you don't understand how teacher selection works.

[Nige]

All for a guy who *definitely* coveted his neighbour's ox.

[OtisAH]

I have played and followed sports for over 40 years. I can say with the authority earned from both my experiences in and around sports, and from reading your silliness, that you are 100% full of shit on the topic of trash talk in sports.

[Nige]

So increase enrollment by raising wages.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, higher pay will attract better *new* teachers, but in an era of declining enrollments, few new teachers will be hired.

Your premise is wrong.
https://jabberwocking.com/there-is-still-no-reason-to-panic-about-our-schools/

New hires outnumber quits in public school districts by about 0.7%, and this number has been pretty steady for the past decade.

And what about the raw number of quits? As boomers continue to age I'd expect a higher quit rate just due to retirements. But we haven't even seen that. For the past two decades quits have followed their usual pattern: down during recessions, when people are worried about finding another job, and up during expansions, when better jobs seem more plentiful

[Randal]

You know, sometimes we like to enact policies that improve the country in the long term.

It's not all just give me my candy now.

[Bob from Ohio]

No change in 40 years in trash talking? You should seek help for your deafness.

It gets worse every year. Now its wide-spead in baseball and golf even, where it was rare.

[Kleppe]

Are you objecting to me speculating, or the fact that I caveated my speculations? Would you have preferred I just said they were nuclear codes and went on my way?

[Noscitur a sociis]

You don't know much about baseball, do you?

[OtisAH]

Like I said, 100% full of shit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I like the notion of mass delusion in a discussion touching on gravity.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The oil companies buy up alternative energy Co’s then sideline them, "

And they wrap them up in a flag with a gold fringe, and they bury them under the plans for the 100mpg carburetor, too. Don't forget that.

[Kazinski]

I always used to laugh at the Oil companies buy up and suppress any inventions that threaten the internal combustion engine plotline.

It’s like Japan, and Germany which have no oil and no global oil companies and plenty of automotive and engineering expertise didn’t have the motivation or couldn’t make those same breakthrough inventions the oil companies were murdering people to suppress.

It did turn out VW eventually made a 50mpg diesel car, and it was suppressed by every major government in the world, but that’s a different story.

[Nige]

Suddenly capitalists acting like capitalists is a conspiracy theory? Wait'll you hear about Micorsoft.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Progressive in the sense of,
"Moving forward; advancing.
Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments."

Well, the other sense, too.

[Gandydancer]

^^ nitwit.

[Gandydancer]

So, this guy was hired to handle custody disputes etc. but has been standing in for actual elected judges for 13 years, presumably because there aren't enough of the latter to handle the load and it's easier to hire more of the former than increase the number of the latter.

Would be interesting to know if Bragg can pick his judge by tracking their workloads and timing his filings accordingly.

[Gandydancer]

But unless the school districts can identify better teachers more applicants won't mean better teachers.

Are they, like universities, picking them on the basis of how effusively they pledge allegiance to DEI?

[Gandydancer]

Raising teacher wages will increase K-12 enrollments?

[Gandydancer]

For (teacher) unions it is absolutely "give me my candy now". Why would it ever be anything else?

[Nige]

Not only did he have her investigated while he was in office, and she was cleared, he's tried to sue her since, what, twice, and had it thrown out both times?

[Nige]

Another person with no solutions to real problems heard from.

[Nige]

Teachers gotta eat.

[Nige]

It might increase people enrolling as teachers.

[Gandydancer]

It's spelled "baloney".

[Gandydancer]

That doesn't rise to the level of a bogus prosecution either.

[Nige]

Guess decades of full on assault by Republicans on the educational system is finally paying off.

[Nige]

What’s one more investigation after decades of investigations and hearings? Even her worst enemies couldn't find anything to prosecute her for. Either way, it’s a lot more than just chanting.

[Nige]

But it is the motivation for going after any judge Trump comes up before.