Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[santamonica811]

I saw something incredibly depressing today on Fox News. One of their journalists was wandering around at a Trump event (I turned to the programme while it was in progress, so I assume it was an event today, but it might have been a day or two old.) The reporter was talking to Trump supporters.

Not surprisingly, they were firmly supporting Trump, and mouthing both the reasonable defenses, and the batshit crazy conspiracy stories. OK, no surprises yet.

But this was a good reporter. So, when a supporter would repeat the conspiracy theory that the classified documents in Florida had been planted by the FBI, the reporter did the logical follow-up. And it went something like this.

Reporter: What about all the classified documents that were found in Mar a Lago?
Trump Supporter: The FBI is lying about this. They were planted there.
R: But...Donald Trump himself has said that the classified documents were there. He's even bragged about it. He just says that he had every legal right to take them and to keep them.
TS: Yes, so?
R: But then you are accusing Trump of lying about this...you're saying that the documents were planted, in spite of President Trump clearly acknowledging that they were NOT planted, and that they are in Mar a Lago because he brought them from the White House when he left office.
TS: [sputter]. The interview is over. I don't want to talk any more.

This happened repeatedly. Not one Trump supporter—not A SINGLE ONE—had the mental capacity and/or integrity to say, “Oh, yeah. I have heard him say that. I guess I was wrong about the FBI planting the documents.”

I get cognitive dissonance and all that. But I can't wrap my head around this universal inability (for Trump supporters) to recognize that if the documents ending up in Mar a Lago is due to a conspiracy, then Donald Trump is part of, and actively leading, that particular conspiracy. And if the FBI is lying about its role in putting documents in Mar a Lago, then it means that Donald Trump is also lying about this...to his great legal detriment.

For some reason, this phenomenon made me very sad today. I expect, and am not terribly bothered by, stupidity at the far end of any political group. But terminal stupidity??? That's depressing.

[Kazinski]

You watch Fox News, really?

Forget the intelligence level of the interviewees, just the level of the hosts is hard to take. But I don't watch TV so I can't say I've got a large sample size.

And I have to say I used to listen to Laura Ingrahams radio.show about 10-15 years ago, she's definitely not an idiot.

But as for Trump Supporters being in absolute denial about Trump having classified material, its as ridiculous as saying Joe 'big guy' Biden would never take money from Burisma, only Hunter would, although Joe is the only one in the family in a position to do anything for them.

[Frank Drackman]

You don't watch TV? so I guess you don't have one, since you don't watch TV. So how do you judge the intelligence level of the Fox news Hosts? Listen on your fillings?? OH, wait, you have the Sirius XM radio, I think they simulcast there. My bad.
And since you dont watch TV, guess you don't know Laura Ingraham's on from 10-11 Eastern.

Frank "Watches too much TV"

[Kazinski]

Well I do have a "TV" for watching movies at my winter home, but I only bought that in December, before that I traveled in the winter. But my wife uses it a lot more than I do, I prefer.reading to watching movies anyway.

But in any case I don't have cable so I don't watch Fox, MSNBC, CNN or network TV. Why would people pay for that dreck?

Before I retired 5 years ago I had a TV, but I seem to remember cutting the cable service a few years before that.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz....You are not missing much = TV 🙂

I don't have one.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
You're missing excellent TV from Japan on its NHK service.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

And Doc Martin reruns.

[Frank Drackman]

Might want to check for lead poisoning, you opined on the level of Fox News Hosts, just before you said you don't watch TV. So now we've determined you do watch TV, to "Watch movies" that you prefer not to watch.

[Kazinski]

There's a difference between watching TV and movies. Where I am living now I have a Kindle and I download movies if I want to watch them, since I'm off the grid and my internet is a little slow for streaming.

But when I travel domestically most hotels and motels have TV's and I will channel surf enough for a sampling, so I am not totally unexposed to Fox news or MSNBC, or CNN. I get enough exposure that I know I'm not missing anything.

[Brett Bellmore]

I often get accused of watching Fox News, though I was an early cable cutter in the late 90's. (Satellite cutter, really, as I lived in a rural area.) Only time I ever watched Fox was on the TV on the treadmill at the fitness center; I found Hanity sufficiently annoying to keep my pace up.

But, yeah, I do get occasional exposure while traveling.

[Frank Drackman]

Like on an airplane?? with wings?? Thats as effin "On the grid" as you can get.

[Frank Drackman]

My experience is that most peoples who claim to "Don't watch TV" do, and that claim to read books don't.
I read the old fashioned way, with this thing called "Books"
Reading "Catch 22" now, in the original German, Kapitel "Luciana" "Er entdeckte Luciana, wie sie allein an einem Tisch im Allied Officers Club sass, im Stich gelassen von dem betrunkenen australischen Major, der sie hergebracht hatte unt toricht genug war, die ausgelassene Gesellshaft einiger Kameraden vorzuziehen, die an der Bar hockten und zotige Lieder sangen

Now THAT's how you start a Chapter!

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

When I left Michigan to find a new job, back in 08, I had to sell a roughly 5000 volume library to a used book dealer, because the moving van was full, and I was near flat broke. So, yes, I actually do read.

Though not as much since the cataract surgery.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't suppose that was in Grand Rapids? If so, I probably bought a whole bunch of your books. Needed something to read while drinking beer at Brewery Vivant.

[Gandydancer]

"...since you don[']t watch TV, guess you don’t know Laura Ingraham’s on from 10-11 Eastern."

I thought Fox took her down, along with Carlson, but it seems not.

And I believe all of Fox's shows are on the internet, so you don't need cable or a TV to see them. That's certainly where I saw Carlson when he was on Fox News.

Btw, Twitter currently says of his Episode#1 "3:00 PM · Jun 6, 2023 115.3M Views". That seems high to me, so probably "Views" doesn't mean what it ought to mean.

[Michael P]

You know, Slow Joe never talked to Hunter about Hunter's business dealings. And the laptop was Russian disinformation. And there is nothing incriminating on the laptop, even though it's disinformation. Slow Joe is still as sharp as a whip, and not at all confused or feeble. His health has no impact on his ability to organize trunalimunumaprzure.

[Kazinski]

I'm not denigrating Joes intelligence, he never had to ask what 'Covfefe' meant. Neither Biden or Trump could ever be confused with an intellectual, but they both have a low animal cunning, common in a certain class of politicians.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never made a typo?

[Brett Bellmore]

" he never had to ask what ‘Covfefe’ meant."

That's a silly point to make about somebody who so famously mangles words.

[Sarcastr0]

Calling Joe mentally not with it after the debt ceiling thing is quite a move, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said Biden routinely mangles words. You want to dispute that?

Look, I don't assume misspelling mean somebody is an idiot. I fat finger the virtual keyboard on my phone all the time, and you've probably seen occasionally what my peripheral neuropathy does to my once pristine touch typing skills. Not to mention the dyslexia chemo left me with. Doesn't mean I'm stupid.

It's perfectly ordinary that the media seize on any mistake by a Republican to claim they're an idiot, like Quayle getting handed a wrong cue card at that spelling bee, or Trump fat fingering his phone's keyboard. It's equally ordinary that the media make excuses for Democrats.

When Republicans make a mistake, the mistake is the story. When Democrats make a mistake, Republicans' reaction to the mistake is the story. "Republicans pounce", it's a cliche at this point.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What debt ceiling thing are you insinuating Biden should get credit for for being so witty?

[Don Nico]

S_0,
you're confusing joe biden and his with crew with janet yellin and the dept of Treasury and the OMB

[Nige]

Yeah, you see all that is the same as 'the FBI planted the documents' in the sense that it's the same people saying it, with about the same basis.

[Gandydancer]

Who are these "same people"?

Can you locate anyone here saying that "‘the FBI planted the documents’"?

(note to spectators: Nige is the "Trump is a convicted sex offender" and "There were no classified email's on Anthony Weiner's laptop" guy. And that's a very small sample of what he's vomited up in just in the last few days.)

[Nige]

It's a long thread, but literally the first comment.

Trump is a sex offender.

There were no classified files on Weiner's laptop.

[Nige]

Yeah, it’s as ridiculous as saying that something for which there is proof, evidence and a record is the same as something for which there is none.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, you don't want people to think you planted stuff during a search, you need to permit the search to be witnessed. It's not like we should automatically assume the feds are on the up and up, that ship sailed decades ago.

[Sarcastr0]

No actually. There is no such obligation. Look at the 2020 election - witnesses do not cut down on conspiracy mongers.

Congrats on proudly joining the no evidence brigade along with those feelings over facts dumbasses.

[hoppy025]

Moron. The jogging contingent in Philadelphia and some other blue cities intentionally covered up the windows while they were counting. Don't you people ever stop lying?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The jogging contingent in Philadelphia

Another day at the Volokh Conspiracy, another day of bigotry at this white, male, right-wing, bigot-hugging blog.

At what point will Georgetown, UCLA, Chicago, and other legitimate institutions lose patience with respect to having their names associated and reputations diminished by association with this blog?

[Frank Drackman]

You tell us Jerry.

[Theendoftheleft]

And yet here you are, AIDS, as usual, day after day, month after month, year after year.

You love this blog, AIDS. Mere obsession doesn’t suffice to explain your persistence here. (Though you clearly do suffer from some form of psychological disorder, and you're obviously a moron with a superficial grasp of his own ideology.)

Where do your grandchildren go to school? I promise I won’t tell anyone.

[Theendoftheleft]

I would love to see this blog's trolls all in a room with its cheerleaders, identities exposed.

Wouldn't the looks on all of your faces be priceless?

[Theendoftheleft]

Yeesh. I KNOW you can do better than this, Queenie...

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Joining? Brett's the fucking leader of that brigade.

[Nige]

No, you don't. You immediately jumped to the accusation that not only wre they anting stuff, but that they were sniffing underwear. You can't appease people like you, you will simply make something else up. Even stuff that contradicts what Trump himself admits to, as above.

[bernard11]

It's always the other guy's fault with you.

"Obama should have released the birth certificate."

"The FBI should have had observers."

"They should have let Sidney Powell count the votes." (OK, you never said that specifically, but it's close.)

If you don't want me going around telling people you are a tax evader, then let me see your returns and records.

[David Nieporent]

Look, you don’t want people to think you planted stuff during a search, you need to permit the search to be witnessed. It’s not like we should automatically assume the feds are on the up and up, that ship sailed decades ago.

Once more, we're seeing Brett and MAGA invent Trumplaw. Trump and his hangers on are entitled to special treatment not available to anyone else on the planet in the legal system.

No person who hasn't escaped from a mental institution thinks that the FBI planted stuff during their search.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Initially, I didn't believe the story about Whitey Bulger....

[Sarcastr0]

No person who hasn’t escaped from a mental institution

[Sarcastr0]

Really going to keep trying to fuck that Burisma chicken eh?

The dude that was fired was corrupt and NOT investigating the firm Hunter was on.
The firing was the consensus of Obama and the EU.
There is no evidence Biden got any money.

The pros on the right just wave their hands and mumble about Hunter and Big Guy. You're actually trying to make it into more than blowing smoke, and you're utterly at variance with the facts now.

[OtisAH]

*This* explanation will be the tipping point, I’m sure of it!

[Randal]

I was able to lead *one* person out of their delusional MAGA cult Trumpwashing brain fog. So it is possible!

[Kazinski]

Its just the other shoe dropping from the Hunter Burisma story and it helps explain why Hunter was getting a million a year for nothing. And according to the informant there were other services besides firing the prosecutor, there is also allegedly a ledger showing the payments and the schedule.

And don't forget the 150 suspicious money transfer reports:
"To help them get here, Congressional Republicans relied on more than 150 suspicious activity reports as a roadmap to follow what they call the Bidens’ complicated financial money trail.

The confidential reports, called SARs for short, are often routine, with larger financial transactions automatically flagged to the government. The filing of a SARs report is not evidence on its own of misconduct."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-are-using-financial-records-to-investigate-hunter-biden-heres-how

This isnt something Congress is well equipped to do but its obvious that Merrick Garland has no interest in pursuing it.

[Nige]

That's because they're not trying to prove anything, just feed your hungry maw.

[grb]

Kazinski : “And according to the informant there were other services besides firing the prosecutor…”

If your “informant” claims Biden was bribed to pressure for Shokin’s firing he’s already a discredited clown. Since you’re completely ignorant about this, let me fill you in:

1. Obama ordered Biden to demand Shokin’s ouster.
2. It was official White House policy Shokin be fired.
3. It was official State Department policy he go.
4. A bipartisan group of Senators wrote a letter demanding it.
5. The US Ambassador to Ukraine gave a speech demanding it.
6. The EU also demanded Shokin be fired.
7. The World Bank demanded Shokin be fired.
8. The IMF demanded Shokin’s firing.
9. The European Bank of Reconstruction & Development also.
10. Every anti-corruption group in Ukraine demanded he go
11. There were street protests in Kyiv against Shokin alone.

After he was fired, the Kyiv Post said he was one of the most hated men in Ukraine. Oh, and those Senators who wrote a letter included Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) In an interview, he described the letter thus: “The whole world, by the way, including the Ukranian caucus, which I signed the letter, the whole world felt that this that Sholkin wasn’t doing a [good] enough job. So we were saying hey you’ve … got to rid yourself of corruption.”

Did Burisma bribe everyone above ?!? Your story is a buffoonish joke, capable of convincing no one who knows any facts. No oligarch was afraid of Shokin because they knew he could be bought. The Ukrainian authorities once raided Shokin’s two deputy prosecutors and found bags of diamonds in the house of each. Burisma wouldn’t have wasted those fantasy millions paying Biden to follow White House & State Department policy, they would have just paid-off Shokin.

Do you honestly believe your child-level bullshit ?!?!?

[Kazinski]

Well maybe we'll find out:
" Senator Grassley stated on the Senate floor that he has read the unredacted 1023 in the Biden family business case, and it says that the Burisma executive who allegedly bribed Joe and Hunter Biden says he has audio recordings of his conversations with them."

However I will note this is the Burisma executive in Ukraine, not the whistleblower/informant, so I'm not sure that even if the exist they will ever come out.

But one can hope.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You can’t indict a sitting president…and if Biden were to lose nobody would care about him like Republicans care for the Loser in Chief.

[grb]

Kazinski : "But one can hope"

Hope is all ya got brother. You have a story that batshit crazy absurd and magical "proof" even you admit is nothing more than insubstantial smoke.

Just as a reminder : Your whole story. makes. zero. sense.

Doesn't that bother you even a little bit?

[David Nieporent]

I mean, someone said that someone told them that there were pee tapes involving Trump. Anyone can say that there's a recording of something.

[grb]

Even though Kazinski is a bottomless pit of ignorance, maybe some info can reach way down into the fathomless depths. Hell, let's give it a try:

"David Sakvarelidze was five months into a new job as Ukraine’s reformist deputy chief prosecutor when a witness came forward with intelligence that would change the course of everything. The witness, a sand producer in the Kiev region, complained of men extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars. It took a while to persuade the man to give evidence. But when he did, and the investigation began, the trail led to two of the country’s highest-placed prosecutors. A search of the men’s apartments revealed a scene that looked like a comic heist: bags full of cash, diamonds and other precious stones. But that was not the only incriminating evidence. Documents seized at the time indicated the men appeared to have a connection to the top prosecutor in the land, Viktor Shokin.

Police found copies of Shokin’s passports, property registration certificates and even his licence to carry firearms. One of the two men, it transpired, was Shokin’s former driver who had subsequently climbed the ranks behind his boss. For Sakvarelidze, there were clear suspicions the two men may have been carrying out the business of the chief. But his attempts to investigate were frustrated. Soon, he faced a corruption investigation himself. At loggerheads with Shokin, he was pushed out of his job within the year."

"Put simply, the chronology doesn’t work – the investigation into Burisma, where Hunter worked, was dormant by the time Shokin was pushed out. It would also represent a major historical anomaly. During Shokin’s 13 months in office, not one major figure was convicted. No oligarch. No politician. No ranking bureaucrat. It would appear unlikely he was in the middle of breaking the habit with the Bidens"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/viktor-shokin-ukraine-prosecutor-trump-biden-hunter-joe-investigation-impeachment-a9147001.html

[Gandydancer]

To be clear, your contention is that Burisma wouldn't have put Joe on the pad to push Shokin (Ukraine Prosecutor General for one year between 10 February 2015 – 29 March 2016) out because they preferred to keep paying him because he was cheaper to pay off than Yuriy Lutsenko?

[grb]

"Pushing out" Shokin was Obama's policy. White House policy, State Department policy, bipartisan congressional policy, EU policy, and supported by most of the Western world.

To be clear, you're never going to get around that wall of facts no matter how much you weasel.

And, yes, Burisma wouldn't pay Joe Biden money to follow his own government's policy. And they wouldn't pay Joe/Hunter 10-15 million dollars over Shokin when a direct bribe to the prosecutor would cost 1/15 less. Please try and come up with a story that makes even a little bit of sense, willya?

[David Nieporent]

Its just the other shoe dropping from the Hunter Burisma story and it helps explain why Hunter was getting a million a year for nothing.

He wasn't getting a million a year for nothing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, don't leave us hanging. What was he getting it for?

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : “Well, don’t leave us hanging. What was he getting it for?”

Glad to help. First, until we see evidence for this “million dollars a year” claptrap, it’s best to forget about that.

As for what Hunter was paid for, that’s simple : His name. The same is true for Aleksander Kwasniewski, a former Polish president. He was given a board seat the exact same time as H.B. and cheerfully admits it was for his name alone:

“I understand that if someone asks me to be part of some project it’s not only because I’m so good, it’s also because I am Kwasniewski and I am a former president of Poland,” he said. “And this is all inter-connected. No-names are a nobody. Being Biden is not bad. It’s a good name.”

Meanwhile, Burisma named a new board chairman, Alan Apter, an investment banker well-known and respected in the United States and Europe. They also brought in a new executive team and hired established international firms to audit its reserves and financial results. All these things happened in a brief period.

In short, the company was trying to buy a veneer of respectability. Adding the Biden name to their board might possibly have been the most cynical of their moves, but it was almost certainly the cheapest. A Biden (in the form of Hunter) was pennies on the dollar compared to buying class management and respected international accountants.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you applying for a job at the Biden White House with your rich, fantasy explanation?
David made the claim, I'll wait for his answer.

[grb]

You’ll be fruitlessly waiting a lifetime if you hope to refute any of my facts. But you know that already, don’t you?

[Gandydancer]

grb: “First, until we see evidence for this “million dollars a year” claptrap, it’s best to forget about that.”

Best for who?

New Bing: “Hunter Biden was a paid board member of the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma. From May 2014, Burisma Holdings Ltd. was paying Hunter $83,333 a month to sit on its board, according to invoices on his abandoned laptop1. In March 2017, Hunter Biden’s monthly compensation was reduced to $41,5001. The amount was paid in Euros, at the rate of between 35,000 Euros and 36,100 Euros per month.

Biden confederate Devon Archer was paid the same amount as Biden, iirc.

According to payment records reviewed by Reuters that two former Ukrainian law enforcement officials say are Burisma’s, the company paid about $3.4 million to a company that was controlled by Devon Archer called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC between April 2014 and November 2015.”

“… Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC was owned and operated by Devon Archer, the Kerry Family… and Hunter Biden…”

Saying Biden wasn’t paid for nothing because his name was valuable is a hilarious redefinition of “nothing”.

The “million dollars a year” claptrap is claptrap only because it understates how much the Biden crime family was paid.

[David Nieporent]

Well, don’t leave us hanging. What was he getting it for?

Serving on the board of directors of the company. Do you people understand how that works?

Companies choose famous people to sit on their boards just for the prestige. (Look at Theranos's former board for an example. Lots of people with no expertise of any sort.) Lesser companies, like some random Ukrainian energy company, choose less famous people because they can't get famous people. Hunter Biden is a D-level famous person, famous for being related to a famous person rather than on his own merits. But he was a corporate lawyer.

[Gandydancer]

"Hunter Biden is a D-level famous person... But he was a corporate lawyer."

Not even a D-level one. And he wasn't paid like a D-level famous person, either. Burisma at least thought it was getting an A-level one, and it's obvious who that was. And they kept buying at an A-level for years, despite (according to you) never getting anything.

Yeah, right.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The fact that Hunter Biden got paid a bunch of money to sit on a corporate board is proof that Joe Biden was bribed. The fact that Justice Thomas accepted millions of dollars in cash and services directly from Harlan Crow doesn't prove anything, because there is no evidence it had any effect on his decisions.

Makes perfect sense.

[Gandydancer]

Gaslightr0: “The pros on the right just wave their hands and mumble about Hunter and Big Guy.”

This is not a “mumble”. It’s evidence.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hunter-biden-business-partner-says-big-guy-email-about-china-deal-is-genuine-and-refers-to-joe-biden

[Noscitur a sociis]

Since Biden has not admitted taking the money on national television—no, it is not comparably ridiculous.

[Voize]

He was interviewing from a pool of dedicated Trump supporters, and someone who hasn't drunk the Kool-aid will have abandoned that group by now. It's to be expected that as that group shrinks it gets more extreme.

[Gandydancer]

Yahoo News 6/12: "...recent polls still show Biden and Trump running neck and neck in a hypothetical 2024 rematch."

Not so shrinky, then. Not, anyway, when compared with Biden.

[Voize]

The reporter was interviewing attendees at a Trump event. These are hard-core Trumpists.

Voters who would choose Trump over Biden, wishing they could have had DeSantis instead, aren't his "dedicated supporters". You might even be one of them. If those were your choices, which way would you vote? And if the answer is Trump, do you show up at his rallies?

[Brett Bellmore]

“Not one Trump supporter—not A SINGLE ONE—had the mental capacity and/or integrity to say, “Oh, yeah. I have heard him say that. I guess I was wrong about the FBI planting the documents.””

Don’t be so naïve, have you not been at an event reporters were covering? Not one Trump supporter who said anything like that got air time. You can’t assume from that they didn’t exist.

I vividly recall a gun rally I went to back in the 90’s, in Lansing, Michigan. Organized by Brass Roots. (It was trippy seeing the police keeping an eye on us from surrounding roof tops… through rifle scopes! And I’m sure I’m on some lists, the police were driving through the parking area photographing license plates.)

It was a mixed race event, (There was a contingent from a militia group based in Detroit.) lots of women pushing strollers around. The press photos showed nothing but white guys in camo. It was hilarious watching the press photographers position themselves to take shots without accidentally getting blacks or women in the frame.

I’m not saying that there weren’t a handful of white guys in camo present, but from all the press coverage, you’d have thought there was nobody else there!

Never forget: The news you see is not a representative sample of what is going on. Media outlets have agendas, and they don’t cover things that challenge them.

[Sarcastr0]

Even assuming your ‘I’ll bed the did this’ claim is true, you are still left with a lot of Trump supporters unmoored from self consistency, much less reality.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sorry about the poor video quality, somebody's home video.

Sure, I'm not going to claim there aren't a lot of Trump supporters who are nuts. Now, do you think that isn't true of Biden supporters?

[Sarcastr0]

I’ll click through once I get to a desktop.

But it seems you are making a conflation between contains and is.

Biden supporters include some nutters.
Trump supporters are generally nutters.

[Brett Bellmore]

You seem to think that establishing that there are Trump supporters who are nutters proves that Trump supporters are generally nutters; The exact conflation you accuse me of.

You have to contend with Trump supporters being a majority of Republicans, which means that you're accusing about 2/3rds of the members of a major party of being crazy. I put it to you that if your definition of "nutter" is that inclusive, it's useless.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett...for Sarcastr0, advocating involuntary home detention for anyone not sharing his worldview (read: anyone not Team D) is a foregone conclusion. It is only a matter of time.

[Sarcastr0]

Seriously, Commenter?

I thought better of you.

Fuck you, asshole.

[Commenter_XY]

Bring back the old Sarcastr0. That Sarcastr0 had a rapier wit, was light-hearted, and was humorous. I miss the old Sarcastr0. Today's Sarcastr0 is just...well, certainly not the Sarcastr0 of old.

You were banging the drums for lockdowns, essential workers, mandated vaccination, shutting down churches and synagogues, even denying a proper funeral for our dead. Yes Sarcastr0, seriously.

[Sarcastr0]

Whatever, dude. I've never once talked about thoguht crimes. Below I lament the state of the GOP, and my solution is to wait for the pendulumn to swing. Because we get the government we deserve, even if I don't personally like it.

You clearly have no idea who I am or what I think, but that won't stop you from making it up. I'll probably calm down in a week or so, but at this point I don't give a FUCK what you think of me. You're just another blinkered partisan asshole making shit up.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sarcastro used to be ok but he’s drifted out to the spot where CBD and that sort are so I’ve treated him in the same manner as them.

[Frank Drackman]

more like rapist's wit

[Gandydancer]

^^^^ Wingnut lefty crazy person detects "moderation" in (maybe) slightly less nutty wingnut lefty crazy person.

But I think it's more that Gaslight0 is smoother about avoiding specifics when gassing away.

[bernard11]

Bring back the old Sarcastr0. ???

Bring back the old XY, I’d say.

You’ve gone off the deep end.

[bevis the lumberjack]

All of those things he listed happened bernard. Are you claiming they didn’t? If so, you’re the one off the deep end.

[Gandydancer]

The trajectory does.

[Don Nico]

"Fuck you, asshole."
What is with you today? Such lines are usually beneath you.

[Sarcastr0]

I’ve talked and debated with Commenter a fair lot over the years. We disagree, and come from different value systems even. But I thought we had at least some mutual respect.

Here he accuses me of some *future shit* that indicate an ignorance of my character and values. After all this time, I thought he knew better than to just treat me like a stereotype.

Plenty of shallow right wing bomb-throwers around here. Thought he wasn’t one of them. Then he goes and calls me a soon-to-be-fascist like hes BCD or some such.

Yeah, I feel a bit betrayed when someone goes empty partisan when I thought we had respect even as we didn't have much agreement.
That's a rare thing. I guess rarer than I thought.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Seriously, Commenter?

I thought better of you."

You have disappointed sarcasto. Hope you can survive.

[Life of Brian]

You have disappointed sarcasto. Hope you can survive.

Wouldn't surprise me if this is the overwrought cover for putting C_XY on his growing "la la I can't hear you" list. Dude seems to be retreating into an angry shell lately.

[Gandydancer]

It's not like Gaslightr0 hasn't repeatedly told me and others that he's blocking us, so his “la la I can’t hear you” list is provably not a mere "accusation".

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I rotate the trolls I have off mute. Truly, this proves I am a monster.

Your threadshitting is way outta control, though, Gandy.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, it sucks that reality is unimportant to a bunch of GOP voters.

This kind of populist phase has happened on America before. Violent threats included even. hopefully the pendulum swings before they do something truly damaging.

[Brett Bellmore]

It sucks that reality is unimportant to a lot of partisans on both extremes of the political spectrum. What pisses me off is your pretending this isn't a widespread problem for both parties.

I mean, sheesh, how many Democrats swallowed the Steele dossier, hook, line, and sinker? Still think there's really a "piss tape" out there somewhere, for instance?

[Nige]

Well, you keep claiming that pisses you off, but mostly it;s just you making false equivelences. Most of the stuff reeled off that the other side are supposed to believe are practically right wing slogans only ever uttered by right-wingers with little relevance to what ayone else actually thinks or believes. Where are you going to find anyone who claims everything in the Steele dossier is accurate and the piss tape is real? At a Biden rally? No, you'll only ever see the *claim* that lots of people do. It's as much an article of faith as the idea that the FBI planted the documents.

[Gandydancer]

“Where are you going to find anyone who claims everything in the Steele dossier is accurate and the piss tape is real? At a Biden rally?”

Absolutely. It’s far more of a wish-fulfillment fantasy for Democrats than the FBI planting documents on Trump at Mar-A-Kago is for Republicans. As the author of this long, long piece at Slate admits:https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/inside-the-convincing-fake-trump-pee-tape.html

But OF COURSE no lamestream reporter would ever suggest that Democrats were widely demented by making up such a Democrat-discrediting piece. They know what team they're on.

[Nige]

'Absolutely.'

In your brain it is.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

McCain is a Republican…he passed along the Steele Dossier. Once again, when Trump was president Democrats behaved like Democrats…the group that treated Trump unfairly were the Bush Republicans.

[Randal]

The difference is that Trump cultivates nutjobs as a cult. Right-wing media keeps them fed.

Biden's not doing that. Maybe there are nutjob Biden supporters, but it's just a coincidence there. With Trump, it's the point.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The GOPe failed Trump—they recommended people like Tillerson and Sessions and Rosenstein. And a group Trump thought he could pull appointees from, generals, was undermined by Flynn’s treatment.

[MachineGunBodine]

I went to an Obamacare protest (I feared losing my insurance which I did). When my girlfriend and I arrived, there were already thousands of people there. I saw a wacky pro-life contingent with pictures of dead fetuses in all their gory glory. I said to my girlfriend, 'Let's go stand by them, we'll get on TV'. We did and, yep, we were on several networks as well as in a few leading newspapers. Also showed up on the front page of Politico for a day and a half.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Instead of going to a rally you should have tried to get a good job with benefits…I would advise women to leave men that have jobs without good benefits. In fact, tell her I have good benefits. 😉

[Randal]

And yet you believe the "crime-ridden blue cities" media narrative.

[Gandydancer]

You find that "media narrative" in the Democrat lügenpresse where?

[David Nieporent]

Using Nazi slogans still not a good look.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I think you need to understand...they don't trust the FBI. And they don't trust the media (including Fox news).

And to be frank, they don't have any reason to. The FBI manufactured an investigation, literally falsifying evidence in some cases, to keep investigating Trump. Again, this needs to be reiterated. The FBI falsified evidence to justify continued investigations of Trump.

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-b9b3c7ef398d00d5dfee9170d66cefec

In the wake of that, isn't a certain amount of skepticism on the part of Trump's supporters warranted? They FBI already falsified evidence once.

[Sarcastr0]

They also don't seem like they trust Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I don't trust Trump. I went into the 2016 election half expecting him to pivot after the election and govern from the center, rather than sticking by his campaign promises. I still think he'd have done that if the Democrats hadn't burned all bridges with him.

He didn't have conservative instincts, he just was a pragmatic guy who didn't see the point in pissing off his own supporters by throwing bones to the opposition. Made him a bit more trustworthy than a Bush, but not spectacularly trustworthy.

[Nige]

You gloated about drinking liberal tears when he was elected, don't try to dolly it up.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Brett Bellmore also (belatedly, ineffectively) tried to deny he was a birther.

One of the great achievements of our liberal-libertarian mainstream is that our vestigial bigots no longer want to be known as bigots, at least not in public. They try to hide behind euphemisms ("traditional values," "conservative values," "religious values") and create safe spaces and special privilege for their bigotry, because they know modern America no longer flatters these bigoted right-wingers.

Others are welcome to wallow in political correctness, but better people call a bigot a bigot.

[Frank Drackman]

Dig Jerry Sandusky criticizing peoples who haven't been convicted of any sex crimes, much less 42.

[Theendoftheleft]

Exactly: you're unquestionably a bigot, AIDS.

Where do your grandkids go to school?

[Gandydancer]

Who's "dollying" what up?

Why shouldn't we enjoy Lefty's tears?

That doesn't mean we trusted Trump. Or trust Trump now.

Or Desantis either.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why shouldn’t we enjoy Lefty’s tears?

How you wish to spend your time as you and your fellow right-wingers continue to get stomped in the culture war, awaiting replacement, is entirely your call.

Well, so long as you continue to comply with the preferences of better Americans, that is. Thank you for your continuing compliance.

[Nige]

Brett is.

You voted for someone you didn’t trust?

[bernard11]

Well, I don’t trust Trump.

Of course you do. I mean, you are a zealous advocate of the "Trump Can Do No Wrong" theory.

[Brett Bellmore]

In no particular order,
Bump stock ban.
Contesting the election after the EC met.
Not firing a half dozen people immediately after taking the oath of office. (Half his troubles stemmed from this.)
Letting people tell him "no" when he issued orders to declassify stuff.
Blue skying over a live mike.
Giving up on submitting budget cuts after they got rejected the first year.
Trusting Mitch McConnell.

I think he did lots of stuff wrong. Not the same stuff YOU think he did wrong, of course, because we disagree about what he should have done. But he was making mistakes all over the place.

[bernard11]

Yes, you dislike some of his policy decisions, but as afar anything involving laws or ethics or just not being an incredibly prolific liar and complete asshole, you can't find anything wrong.

[Theendoftheleft]

'Yes, you dislike some of his policy decisions, but as afar anything involving laws or ethics or just not being an incredibly prolific liar and complete asshole, you can’t find anything wrong'.

How would that distinguish Trump from any of your other recent presidents? Don't you need some further distinguishing characteristics? Your current POTUS is surely an unethical, criminal asshole and pathological liar with abysmal (existentially ruinous) policies. The only salient difference seems to be that the current bloke isn't actually compos mentis.

[Gandydancer]

hbernard11: "...you are a zealous advocate of the 'Trump Can Do No Wrong' theory."
hbernard11: "Yes, you dislike some of his policy decisions..."
And this shameless sphincter has the temerity to accuse others of being complete assholes.

[MachineGunBodine]

Trump could've been the Dems' dream president, had they not started The Resistance. Trump would've gladly signed any bill just to see his name on it.

[Randal]

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

[Gandydancer]

Then why did Obama ship pallets full of cash to them?

And of course Biden equipped a whole army of them.

I guess eagerly enabling them to piss on you doesn't qualify as "negotiation", so there's that.

[Nige]

Really dusting off those right-wing memes, the cuts are getting deep.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump was my ideal candidate on paper but he didn’t have a solid grasp of the issues AND he was obviously a con man and so I voted for Hillary. Everything I wanted to happen with the federal government has happened since I cast my vote for Hillary in 2016…Trump has been great for America because he transformed the GOP away from Bushism and he helped Democrats win. Oh, and I wanted Roe overturned because I don’t like the issue in federal elections.

[hoppy025]

I'm not a Trump supporter, but in any case, it's not that I don't think he had classified docs, it's that I DON'T CARE. There's no evidence whatsoever that he harmed national security in any way, and as long as Bidet's oldest son, Killary Klinton, Obongo, Pelosi, and the like can get away with their crookery, I'm not going to insist that Trump, and ONLY Trump, be held responsible for his.

[not guilty]

¨Bidet’s oldest son¨??

Assuming your crude reference is to Joe Biden´s offspring, what do you claim that the late Beau Biden got away with?

[Gandydancer]

A lot, I’m sure. But he’s no longer Bidet’s oldest son. He’s just a rotted corpse who Joe occasionally still lies about..

[John F. Carr]

If you want to find people who have soured on Trump, a Trump campaign event is not the best place to look. Go hang around one of the other Republican candidates. Reporting bias aside, they are lonely and need attention.

[Mr. Bumble]

All eleven (and counting?) of them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Facts long ago became irrelevant.

[bernard11]

To Trump cultists.

And they never were relevant to you.

[Gandydancer]

Repeating what I wrote upthread:
"hbernard11: “…you are a zealous advocate of the ‘Trump Can Do No Wrong’ theory.”
[immediately afterward]
hbernard11: “Yes, you dislike some of his policy decisions…”
And this shameless sphincter has the temerity to accuse others of being complete assholes."
And of not caring about facts.

[Magister]

There's a difference between doing wrong and being wrong.

[Life of Brian]

I get cognitive dissonance and all that. But I can’t wrap my head around . . .

Presuming your recounting of the interview is close enough for horseshoes, of course that's good fodder for a Monday morning chuckle.

It's also (intentionally or no) a straw man given the current state of play. Since the indictment is based on a small percentage of the total docs with classification markings the DOJ said were recovered, and since DOJ hasn't had to and isn't going to tell anyone what any of those docs actually are or let them see the actual content, it's impossible for any of the hoi polloi -- including the defense team -- to know if any of the docs in the indictment are actually docs that Trump acknowledged or discussed.

So yes, the FBI could have planted a handful of particularly juicy docs (or they simply could have been added to the boxes back in the safer and more relaxed environment of the DOJ) -- but at the same time they really wouldn't have had to since everyone has to take the contents on blind faith anyway.

Hopefully down the road this will prove to have been a bit too clever of an approach, but we'll see.

[Bob from Ohio]

"since DOJ hasn’t had to and isn’t going to tell anyone what any of those docs actually are or let them see the actual content"

Millions of docs are classified every year by thousands of people.

One of the reports is that there was a topo map of Afghanistan. Who are we keeping this secret from? Not the Afghans. They probably know their own topography.

[Life of Brian]

Yup. As I said last year, I strongly suspect the reason DOJ fought tooth and nail to keep anyone (up to and including a special master who already had the requisite security clearances) from seeing the tranche of docs with classification markings is that there's not really anything particularly sensitive in them, they have additional markings showing they were declassified, etc. As long as they can keep the actual docs behind the curtain and just lob out vague, scary-sounding allegations about their content, they have the perfect, completely non-falsifiable vehicle to keep throwing red meat to the masses as long as they want. Wouldn't surprise me at all if they don't actually want to get to trial -- the lion's share of the value is in having the cloud out there.

[not guilty]

Here is a listing of classified documents which may be the subject of the indictment. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-are-classified-documents-trump-indictment

Fed.R.Evid. 1002 requires that an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise. Rule 1003 states that a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.

As to Counts 1 through 31 of the indictment, the content of the particular document is an essential element of the offense. If the documents (or exact copies) are not admitted into evidence before the jury, Trump should be entitled to judgment of acquittal as to particular counts.

[Life of Brian]

As to Counts 1 through 31 of the indictment, the content of the particular document is an essential element of the offense. If the documents (or exact copies) are not admitted into evidence before the jury, Trump should be entitled to judgment of acquittal as to particular counts.

If correct, that's just another signal that they have no intention of ever actually trying this. They wrote some major-league checks last year about the sensitivity of the material in the docs when they were opposing review by Judge Dearie, who holds the relevant security clearances. If they're really that earth-shatteringly secret, there's no way they can show them to a bunch of rando jurors.

[Randal]

God damn, have you never heard of redaction?

You make it sound like this is the first trial in the history of the world to have classified evidence. It's not that big of a deal. There are ways to do it.

[Life of Brian]

It's interesting that you think documents containing OMG WORLD'S GONNA END SOOOOO SECRET ("OMGWGESS™") material could be redacted in a way that would both protect that material and clearly demonstrate that the redacted material is such.

As Mr. Guilty pointed out above, the specific content of the documents drives the charges. Redacting the very material that supposedly makes them OMGWGESS™ presents the same failure of proof as not providing them at all, and invites the jurors to substitute their imagination for reality.

[Randal]

You really have no imagination do you.

Say there's a document titled "Provisional Invasion Plan for Iran." They could redact the whole thing but the title and still get a conviction.

Plus you can have testimony about the contents, like, "Does the unredacted copy of the Plan actually include details of an invasion of Iran?" "Yes."

[Life of Brian]

Say there’s a document titled “Provisional Invasion Plan for Iran.” They could redact the whole thing but the title and still get a conviction.

Speaking of lacking imagination, your document-wide redaction just happened to cover up:

1. The fact that it was written in 1979.
2. The fact that it was a proposed plan for Iraq to invade Iran.
3. The fact that the document was assembled from a series of newspaper articles plus the alcohol-enhanced opinions of Baghdad Bobette, two decades deceased.
4. The fact that, given all of the above, the document was ordered declassified in 2005.

And therein lies the Goldilocks dilemma. Redact too much and you don't even get in the same neighborhood as beyond a reasonable doubt with minimally competent defense counsel. Redact too little, and the game is similarly up unless it actually is OMGWGESS™ (or at that point, was).

[Estragon]

You want to look into what’s referred to as the “silent witness rule” here.

[Life of Brian]

Maybe you want to look into it more yourself. It's hugely controversial and as far as I can tell has only been successfully used a single time in the history of this country (and that's out of only half a dozen or so attempts).

And even assuming you added that to the "different rules for Trump" pile, it doesn't even address the issue we're discussing here since it only applies to what the public sees/hears -- the jury still sees the decoded secret info.

[Randal]

How do you know what was in my made-up document? Are you reading my mind???

Anyway, like I said, the contents can be summarized under oath (and cross-examined). There are also other possible mechanisms, like unclassified summaries produced by a special master or something.

And of course, if Trump’s team wants to raise misclassification as a defense, they totally can.

[Life of Brian]

How do you know what was in my made-up document? Are you reading my mind???

Precisely my point from the beginning. Welcome.

Anyway, like I said, the contents can be summarized under oath (and cross-examined).

You can say it as many times and in as many different ways as you want, but when the specific content of the documents drives the charges, you cannot adequately defend yourself with a version of the document redacted by your adversary and replaced by gratuitious, unmeasurable testimony about what was redacted. This is a really basic sword/shield issue.

There are also other possible mechanisms, like unclassified summaries produced by a special master or something.

Setting aside that this is just effectively outsourcing the above due process concerns, taking this position would (should!) be a credibility-busting snap pivot. As I said many posts ago, DOJ vociferously argued last year in multiple courts that the documents were too sensitive to give even to a special master holding all the requisite security clearances. This would be a particularly sticky wicket if the case were to remain before Judge Cannon, to whom they made those arguments.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"One of the reports is that there was a topo map of Afghanistan."

Hey dipshit: why don't you just read the indictment itself?

No, a 'topo map of Afghanistan' is not one of the documents.

"Reports say Bob from Ohio is too stupid to check primary sources."

[Life of Brian]

No, a ‘topo map of Afghanistan’ is not one of the documents.

If only the indictment was even close to that descriptive, we might not be having this conversation.

Instead, we get obfuscated crap like "Document dated August 2019 concerning regional military activity of a foreign country."

Could be that topo map; could be about airspace restrictions for a performance by the Canadian Snowbirds; could be thousands of other things.

[Bob from Ohio]

"No, a ‘topo map of Afghanistan’ is not one of the documents."

You've seen the map that he showed the PAC member [para 6b]?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

” In August or September 2021, at The Bedminster Club, TRUMP showed a representative of his political action committee who did not possess a security clearance a classified map related to a military operation and told the representative that he should not be showing it to the representative and that the representative should not get too close.”

First, you’d have to establish that it’s a map of Afghanistan in the first place. Then you’d have to answer the following question:

Which one of your two brain cells decided that this means the topology of Afghanistan was somehow classified, as opposed to the information about the related military operation contained on it?

A lie by omission is still a lie. None of the documents he is currently being charged over are just topographical maps.

You’re a fucking disgrace.

[Gandydancer]

” In August or September 2021, at The Bedminster Club, TRUMP showed a representative of his political action committee who did not possess a security clearance a classified map related to a military operation and told the representative that he should not be showing it to the representative and that the representative should not get too close.”

Maybe it was just a topo map of Afghanistan.

Does the indictment explain how they’ve identified what map Trump showed to the PAC guy or are they relying on Trump having accurately told the PAC guy what it was?

[Sarcastr0]

Read the fucking indictment, you time-wasting tool.

[M L]

Just FYI, I haven't followed any of the details, but Trump has repeatedly raised the suggestion that the FBI could have planted something, I think he said this in connection with complaining that his representatives were not allowed to be present during the search & seizure. That's presumably where they got this idea. The idea that the FBI planted something doesn't contradict the idea that there were also "classified documents" that they didn't plant.

[Gandydancer]

It would sure contradict any idea that they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any document they claimed to have found hadn't been planted.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So, you're drawing conclusions about an entire group, consisting of tens of millions of individuals, based on what a ratings-chasing news channel chooses to show you from the tiny subset of that entire group who actually expend the time and effort to attend these functions?

[Kazinski]

I do want to add a remembrance to my mentor Ted Kaczynski from who I adopted my name (but changed it so I could reliably spell it). It was given to me as a nickname by my co-workers when I started building my cabin. First thing I did was build an 8x10 shed/bunkhouse that I called my Kazinski Cabin, but I've since torn it down as I completed my much larger 2300sqft cabin.

Its off the grid too, but I designed it with 17 skylights so it gets plenty of daylight, and all my appliances run on propane. Its a little nicer than Teds cabin, but then again I needed a day job to pay for it, which Ted had no use for.

But like Ted I'm a little bit of a recluse, I'm perfectly happy not seeing anyone for a week or more, except my wife of course. And while I worked in IT and embrace technology, I do like to do things the old fashioned way. I cut down 3 trees and milled them with a chain saw for the 25' columns that support my roofs ridge beam, I built the whole cabin by myself, except for the contractor that put in the foundation and the well digger. Of course I had some help along the way from my brother and my older son, but for the most part I built it all by myself.

But unlike Ted I'm not much of a bomb maker, I have tried microblasting some of the rocks in my road without much success. That's drilling a hole in the rock inserting 1 or 2 cartridges into the hole and jerryriggging a nail or screw to detonate the primer when you drop a rock on it and run. I guess my rocks are too tough for .357 shells to do much damage.

Here's to you Ted.

[Frank Drackman]

Speaking of rocks, the ones in your head must be pretty tough also.
So you have one of those hand cranked/solar computers?? I guess as murderers go Ted wasn't your typical Ted Bundy, but was certainly too smart for his own good, sending that Manifesto to the press.

[Brett Bellmore]

That sort of blasting requires either a high brisance explosive, or something to contain the pressure. You had neither.

You need a line of holes. Then either some wedges and feathers, or the older technique is pounding in dry wood pegs, and then pouring water over them. (The wood swelling can generate an amazing amount of pressure.)

My uncle, though, dealt with a similar situation at his cabin by regularly building hot fires over the rocks, and then sweeping them off and dousing the rock with water.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, outdoor fires is not a good idea where I'm at.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough. I'd recommend the wooden peg method, then. Least investment, since you apparently already have a rock drill.

[Frank Drackman]

Why do idiots add "At" at the end of sentences??
You could have just said "Where I am" and saved the "at" for a rainy day, or maybe use it for Barter with the Injuns, of course probably would take a shitload of "At"s to get some Jerky.
hear it all the time "Where's the Blood Pressure cuff at??"
"Where's the car at?" Jeez-us, and I'm the one who speaks Engrish as second language,

Frank "Where are the Idiots (at)?"

[Mr. Bumble]

Frank knows where it's at.

[Life of Brian]

He's got two turntables and a microphone.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look into the nonexplosive stuff that works on slow expansion.

Not that much energy from a .357 and this sounds dangerous.

[Life of Brian]

I cut down 3 trees and milled them with a chain saw for the 25′ columns that support my roofs ridge beam

Hot. Truly.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, obsolete, antisocial, alienated-by-modernity clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties . . . and a core element of the Volokh Conspiracy's target audience.

Carry on, clingers. You get to whine about modern America as much as you like, but you will continue to comply with the preferences of better Americans, who are shaping our national progress against your stale, ugly wishes.

[Frank Drackman]

Jerry, you weren't even a particularly good Sexual Criminal, much less a "Better" one.

[Randal]

Hm thanks, now I know you are a sicko. (I knew one of his victims, so fuck you very much.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Guys like Kazinski living "off the grid" (isolated from most Americans) are probably doing the rest of us a favor.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Consider an unlikely but intriguing hypothetical: Trump is not a complete idiot.

Perhaps that means he was acting rationally when he schemed to withhold classified documents from the government. What fact situation could possibly make that rational?

Trump has always been a transactional guy, and a world-champion at self-delusion. Trump has said on the record that Obama got paid big money to return documents after he was out of office. Trump has said he had a perfect right to take classified documents. Trump has said they were his, and he could show them to anyone he wanted to.

What if Trump really believed—or at least sort-of believed—every word? How much of a stretch would it then be for him to have been shopping choice bits to foreign governments, looking for some kind of maximal payday, maybe something in the billions.

And then, right in the middle of a nearly-completed deal, maybe after some undisclosed payoff had already taken place, the National Archives comes knocking, and says it wants the documents back. That would create kind of an emergency for Trump, wouldn't it? Maybe even an emergency so acute he would connive, and scheme, and foot drag, to do whatever it took to keep the documents and fulfill his end of the deal.

Of course that is far-out speculation, not something I am saying actually happened. I haven't got a bit of proof.

I suppose if I wanted to investigate something like that, I might begin by looking for some cut-out associated with Trump who might have recently come up with big bucks. Can anyone think of any such connection?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Stephen Lathrop,

Please stop trying to help.

[Moderation4ever]

I think the answer to your question would be that Trump is not an idiot, but also is not very bright. He has spent a lifetime where his wealth gives him the power to do most of what he wants. What he cannot distinguish is that being President has made things more accessible but that his wealth does not give him enough power to have all things he has access to. He can have all the business records he wants, what he cannot see is that he does not get his Presidential records, they belong to the American people.

I don't see his action as some plot but rather as ego driven actions.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're pretty much in the same place on that, I guess. At least in regards to Trump never quite grasping the difference between being CEO of a company, and President of a nation. And not really learning from his experience in the White House.

You know, when this classified document thing first came up, I'd assumed that he'd bought an insurance policy, had squirreled away a bunch of classified crap that was so ugly the government didn't dare risk it ending up public, and would lay off him to prevent it. Think Snowden only with more access and discretion. And that the raid was because they were desperate to retrieve them.

It would have at least made some sense.

But if that were the case, he would have leaked some of it by now. No, it looks like he was just collecting souvenirs of his time in the White House, and had assumed that he'd be allowed to get away with it just because every previous President had been.

Just how stupid would he have to be to think that he was subject to the same (suspension of the) rules as every previous President, after what he'd been through?

Over and over he got caught in traps a professional politician would have seen coming. I think it's his age, he's just too old to learn the lessons he needed to master to survive in D.C..

He's actually a pretty clever guy, stupid guys who come into money lose it, instead of compounding it while living a lavish lifestyle. But being clever and being flexible aren't the same thing. As we age we trade flexibility for accumulated knowledge, and become worse and worse at adapting to new situations, even as we become better at dealing with familiar ones.

Trump is well down that curve, it was too late for him to switch career paths this way.

Really, can we agree that we need an upper age limit for Presidents, too?

[Nige]

'Think Snowden only with more access and discretion.'

Literally nobody could think this about Trump without some heavily motivated reasoning.

'stupid guys who come into money lose it'

All those bankruptcies notwithstanding.

[Brett Bellmore]

If a guy invests in one company, and it goes bankrupt, you might say he's lousy at investing.

If a guy invests in TEN companies, and one or two go bankrupt, but on average he makes money, he's just an aggressive investor.

[Nige]

Six bankruptcies, plus stiffing contractors, litigating agressively, and playing a succesful businessman on a reality show. You wanted to be fooled.

[Moderation4ever]

Let's add to the list the fact that most successful business people would not deal with Trump. The smart people kept their distance. Trump's businesses often preyed on the most gullible. That does make him smart, just smarter than his marks.

[Kazinski]

Actually the bankruptcies are pretty smart.

If you are a big enough real estate investor, you structure every deal as a separate corporation, the successful deals you keep and make money on the losers of which there will be a few, you walk away from. It allows you to take on more and riskier high reward deals without the worry that any one or two deals are going to destabilize the rest.

And all the cash flow and profits from the successful deals is protected from the failures.

The Park Reit just did a similar move walking away from its no recourse mortgage on 3000 rooms in its two hotels in SF. Did its stock tank? No, it took a big jump when they announced the were cutting their losses and moving on, and leaving the bank holding the bag.

[Nige]

Exactly the kind of operator you want for president, apparently.

[Bob from Ohio]

"And all the cash flow and profits from the successful deals is protected from the failures."

Lenders always require single asset entities for commercial real estate loans for this reason.

[grb]

Kazinski : “Actually the bankruptcies are pretty smart”

Uh huh. Here’s Trump’s business career in a nutshell:

1. He was gifted tens of millions by Daddy. Blew thru it all.

2. He was re-gifted tens of millions by Daddy and had brief success (This was the period of Trump Tower in NYC). It went to his head and he failed on a gargantuan level.

3. Daddy kept him on a short lease. Trump grifted off his name.

4. Daddy died and the kids sold the assets. No bank may be willing to give him a major commercial loan, but Trump is back in business again.

Trump would have done better taking the money handed to him on a silver platter down to the corner Charles Schwab, letting some pimply-faced kid with a fresh MBA invest it. Such is business genius, eh?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't forget that Trump's top management all died in a helo crash in the '80s -- anyone is going to be in trouble if all your top management suddenly dies....

[bernard11]

First, it hardly takes great cleverness to limit your liabilities. It's hardly a mark of genius.

Second, lenders are not (usually) fools. They are well aware of this and rates and T&C's reflect that risk to them.

Third, some of Trump's properties went under very shortly after he bought or opened them. That doesn't suggest some clever move, but rather that he overleveraged (some lenders are fools) and in particular overinvested in Atlantic City.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's reported that he declassified all of the Russia Hoax stuff.

I'm still wondering if he has an October Surprise for the DOJ.

[Brett Bellmore]

He had an October Surprise in 2020, and it was the sort that would normally have decided an election. October surprises don't work against a party with this level of media dominance.

[Martinned]

Care to tell us what it was? (Given how good of a job the MSM did covering it up.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Given the widespread use of early voting, better to have a September surprise if you have one.

[grb]

Martinned : Care to tell us what it was?

Of course Brett refers to the infamous laptop. But his long practiced whine has two problems he refuses to face:

1. There wasn’t a thimbleful of scandal in the laptop. When one of your “major” scandelettes was Hunter getting a biz associate a handshake with daddy, you know you have nothing. Indeed, the biggest story was Hunter may have wanted to cut his father in on a deal long after Biden was out of public office & the deal went nowhere anyway. It’s telling that right-types are still fantasizing over laptop child pornography that never existed. That’s what happens when the real world is insufficient to your needs.

2. And no story from the laptop wasn’t exhaustively covered by TV, radio, magazines, newspapers and websites. Every single fact was beaten to death before the election. In his relentless quest for the melancholy sweet buzz of victimhood, Brett has somehow blocked this fact from his mind.

[Brett Bellmore]

GRB lives in an alternate universe where multiple online platforms didn't censor any mention of the laptop, and the paper that broke the story didn't have it's Twitter account frozen for weeks.

[grb]

Every. Single. Fact. from the laptop was relentlessly covered across the entire media spectrum before the election. What’s the point of your whining over a day or two of twitter when there was hours upon hours of coverage blanketing the airways, print media, and internet?

You drone on over your tiny number of affronts, ignoring the fact that you turned on the TV & there was the laptop story; you opened a newspaper and there was the laptop story; you listened to radio news and there was the laptop story; you opened an internet news site and there was the laptop story.

You weren’t cheated out of ANYTHING, and it’s long past time you stopped pretending otherwise.

[Life of Brian]

Every. Single. Fact. from the laptop was relentlessly covered across the entire media spectrum before the election.

If by that you mean that most of the media spectrum ran stories crapping on the NY Post for its coverage of the laptop and casting doubt on its veracity, that's true as far as it goes but cuts against your broader position.

Otherwise, please provide some representative cites.

[Gandydancer]

grb: "Every. Single. Fact. from the laptop was relentlessly covered across the entire media spectrum before the election."

Actually, what was widely covered about the laptop was all the (D) deep state types claiming it had all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation operation, misreported as a claim that it WAS Russia disinformation.

Upthread, as it happens, I quoted something from the laptop:

"New Bing: 'Hunter Biden was a paid board member of the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma. From May 2014, Burisma Holdings Ltd. was paying Hunter $83,333 a month to sit on its board, according to invoices on his abandoned laptop. In March 2017, Hunter Biden’s monthly compensation was reduced to $41,5001. The amount was paid in Euros, at the rate of between 35,000 Euros and 36,100 Euros per month.'

Biden confederate Devon Archer was paid the same amount as Biden, iirc." [tiny bit of cleanup]

This was "relentlessly" reported by the lügenpresse where? Links, please.

[David Nieporent]

GRB lives in an alternate universe where multiple online platforms didn’t censor any mention of the laptop, and the paper that broke the story didn’t have it’s Twitter account frozen for weeks.

Correct. This is a flat out lie. No online platform censored mentions of the laptop. It is a product of your deranged conspiracy theory mind. Never happened. The laptop was discussed extensively by trillions of people, with not one of those mentions "censored."

[Life of Brian]

The laptop was discussed extensively by trillions of people, with not one of those mentions “censored.”

Speaking of lies, below are the first hits from two fairly unimaginative Google searches -- if you want more, they're freely available for the intellectually curious/honest.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3616579-zuckerberg-tells-rogan-that-facebook-suppressed-hunter-biden-laptop-story-after-fbi-warning-defends-agency-as-legitimate-institution/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-led-us-house-panel-probes-twitter-block-hunter-biden-story-2023-02-08/

[Bob from Ohio]

"trillions of people"

Libertarian math.

[David Nieporent]

Neither of those articles say that mentions of the laptop were "censored."

[Life of Brian]

Neither of those articles say that mentions of the laptop were “censored.”

I understand that when about to drown you cling to whatever reeds you can find even if they're too thin to support a tenth of your weight, but good grief, dude -- do you really want to die on the hill that preventing the appearance of something that otherwise would have freely appeared on the platform is something materially different than censorship?

[David Nieporent]

do you really want to die on the hill that preventing the appearance of something that otherwise would have freely appeared on the platform is something materially different than censorship?

No. I want to live on the hill that discussions of the purported laptop appeared freely on the platform. As I said, trillions of people discussed it.

[Gandydancer]

I wouldn’t call that “trillions of people” bit “libertarian math”. It’s merely shameless stupidity.

From LoB’s first link: “Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg this week told popular podcaster Joe Rogan that Facebook did limit stories on the news feed related to the New York Post story about President Biden’s son Hunter Biden and his laptop after warnings from the FBI,”

How you imagine that limiting occurred absent censorship and while letting discussions of it appear freely I will leave to individuals interested in the broken brains of the mentally diseased.

New Bing: "... Facebook and Twitter did restrict the sharing of a New York Post article about Hunter Biden’s laptop during the 2020 election. Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook’s decision to restrict the story was based on FBI misinformation warnings1. Twitter also blocked The Post’s primary Twitter account because its articles about the messages obtained from Biden’s laptop broke the social network’s rules against “distribution of hacked material”."

[Brett Bellmore]

I understand his argument, if you can call it that. It's a species of Catch 22: He's only willing to call it "censorship" if the suppression is 100% effective. Anything short of that doesn't count, because somebody would have heard of it.

What makes it a Catch 22 is that if it was 100% effective, you wouldn't have known about it to begin with. So you can't ever win this argument, given his goofy definition of "censorship". The only things he'll admit are censorship are the things you wouldn't know about.

[Sarcastr0]

Censorship with zero functional effect isn't censorship, it's made up persecution.

[David Nieporent]

How you imagine that limiting occurred absent censorship and while letting discussions of it appear freely I will leave to individuals interested in the broken brains of the mentally diseased.

How many posts have you and your ilk made about the topic in this thread? How many of those posts contained a link to the NYP article? What's that? You were freely able to discuss the topic without posting one particular URL?

[Brett Bellmore]

We're not talking about ZERO effect. Polls after the election showed that a fair percentage of Biden voters actually WERE unaware of the Hunter laptop story, and would have changed their votes if they'd known of it.

You don't have to completely suppress something for effective censorship. You just have to suppress it enough that not enough people know about it to matter.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said up above, David: You're relying on a Catch 22 definition of censorship, where it can't be censorship unless it's 100% effective.

By this definition, real examples of censorship can never be identified, because if you can point to it, it wasn't censorship.

It was censorship, it wasn't 100% effective, but it was effective enough to put Biden in the White house.

[Sarcastr0]

It was censorship, it wasn’t 100% effective, but it was effective enough to put Biden in the White house.

You don't get to just say shit like this and pretend it's true. You have no proof. And the story was all over the place before the election, so your coming in already wrong.

You're not just drawing your usual unsupported causal connections, you are now making up facts.

[David Nieporent]

We’re not talking about ZERO effect. Polls after the election showed that a fair percentage of Biden voters actually WERE unaware of the Hunter laptop story, and would have changed their votes if they’d known of it.

Don't be an idiot. Most people are not terminally online. People who were unaware of the story were unaware because they don't follow the news; they don't get information from Twitter in the first place.

None of them would have changed their vote, because there was nothing to the story and nobody would've voted for the sociopath because of it.

[Nige]

Shame he decided not to use any of it in his lawsuit against Clinton and the DNC.

[Moderation4ever]

The problem with the idea of declassifying all the stuff on the Russian Hoax is that there was no Russian Hoax. The Russians did try to interfere with the 2016 election and Trump campaign was closer to the Russians than was ethical. The only stuff the former President could declassify likely would dig him in deeper.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Russians did try to interfere with the 2016 election

They took the Wisconsin page from Hillary's atlas.

[Frank Drackman]

and Michigan

[Gandydancer]

“…and Trump campaign was closer to the Russians than was ethical.”

False. And the charge was anyway “collusion”, which was absolutely a Clinton-perpetrated hoax.

But you’re the kind of immoderate ears-on jackass who is unashamed to push the idea that Trump Jr. accepting Fusion GPS generated “dirt” on Clinton from Veselnitskaya (before deciding it was useless trash) is an ethical failure while it was perfectly OK for Clinton to pay Fusion GPS to employ Englishmen and Russians to FABRICATE dirt on Trump and disseminate it by subterfuge to the media and the FBI.

[Nige]

You're blithering.

[bernard11]

He’s actually a pretty clever guy, stupid guys who come into money lose it, instead of compounding it while living a lavish lifestyle.

How much did he compound it?

And you have to be not just stupid but a complete idiot to piss away $400 million. He's not that bad, just a poor businessman.

It wasn't one bankruptcy, Brett, it was six, and some of them were almost immediate.

[Gandydancer]

So, how much did HE lose in those bankruptcies?

Bing: “According to Forbes, when Trump ran for president in 2016, his net worth was $4.5 billion. His net worth declined steadily during his time in office, all the way down to $2.1 billion in 2020. In 2021, his first year out of office, his wealth rose marginally to $2.4 billion.”

Seems like his worst business decision was gaining the Presidency.

[Randal]

just because every previous President had been.

Brett… this again? No other president took classified stuff. Please lay off the glue.

[Gandydancer]

“No other president took classified stuff.”

Wow. Just…. wow.

And this is a loon who slurs other people as "denialists".

[Krayt]

On the other hand, he spent his professional life in New York building large buildings, with all the attendant red tape. He knows its all a game by politicians to get in the way.

He might not think on the low, facetious level that it's all on the up and up. These are the stories told to both sides of what's going on, when it really isn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I think his real mistake was assuming that being on the same "team" meant the Republican establishment wouldn't be out to kneecap him, and that he could trust hires they recommended.

[Martinned]

Even in the Republican party, a president who cares more about loyalty to himself than loyalty to the country is going to have trouble hiring.

[Moderation4ever]

The Republican establishment went out of their way to help the former President. The gave him good people and support, what you mean to say is that the party establishment wasn't willing to kowtow to him completely.

[Gandydancer]

LOL!

[David Nieporent]

Yet another thing that happened only in Brett's fantasy world.

[Gandydancer]

In Nopoint's fantasy world he's competnt to carry Brett's jockstrap.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yet another thing that happened only in Brett’s fantasy world.

You mean like Facebook and other major social media platforms not blocking discussion of the NY Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story? Oh, wait…that was yours. OK, how about the “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” narrative? Oops, no…that was you again.

[OtisAH]

“What if Turnip really believed…”

He’s on tape proving he didn’t.

[Don Nico]

SL,
You're hypothetical is ... well.. a hypothetical, based only on you're dislike for the Orange Clown.
A more likely hypothetical, given the nature of the documents kept, is that he believes that is is still the rightful president and needed exactly these nuclear defense documents to act in a crisis when he is restored to his rightful office as head of state.

That still makes him a crimianl , but is more consistent with his post Nov 2020 behavior

[Gandydancer]

Nah, he took to Mar-a-Lago a lot of dusty shit he couldn't be bothered to sort through.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I think that sums it up.

Then he got his back up when they started making demands.

[Sarcastr0]

READ THE INDICTMENT BRETT.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-mar-lago-indictment-unsealed

[Nige]

Trump defenders. Never once.

[Voize]

Much of what Trump does is to serve his ego. Hanging on to those papers, especially the classified ones, fed his narcissism. That seems like a much more likely explanation than him wanting to be ready to spring into action.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump´s defense hit a stroke of luck when the prosecution in Miami was initially assigned to Judge Aileen Loose Cannon. I would expect the Special Counsel to move for her recusal.

28 U.S.C. § 455 provides in relevant part:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party . . .

In cases where a district judge has been reversed on appeal multiple times, the Eleventh Circuit has directed that upon remand the case shall be assigned to a different judge. See, United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

During the investigative stage of the instant case, Judge Cannon wrongly interfered with the DOJ investigation by blocking the United States from using records lawfully seized pursuant to a search warrant. The Court of Appeals reversed her twice, first her refusal to grant a partial stay in that she likely had no equitable jurisdiction to issue an order relating to the classified documents, and ultimately that she improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction in the first place. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202213005.pdf

[Stephen Lathrop]

Is there a quibble that this case is not coming back to Cannon, "on remand?"

[not guilty]

The civil suit brought by Trump was remanded with instructions to dismiss the action. The criminal prosecution is a different case in form, but the two matters are intertwined in substance.

I would expect the Special Counsel to file a motion for recusal in the trial court. If that is denied, I would expect the prosecution to immediately seek a Writ of Mandamus from the Court of Appeals directing the case to be assigned to a different district judge.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Which I presume could be appealed to SCOTUS

[not guilty]

Not as of right. The losing party before the Eleventh Circuit could petition SCOTUS to grant a writ of certiorari, which would require assent of at least four justices.

[Kenneth Almquist]

In the first case you cite, United States v. Gupta, we read that, “Although the district court acknowledged its obligation to follow our mandate, the district court failed to fulfill that obligation.” Cannon was overruled twice, but my understanding is that both times she was overruled, she followed the directives of the appellate court when the case was remanded to her. I think Martin is inapplicable for the same reason.

In United States v. Torkington, the Court writes, “We conclude both that the trial judge has demonstrated great difficulty in putting aside his prior conclusions about the merits of this prosecution and that reassignment is necessary to preserve the appearance of impartiality.” If I read the decision correctly, the main thing resulting in a lack of “appearance of impartiality” in that case was statements the judge made from the bench: “For example, the judge stated at various times that he felt the taxpayer had little interest in this type of suit, that this prosecution was "silly," and that it was a waste of the taxpayers' money. He also termed the prosecution a "vendetta" by Rolex Watch against the defendant.” I haven't seen similar statements from Cannon.

The bottom line is that Cannon's previous rulings raise questions about her impartiality, but it's not clear they reach a level which would justify reassignment under the precedents you cite.

[not guilty]

The Eleventh Circuit discussed the criteria for reassignment in Torkington:

The district judge has the initial responsibility to recuse himself from a case. Under 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a), a judge must recuse himself in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference of impropriety or lack of impartiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., [486] U.S. [847,] 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988). The test on appeal for determining whether a judge should have recused himself under section 455(a) is "whether an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge's impartiality." Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir. 1988). If the trial judge should have recused himself and the case is remanded, it should be remanded with the direction that it be reassigned to a different district judge. Id.

Section 455 relates to recusal based on circumstances existing prior to or at the time of the judge's participation in a case; this case involves reassignment because of the judge's own conduct during his participation in a case. Although the events that make it necessary to terminate a judge's participation in a case differ in the two situations, the reason the judge should not participation is the same: the judicial system has the obligation of preserving public confidence in the impartial and fair administration of justice. If a district judge's continued participation in a case presents a significant risk of undermining this public confidence, this Court has the authority and the duty to order the case reassigned to a different district judge. Reassignment may be appropriate, for example, if a judge conducts a trial in a manner that creates the appearance that he is or may be unable to perform his role in an unbiased manner, United States v. White, 846 F.2d at 695 ("[W]here a reasonable person would question the trial judge's impartiality, reassignment is appropriate."); United States v. Holland, 655 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (remarks by judge during trial may give rise to inference of bias or prejudice), or if the judge has demonstrated that he is unwilling to carry out the law in a particular case. Brooks v. Central Bank of Birmingham, 717 F.2d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir. 1983) ("stalemated posture" required reassignment of case to different judge).

874 F.2d at 1446-47.

You concede that that Cannon’s previous rulings raise questions about her impartiality. ¨The very purpose of § 455(a) is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible.¨ Liljeberg v. Health Svcs. Acq. Corp., 486 U.S. at 865. Recusal is appropriate in this case sua sponte. Absent that, a motion for recusal should be filed at the earliest opportunity.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, what is the tipping point? For example, you and I might agree Judge Cannon is not completely impartial (in practice, NO judge is truly impartial, they are human like the rest of us); but we might part ways on degree.

What's the bright line? Is impartiality only in the eye of the beholder?

That aside, could any judge hearing this case be viewed as impartial given the degree of political division and acrimony? I tend to think that no matter the judge, there will be a question. Am I wrong about that?

[not guilty]

There is not a bright line rule. Each case turns on its own specifics.

As a general proposition, grounds for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), ¨any proceeding in which [the judge´s] impartiality might reasonably be questioned¨, are broader than the more specific grounds of personal bias or prejudice listed in § 455(b)(1):

Since subsection (a) deals with the objective appearance of partiality, any limitations contained in (b) that consist of a subjective-knowledge requirement are obviously inapplicable. Subsection (a) also goes beyond (b) in another important respect: It covers all aspects of partiality, and not merely those specifically addressed in subsection (b). However, when one of those aspects addressed in (b) is at issue, it is poor statutory construction to interpret (a) as nullifying the limitations (b) provides, except to the extent the text requires.

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 553 (1994).

The Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1989), listed three elements in determining whether to reassign a case to a different judge based on the original judge's actions at trial where there is no indication of actual bias: (1) whether the original judge would have difficulty putting his previous views and findings aside; (2) whether reassignment is appropriate to preserve the appearance of justice; (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to gains realized from reassignment.

[Commenter_XY]

This was helpful, thanks not guilty.

[Michael P]

During a previous discussion about this, I was assured by The Best Leftist Minds that you couldn't just ask Judge Cannon to recuse from this Trump persecution. We're your wrong then?

[not guilty]

Who said that? Please name names.

Of course a litigant can ask for a judge´s recusal in this or any other lawsuit.

(I have said that venue for the prosecution of Trump would lie in multiple districts per 18 U.S.C. § 3237, and the possibility of drawing Judge Loose Cannon was a reason to bring charges in D.C. rather than Florida.)

[Michael P]

If I recall correctly, it was David Nieporent, in one of his attempts to gaslight on a Sarcastr0 level.

[Sarcastr0]

you want not guilty to defend someone else’s comments?

Sorry, there is not jive kind of people who disagree with you.

You are one of the right wingers I find myself able to engage with. Don’t get shitty. And ffs use gaslight correctly you are too smart to be that dumb.

[Sarcastr0]

hive mind, but jive kind also works.

[Nige]

The Volokh Conspiracy: shuck and jive minds.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what you think you recall. As NG says, any litigant can ask the judge to recuse at any time. I would never have said they couldn't seek recusal. I don't recall, but it's possible I suggested it wouldn't have been granted. But that would've been about the previous frivolous suit by Trump, not a potential future criminal prosecution.

That having been said, I am not as convinced as NG that DOJ will do so or that it would be granted either by Cannon or by the 11th circuit if DOJ did. A judge's rulings are almost never grounds to recuse.

[John F. Carr]

While I am not the best leftist mind, I have written that Cannon's behavior in the previous case does not require her to recuse from this one. That could be confused with a statement that Trump could not ask her to do something she has no legal or ethucal obligation to do.

[bernard11]

Really. You mean someone who has blatantly let her support for a litigant influence previous rulings doesn't have to recuse?

[Gandydancer]

That you (PARTICULARLY you!) believe it doesn’t mean that it’s “obvious” to anyone else.

[hoppy025]

If Cannon is "biased," then Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and had no business hearing the challenge to Prop 8 in California, because he himself is a mentally ill deviant who thinks another man's rear is the right place to put his pecker.

[Krayt]

The question, in a free society, isn't whether that's deviant. The question is can the government properly forbid it?

No.

They move to things like it's not deviant, or born that way, to simply justify freedom from you. Something they should not have to do in the first place.

[hoppy025]

Sorry, but when you're in court demanding that people bake you cakes, you lose all credibility with the argument that they're just looking for freedom "from" anything.

[Krayt]

I agree with you. Government should not be forcing people to write messages that are against their religion just because it’s in business. It is a raw power grab to say “Religion is a lifestyle, and we, the government, shall strip you of practicing it in business.”

Business being the way people keep food in their mouths.

These are the same folks who spent the 1970s suing to expand freedom of speech to mean freedom of any expression via any form, not just speech, something I agree with.

So you take the good with the bad.

[Krayt]

To sum up:

1. Government should not be jailing people who refuse to put out messages against their religion.

2. Government should not be jailing men who put their peckers in other men.

In both cases, politicians rely on your outrage, so they can be elected, so they can be corrupt.

That’s your zen moment of cynicism for the day.

[Gandydancer]

Vaughn Walker was in fact picked to hear the case BECAUSE he was a fag. Is that "zen"?

[not guilty]

Supporting facts?

The defendant-intervenors in Perry v. Schwarzenegger were represented by able counsel, but they never sought Judge Walker´s recusal until after he had conducted a full blown trial and ruled on the merits. Why do you suppose that was?

[John F. Carr]

She didn't refuse to comply with a mandate only to be reversed again. The appeals court made two decisions in the same case, with the important acts preceding the first decision, and she respected both of them. Contrast the kids' climate case where the judge refused to obey an explicit order to dismiss the case.

It would be better if Trump's case were assigned to a judge with long experience in major federal criminal trials and difficult defendants. Such a rule would have to be in place ahead of time. Imposing such a rule now would be an obvious attempt to put a finger on the scale.

[Bob from Ohio]

" Imposing such a rule now would be an obvious attempt to put a finger on the scale."

That is what "not guilty" wants.

[Drewski]

Agree, largely because a former 11th Circuit appellate chief Joyce Alene, who has sought and received several recusals in that circuit, believes so. She uses Martin as her main cite.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

During all the debates over political corruption, and all the calls for prosecution, nobody seems to remember the distinction drawn by the statesman and political philosopher George W. Plunkitt. In the early 20th century, the Tammany Hall leader said:

“”There’s an honest graft, and I’m an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin’: “I seen my opportunities and I took ’em.”

“Just let me explain by examples. My party’s in power in the city, and it’s goin’ to undertake a lot of public improvements. Well, I’m tipped off, say, that they’re going to lay out a new park at a certain place.

“I see my opportunity and I take it. I go to that place and I buy up all the land I can in the neighborhood. Then the board of this or that makes its plan public, and there is a rush to get my land, which nobody cared particular for before.

Ain’t it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight? Of course, it is. Well, that’s honest graft….

“I’ve told you how I got rich by honest graft. Now, let me tell you that most politicians who are accused of robbin’ the city get rich the same way.

“They didn’t steal a dollar from the city treasury. They just seen their opportunities and took them. That is why, when a reform administration comes in and spends a half million dollars in tryin’ to find the public robberies they talked about in the campaign, they don’t find them.

“The books are always all right. The money in the city treasury is all right. Everything is all right. All they can show is that the Tammany heads of departments looked after their friends, within the law, and gave them what opportunities they could to make honest graft. Now, let me tell you that’s never goin’ to hurt Tammany with the people. Every good man looks after his friends, and any man who doesn’t isn’t likely to be popular. If I have a good thing to hand out in private life, I give it to a friend—Why shouldn’t I do the same in public life?…

“Now, in conclusion, I want to say that I don’t own a dishonest dollar. If my worst enemy was given the job of writin’ my epitaph when I’m gone, he couldn’t do more than write:

“”George W. Plunkitt. He Seen His Opportunities, and He Took ‘Em.”””

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2810/2810-h/2810-h.htm

Back in those day the laws were so loose that many kinds of political corruption were not even crimes. How different from the situation today, where everything that’s corrupt is banned strictly by the criminal code, which is strictly and impartially enforced.

[Illocust]

I feel the last part was sarcasm, but can't be sure.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sarcastic? Me?

Yes, it was sarcasm.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would that it wasn't.

[Frank Drackman]

Isn't having Hunter Biden as Special Counsel a conflict of interest??

[not guilty]

Having Hunter Biden as Special Counsel??

What on earth does that mean?

[Frank Drackman]

Special Counsel Smith bears a striking resemblance to Hunter Biden, notice you never see them together??

[Moderation4ever]

Just stupid. Is that all you can tribute to the discussion?

[Gandydancer]

What’s really stupid is to complain about Drackman politely explaining to not guilty the commonplace observation his joke referred to.

Btw, someone with your handle and your deranged politics is in no position to complain about jokes.

[Nelson]

Some people think Jack Smith looks like Hunter Biden.

[Mr. Bumble]

Jack Smith looks like he has an angry gerbil stuck up his ass.

[MoreCurious]

Jack Smith looks like the kind of person who will have an obituary that contains the following sentence in its first paragraph: "Mr. Smith is best known for successfully prosecuting former president Donald Trump in a case that resulted in Trump being the first president to be convicted of federal crimes."

[Mr. Bumble]

...before it was reversed by a higher court as was the Virginia governor prosecution.

[Krychek_2]

I just want to point out that the Trumpists are welcome to amuse themselves on blog comments all they like with what about Hillary, Hunter, Ted Kennedy, or whomever else, but none of that what abouting is going to matter worth a darn when the case actually goes to trial. What aboutism is simply not a legal defense, and not even Aileen Cannon is going to be able to turn it into one. Even when it's on point (which neither Hillary, Hunter, nor Ted Kennedy are), it doesn't exonerate Trump.

So, continue to amuse yourselves by kvetching about it here if it makes you feel better.

[Kazinski]

What I will say is Trumps ego got the better of him, and not for the first time. As recent events have shown from Hillary to Biden to Pence, senior politicians and their aides have a very loose attitude about their obligations to protect sensitive information, but Trump was pretty brazen. Hillary was probably just as brazen but they gave her plenty of opportunity and assistance in covering it up, so there is less public evidence to point to. That's not a courtesy they would extend to Trump. These charges certainly are more serious, with more substance behind them than the NY farce.

I do hope this opens the door wider for DeSantis to get the nomination, not that Trump is going to bow out peacefully, that's not in his nature.

[Sarcastr0]

Probably!

[Kazinski]

Well it was "probably" brazen enough for her to lose a slam dunk election to Trump, that and the coverup, probably.

[Martinned]

It could be that, or it could be that certain parts of the electorate thought having an uppity lady president after an uppity black one was a bit too much novelty for a single decade.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Or it could be that you’re an uppity European with your nose stuck up in the air using stereotypes to explain why people you don’t know rejected a candidate that you liked.

The swing people who swung toward Trump actually voted for the uppity black man twice, but don’t let that slow your roll.

The actual overriding reason is something completely related to racism or misogyny, but it’s simply better for your psyche to simply look down on inferiors than it is to actually understand things.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Martinned comes from a country so backwards that blackface is part of the traditional Christmas celebration. Don’t expect a lot of keen insight into racial equities.

[Frank Drackman]

Barry Hussein was only 1/2 Uppity

[Armchair Lawyer]

"What aboutism is simply not a legal defense"

Technically that's not true. The actual phrase that for that defense is "Selective Prosecution". When the prosecution selectively enforces laws against a certain class of people, but not a different class of people, "Selective Prosecution" can be brought as a defense. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins for an example.

The defensive strategy has its roots in the 14th Amendment which says "nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Selective Prosecution strategies are typically brought up in a racial context (ie laws enforced against Asians, but not Whites), and are very rarely successful. But not never.

This would be a novel application of the Selective Prosecution strategy. One would need to show clear discriminatory bias on the part of the Department of Justice, and a reason that the prosecutor brought the charges for reasons forbidden by the US Constitution.

That being said...I would expect such a defense to be utilized. If clear evidence was found that the DoJ was bringing the charges for political reasons (for example to help the current president win the next election), and that similar cases were not brought against similarly situated individuals (who were not political opponents of the current president).... The 14th amendment could win out.

It would be a high bar. But not insurmountable.

[Krychek_2]

The DOJ has prosecuted enough Democrats over the years -- remember John Edwards? remember Andrew Gillum? remember Ray Nagin? -- that I don't think selective prosecution would fly either.

In Yick Wo, all the cases were substantively identical and the only difference is that the Chinese were the only ones being prosecuted. With Hillary Clinton, and to a lesser extent Hunter Biden, the only similarity to Trump is that classified information was involved; the factual differences far outweigh the similarities. There's a hundred reasons, which the Justice Department will have no trouble articulating, for why the cases were handled differently. As I've said before, if you're going to what about, at least find cases that are on point.

[John F. Carr]

Under very limited circumstances the courts will recognize a "class of one" discrimination claim. Trump does not come close to that standard.

[Krayt]

The former president of the United States, furiously and deliberately investigated for four years, does not rise to a class of one deliberate prosecutiondbshahahahahahah.

And I didn’t vote for him. Twice. But this is one of the most colossaly profound lies I have ever heard.

And whattabout Clinton in the late 1990s? I complain about that, too. The Republicans pulled this onto themselves, partly. Trump's mouth got them the rest of the way.

Still, wrong is wrong.

[Michael P]

Yes, the factual differences between Clinton and Trump include aspects like Clinton being trusted to have her (uncleared, incompetent) underlings determine what was government-related, whereas the FBI raided Mar A Lago. The factual differences do not favor your position.

[Krychek_2]

Michael, your take will convince no one except the already converted.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Trump was trusted to return all documents with classification markings.

Then they determined that he'd lied and obstructed the recovery of said documents, and took the obvious next step.

Fuck off, liar.

[Nige]

Yeah, it's not fair that Democrats don't commit more actual crimes to get prosecuted for to balance it all out.

[Ed Grinberg]

Now do "racial disparities in arrests / prosecution / incarceration."

[Nige]

Do what with them? You think Republicans doing crimes is because of racism? Weird take.

[hoppy025]

He doesn't have to win the legal argument before a judge. He just has to win the mind of at least one holdout juror.

[Krychek_2]

But the jury doesn't get to hear the what aboutism; it's not admissible.

[hoppy025]

LOL. You must never have practiced criminal law if you don't think a talented criminal defense attorney can sneak it into his opening or closing statement.

[Krychek_2]

Oh, I've seen plenty of counsel shenanigans over the years. Google "Curt Allen". And it's basically up to the judge to decide how much counsel gets away with, which is one reason it's absolutely imperative to get Judge Cannon off the case. As with children and parents, if you have badly behaved lawyers it's usually because the judge isn't doing his job.

If I were the judge, I would have a quiet sit down with the attorneys just before jury selection started, and I would say something along the following lines: "Normally, I am the most easy-going, even tempered jurist you're going to find. However, I'm not going to have my courtroom turned into a circus. Given the nature of the case, I expect everyone to bend over backward to ensure that the rule are followed, that there is no gamesmanship, and that the parties will act with utmost courtesy. Expect the sanctions hammer to come down hard if I am disappointed."

[Gandydancer]

The whole trial is gamesmanship, so your hypocrisy ought impress no one.

[not guilty]

Selective prosecution -- a favorite topic of keyboard warriors. Can anyone give a citation to a case other than Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), where a selective prosecution claim has resulted in the ultimate dismissal of the charging instrument?

¨A selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution.¨ United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463 (1996). The standard is a demanding one. Ibid.

"So long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985), quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978). A decision to prosecute, however, may not be deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights. Wayte, at 608. The claimant must demonstrate that the federal prosecutorial policy "had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose." Armstrong, at 465, quoting Wayte, at 608.

A presumption of regularity attaches to prosecutorial decisions. In order to dispel the presumption that a prosecutor has not violated equal protection, a criminal defendant must present "clear evidence to the contrary." Armstrong, at 465. Even the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation. Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962). Allegations that set out no more than a failure to prosecute others because of a lack of knowledge of their prior offenses do not deny equal protection. Id., at 456.

The Eleventh Circuiit requires a showing of selective prosecution by clear and convincing evidence. United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 808 (11th Cir. 2000). The court there opined:

[W]e define a "similarly situated" person for selective prosecution purposes as one who engaged in the same type of conduct, which means that the comparator committed the same basic crime in substantially the same manner as the defendant — so that any prosecution of that individual would have the same deterrence value and would be related in the same way to the Government's enforcement priorities and enforcement plan — and against whom the evidence was as strong or stronger than that against the defendant.

Id., at 810.

Donald Trump´s conduct, as described in the indictment, is sui generis. There is no one similarly situated to him, who has engaged in the same conduct and who has escaped prosecution because of a constitutionally impermissible reason.

[Krychek_2]

Thank you. That was one of the most thorough responses I've ever read here.

[David Nieporent]

That being said…I would expect such a defense to be utilized. If clear evidence was found that the DoJ was bringing the charges for political reasons (for example to help the current president win the next election), and that similar cases were not brought against similarly situated individuals (who were not political opponents of the current president)…. The 14th amendment could win out.

Not only is that not what selective prosecution means, but of course the 14th amendment does not apply to the federal government.

[Gandydancer]

@Armchair Lawyer: What about that business in the 14A where it reads ““nor shall any STATE…” Is there some other provision in the Constitution that forbids selective prosecutions by the Feds?

[Martinned]

Reverse incorporation through the due process clause of the 5th amendment? But I assume AL doesn't believe in that either.

[not guilty]

The equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment allows federal criminal defendants to assert selective prosecution claims. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996).

[Bob from Ohio]

"So, continue to amuse yourselves by kvetching about it here if it makes you feel better."

Ok, Capt. Obvious, what issue is ever decided by internet comments?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

what issue is ever decided by internet comments?

Whether a white, male, faux libertarian, conservative blog with a vanishingly scant academic veneer is infested every day by multiple forms of low-grade, archaic, right-wing bigotry.

[Theendoftheleft]

It was DECIDED? By whom? Surely not by you: you're retarded and lack basic reasoning skills.

Where do your grandkids go to school, AIDS?

[Krychek_2]

Probably not many, but that's not the point. The point is to remind people that they're not actually making reasoned legal analysis, and their crankiness won't change the underlying facts of what ultimately happens.

[Bob from Ohio]

"crankiness won’t change the underlying facts of what ultimately happens"

Its a stupid point. Its always true, internet comments never change facts.

[Krychek_2]

Tell it to the Trumpists who keep invoking what aboutism.

[Frank Drackman]

it's "what about jism"
as in "There was no evidence Bill Clinton had sex with Monic Lewzinski"
"What about the Jism????"

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Devil in the blue dress?

[Gandydancer]

"The point is to remind people that they’re not actually making reasoned legal analysis..."

Speak for yourself.

That claim is not in fact derivable from the truth that what will happen is unlikely to be affected by anything said here and, anyway, "the underlying facts of(sic) what ultimately happens" may not have much to do with "reasoned legal analysis" anyway. So just stop being retarded,

[Kazinski]

The New York Times says that Kamala Harris is a updated version of Dan Quayle:

"A vice president makes countless public appearances that will be mostly ignored unless something humiliating happens — something that serves to make him or her look like the hapless lightweight who symbolizes an entire administration’s ineptitude."
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1667727115775614976

They said it, not me, but I can see the similarity now that they point it out.

[Brett Bellmore]

I doubt the media are going to manufacture something to spike her career, like they did with Quayle, though. (The potatoe thing was a set-up; A teacher at the school arranged for him to be given a spelling card with the word spelled wrong, and then tipped the media off to expect it.)

[Sarcastr0]

Brett at this point you can’t state there was a liberal plot afoot without support.

You pull that trigger too often. At least this time it’s just one person not a huge leakless multi-institutional conspiracy.

[Michael P]

https://www.answers.com/Q/Was_there_ever_a_time_that_tomato_or_potato_was_spelled_with_an_e_on_the_end

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/quayle3.htm

The media, of course, was vastly more forgiving about the times that Obama misquoted Aretha Franklin as demanding R-S-P-E-C-T and claimed to have visited 57 states.

[Sarcastr0]

Was there ever a time doesn't seem relevant, Michael.

It was same as the Dukakis Tank thing. Trivial, but amusing and aligns with an existing narrative.

Quayle is not worth circling the wagons for.

[Michael P]

Do you ever read beyond the headline?

For example, the New York Times was still occasionally spelling potato with an -e as late as 1988. Spellings of "potatoe" can be found in the media all the way up to 15 June 1992, the date of the Quayle incident, at which point they suddenly stopped except when used in an ironic way.

You might as well find a restroom, because we're never going to believe your claims that pissing on our legs means it's raining.

[Nige]

Claiming he got it wrong because he read it off a card doesn't exactly throw the whole thing in a new light exonerating his reputation.

[Krayt]

You take a commonly misspelled word, and a flash card where the “correct” answer is misspelled, point a million cameras at you, and see if you are confident enough to declare the flash card wrong.

Remember, a little girl had just properly spelled it, and he said that was wrong, as evidenced when he showed her the flash card, and she looked puzzled.

With cameras rolling and dozens of officials around.

[Gandydancer]

It didn't reflect well or particularly badly on Quayle. There are plenty of Hussein Obongo gaffes too. I'm more concerned with the deliberate lies like "You can keep your doctor" and the declarations of hostility like ~"they cling to their guns and Bibles."

[Nige]

Yeah, again, not exoenerating his reputation so much.

[SRG]

The "57 states" thing was merely a fatigued correction of 50 to 47.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There's actually only 46 states -- MA, PA, VA, & KY aren't states.

[SRG]

One of the Simpsons characters says there are 49 states and when corrected, says, "you can bury me in the cold cold ground before I recognise Missourah"

[Jmaie]

Santa and one of his elves were arguing whether there are 49 states or 50, so they break out a map and get to counting. Victorious, the elf exclaims, “See Santa, there is a Virginia.”

[Noscitur a sociis]

Never change, Dr. Ed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Four of them are COMMONWEALTHS.....

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, we all could tell where your attempted cleverness was going.

You're mistaking semantics for reality though.

[Gandydancer]

"The “57 states” thing was merely a fatigued correction of 50 to 47."

As a reason for giving Obongo a pass but deriding Quayle that doesn’t cut it.

I am of course fine with deriding BOTH of them, but as part of deserved general derision, not for the particular incidents.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look at the coverage: Though it mostly passed over that point, enough of it, even from sources you wouldn't automatically reject, mention that he was given a cue card that had the word spelled wrong.

You're free to think that was an accident.

[Sarcastr0]

"he was given a cue card that had the word spelled wrong" does not establish: "a teacher at the school arranged for him to be given a spelling card with the word spelled wrong, and then tipped the media off to expect it."

Stop weaving stories and offering your Brett-authored 'I'll bet it was like this' fiction as though it's something with facts to back it up!

[Krayt]

That’s the only thing that would make sense. Deliberate misspelling to trip him up. Media notice unnecessary, really, as it was a photo op crammed with cameras already.

Operatives who organized with the teacher, waiting to pounce and trumpet it as the talking head story of the day, that I could believe. This assumes the teacher was even involved. Sleight of hand with cards and handwritten words is something out of the magician’s handbook.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s the only thing that would make sense. Deliberate misspelling to trip him up.

You sure that's the *only thing that would make sense* re: a mispelling on a cue card?

[Gandydancer]

Quayle's account doesn't say that, He says his staff all missed it both before and after the kid wrote the word on the board and Quayle noticed that the word didn't match the card. Why would you think teachers can be relied on to spell accurately?

It would be a coup, but why explain by cleverness what can be easily explained by stupidity and/or chance.

[Nige]

He had to read it off a cue card, though? You think this helps?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nige, you trust your instruments and your staff. You don't second guess the cue card.

[OtisAH]

So you know how to spell potato but someone for some reason gives you a cue card showing you how to spell “potato,” but it’s misspelled. You shrug your shoulders, push on and misspell “potato” because the cue card said that’s how it’s spelled?

[Brett Bellmore]

He's admitted he's not the greatest speller, he said he had doubts, but not enough confidence in his own spelling to contradict the materials he'd been given.

The fact remains, he WAS given a cue card with the word misspelled.

[Dr. Ed 2]

DAMN RIGHT!

[Nige]

For spelling?

[Gandydancer]

Nige is the guy who read "Trump is a convicted sex offender" somewhere and has been repeating it or other inaccurate versions of it here ever since. That it's dumb beyond words certainly hasn't stopped HIM.

[Nige]

He is a sex offender.

[Paladin_44]

At least he was a scratch golfer...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Quayle was merely dyslexic -- Harris is a slut.
You're talking Marilyn Quayle versus Willie Brown -- enough said?

And as for VeePs in general, while some have done a better job than others, they've all been used for that.

[David Nieporent]

The potatoe thing was a set-up; A teacher at the school arranged for him to be given a spelling card with the word spelled wrong, and then tipped the media off to expect it.)

Brett is being loony toons delusional again.

[Life of Brian]

You just don't even try to look, do you? Took about 15 seconds, and is all over the place, e.g.: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/quayle3.htm

"Working from an inaccurate flash card prepared by a teacher, he corrected William Figueroa, 12, when the child spelled "potato" on the blackboard – making the boy add an unnecessary "e" at the word's end."

[David Nieporent]

Unlike some here, I am older than 20 years old. I remember the event well. It is not "all over the place" that it was a "set up" in which the teacher "arranged for him to be given a spelling card with the word spelled wrong, and then tipped the media off to expect it." That's the cuckoo-for-cocoa puffs claim Brett is making and I am mocking.

[Life of Brian]

Cuckoo? I suspect Occam wouldn't even have blinked when weighing the odds that it was a choreographed political hit job in deep blue territory against the odds that the teacher of the class selected to go on camera in front of the nation 1) just happened to be blitheringly incompetent enough to misspell a basic word while preparing a set of flash cards for a 6th-grade spelling bee, and 2) just randomly happened to select that exact card to hand to the Vice President of the United States while on that camera in front of the nation.

But I know you live for cutesy plausible deniability, so this has to be right up your alley.

[Nige]

Ockham wept.

[Martinned]

This morning the chairman of the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal suspended the live stream of the case management conference in Microsoft v. Competition and Markets Authority because too many "trolls" (Politico's word) were taking screenshots and posting them on social media, which is not allowed under court rules.

Yesterday we already talked about the Contempt of Court Act, which again raises the question: What's more important, free speech or jury trials?

[Mr. Bumble]

Is the case you mention a trial or is it rather an administrative hearing?
I think your question raises a false equivalence in assuming free speech will corrupt the jury process (and you voiced your objection to juries yesterday)?

[Martinned]

It's a Tribunal, so no jury. (There are no civil juries in the UK anyway.) But for some reason that I don't understand, they're still equally cagey about live streaming of proceedings. The only part of that that I do understand are the rules about filming witness testimony. Having witness testimony broadcast on TV/the internet does not seem ideal if the goal is to promote fair trials.

[Gandydancer]

Why?

Particularly mere screenshots?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What does this screenshot situation have to do with jury trials?

[Martinned]

Beats me, I think the rule is silly. But like I mentioned yesterday, I can see the logic in regulating speech about ongoing trials in order to avoid polluting the jury pool.

[Mr. Bumble]

If a trial is ongoing a jury has already been seated.

[Martinned]

There is always the possibility of a retrial. And the Contempt of Court Act kicks in when the case is "active", which in Scotland is from the moment someone is arrested.

[Mr. Bumble]

Could we decide/agree on just what we are talking about?
An administrative hearing or a trial?
In the UK or the US?

[Martinned]

Yesterday we were talking about Nicola Sturgeon getting arrested. Today I spent part of my day watching a case management conference in judicial review proceedings. We were definitely not talking about the US, where people only complain about the jury pool when they're losing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"spent part of my day watching a case management conference in judicial review proceedings."

Watching grass grow too boring?

[Gandydancer]

"We were definitely not talking about the US, where people only complain about the jury pool when they’re losing."

You imply that they are less justified in their complaints if they only complain when they are the ones getting screwed. I don't see why.

[Michael P]

In other legal contexts, someone taking an action that has obvious and foreseeable consequences is deemed to have intended those consequences. What did the tribunal expect to happen if they livestreamed the session?

A case management conference should not be reporting or determining anything major. Unless this was expected to be an unusual conference, they probably could have posted the video after the conference ended, just done audio-only recordings like oral arguments before the US Supreme Court, or shared even less. The purpose of publishing these records is to allow the public to understand whether justice is being done, and this kind of session seldom adds much to that analysis.

[OtisAH]

“What’s more important, free speech or jury trials?”

Which is more fun to drive, a Camaro or a golf ball?

[Commenter_XY]

I would like to return to a topic I posted about previously: the remedy for a client whose attorney used AI to write a brief, replete with bogus citations; and the judge finds against the client because of the shitty (and false) court filing.

Here is what I walked away with. A client can file a complaint with the Professional Disciplinary board of that state (thx to not guilty for that). Allutz posted that the bar is impossibly high; a client would have to prove they would have won the case, but for the lawyers bad AI brief.

This is pretty lame, from the client perspective. Consider, I pay an attorney for a service, and I have to assume my attorney will act ethically as an officer of the court. But when they don't, the client is screwed and pragmatically, there is no remedy. That really doesn't sit well.

Maybe there is something a little unorthodox, as a remedy. Let me ask this of the law professors and lawyers; if a client want to 'twist the tail' of the attorney (from example above) in a low cost manner to extract 'retribution', how would that work? I am not saying I would ever do something like that, but as lawyers, how would you go about twisting their tail?

One thought: social media
Another thought: tie them up with motions they need to write

I am really wondering about AI and the law. VC is a great place to learn about it. But at the end of the day, I am all about what you can actually do. So what can you do? Whatever you suggest, it must be legal. 🙂 (Commenter XY is big on following the law, with the possible exception of speed limits on major highways)

[John F. Carr]

A malpractice case can require proof that the original case was winnable. There are other ways a lawyer can commit misconduct. What if the lawyer boasted of his expertise in chrome plated widget patent law and farmed the job out to a paralegal and her AI copilot? Is that dishonest? The bar disciplinary committees will have to decide. Like medical disciplinary committees have to decide if a surgeon commits misconduct by scheduling two operations at the same time and relying on lower skilled staff to do most of the work. (Real example from Boston. I don't remember the outcome.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am really wondering about AI and the law. VC is a great place to learn about it.

Why? Because this blog is staffed (and supported) mostly by awkward, antisocial, on-the-spectrum, disaffected geeks who are attracted to AI because they lack interpersonal skills?

[Frank Drackman]

Well, no AI ever fucked anybody up the Ass, like you did.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How are those "civility standards" -- the ones you claimed to be enforcing when censoring your political opponents at your blog -- coming along, Prof. Volokh?

You'll feel better if you simply admit you were lying. It wouldn't diminish the hypocrisy, but it would indicate some character.

[Theendoftheleft]

All you do is spew hate-filled vile on this blog, like the petulant fuckwit that you are. Your a bigoted, uncivilized, hypocritical moron.

Where do your grandkids go to school?

[not guilty]

Why are you interested in where another commenter´s grandkids go to school?

[Theendoftheleft]

Ask AIDS himself. He'll tell you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That guy has asked about my grandchildren several times.

That creepiness is nothing uncommon at this blog. The commenters right-wing commenters refer to me regularly, regardless of whether I have participated in the relevant discussion. One incessantly asserts I am Jerry Sandusky. Others call for me to be killed. Some repeatedly claim I am a liar, even with respect to events Prof. Volokh has publicly acknowledged. Prof. Volokh censors me. Some of his fans call me a pedophile. Others state I am gay.

These guys seem to be rattled. The Conspirators and their fans probably envision this blog as a safe space for their multifaceted, unreconstructed bigotry and stale, disaffected right-wing thinking.

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS, your posturing means nothing: you’ve spent years trolling a blog with incipient, hypocritical remarks. You’re a blind ideologue and a creep whose has dedicated countless hours to this.

Since you’re too stupid and uneducated to perceive the consequences of your own actions, it’s important to help you see what’s coming. Your culture war WILL get hot. Your family, your grandkids, WILL be targeted by the American right. They will show you, at a Darwinian level, why you’re not the future of anything, by removing the filth that is your DNA from the gene pool. The whole world can see this clearly, even if you can’t. (What does the ‘far right’ do, after all?)

You live in delusion, AIDS, particularly about the health of your country and its politics. You are also either blind or indifferent to your own authoritarianism and totalitarianism; your family will be the target of the American people’s wrath.

Regardless, your whole value system is collapsing, and your country’s empire is too. Indeed, your country is getting desperate, AIDS. It’s making the same mistakes the Romans did (but see that they have no alternative, as domestics KNOW it’s wholly against their interests to serve in your military.) You’re doomed, AIDS.

https://apnews.com/article/army-air-force-recruiting-shortfall-immigrants-citizenship-2cd690352210606945010d1800c5bdbe

NOW, where do your grandkids go to school? Help your fellow Americans to expedite the process.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your culture war WILL get hot.

These blustering, disaffected, desperate right-wing losers are all-talk cowards. They mutter and sputter, rail and flail, whine and opine plenty, but they have been toeing the line(s) established by better Americans for more than a half-century. I expect this to continue until replacement occurs.

[Theendoftheleft]

Your expectation is simply based on hubris and ignorance, not knowledge.

The killings in your country, which are already underway, will become more regular. The right will become more desperate as they see their culture destroyed, and as more and more of them come to see that the system isn’t at all what they (or, most of them) thought it was (let alone how it is being weaponized against them.) This is about how THEY perceive things, not how you do; and you and your lot, including your government and media, have zero chance of changing either their minds or their trajectory.

Some of you will try to flee to more civilized countries. You will not be tolerated, however.

Carry on Clinger, till you see your grandkids with their brains blown out.

[Bwaaah]

It's challenging to know that as they outlaw "hate speech," your kind of hate (and the speech you use to express it) will continue to grow and thrive (because you/they select your privileged hates like bigots always do). Anyway, it's remarkable how words alone constitute a lack of "civility" in your world. Your position is delicate, and deeply, well, shallow.

[Bored Lawyer]

You are mixing up two different things: a malpractice suit, and disciplinary proceeding.

The former is a civil claim by the client. It requires, among other things, that the client/plaintiff prove the underlying case would have been won but for the malpractice. Which is often a hard thing to do.

A client might also sue for wrongful billing, depending on how the AI work was billed (or overbilled) vs. what was actually done. I can see potential for a claim there, but you have to look at the facts.

A disciplinary proceeding is brought by the bar, based on a complaint, usually the client, but not always. The issue there is not who was damaged, but whether the Rules of Professional conduct were violated, and if so, what punishment to issue.

Although the two sometimes overlap, their purpose and rules are different.

[Commenter_XY]

Ooooooh....billing. Never thought of that one, Bored lawyer.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, it's a possibility. If a lawyer bills his client for 20 hours, but only did 2 by using AI, that's fraud and actionable. I should note that in the case that was posted about here repeatedly, the lawyers most likely represented the plaintiff on a contingency, in which case there would be no billing.

[David Nieporent]

From the perspective of the lawyers, it was a quotidian PI case (they didn't even know enough to know that it wasn't because it involved airlines). There's no chance they handled it on anything other than a contingency basis. He might have had to pay some expenses, but that's it.

[Frank Drackman]

No posts from the "Reverend"???? I hope he didn't fall on a mop handle again.

[hoppy025]

The elementary schools that he grooms children at start at 7:30.

[apedad]

You guys just cannot stop thinking of odd sexual practices and pedophilia.

Maybe you should take a walk outside or something; you know, get some fresh air.

[grb]

I’m not sure fresh air will do it. Sexual obsessions as freaky as theirs usually require medication and therapy.

[John F. Carr]

Images out of Ukraine this past week show why I was right to call for ten times as many armored vehicles to be sent. Ukraine will be out of Bradleys in a month at the rate they are being lost. NATO wants to equip a parade, not an army.

If the thousands of armored vehicles in storage can not be rendered operable, then we've learned that neither half of our military-industrial complex is able to supply a war. We previously learned that the industrial side couldn't come anywhere close to supporting a war.

[Brett Bellmore]

All things naturally decay unless subject to existential threat. Think the eyes of cave fish.

As we have not faced a real existential military threat in many decades, our military capabilities are hollowing out due to diversion to other ends, such as graft and political show.

This would have been fine if the decay had been accompanied by reduced spending...

[Dr. Ed 2]

How much stuff are we taking OUT OF the Bradleys?

What a lot of people don't understand is that when we sell (or give) our military equipment to other countries, we do not include all the options and abilities. It may be the same frame and engine but it won't have all the electronics in it.

So if we are taking regular US Army Bradleys out of inventory, how much classified stuff do we have to remove? And is that the problem?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Is Biden running a reverse-psychology operation to make Republican primary voters nominate Trump?

[John F. Carr]

Biden is not running the operation.

[Mr. Bumble]

Biden isn't "running" anything. Someone may be, but not Joe.

[hoppy025]

The only running he's doing is to the bathroom to try to get there before a turd comes out in his diapers.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there may be an element of that, but I think most of it is that the Democrats have convinced themselves that Trump is a monster, to justify all the corners they cut in opposing him, and now must act as though he's a monster, to avoid admitting they were wrong to do it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember what Lindsey Graham said in the midst of the Kavanaugh hearings about "God help us if you [Dems] ever get power"? That was Lindsey Graham, not Ted Cruz, saying that.

I think he has been shown to be right.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When the Dems come to power the first thing Lindsey does is help them pass their agenda.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I certainly think the Democrats have to realize they have the best chance against Trump, and promoting the Trumpiest candidates certainly paid off in 2022, so…

[John F. Carr]

A recent court decision (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2023/06/08/g21P1031.pdf) shows that for years the state of Massachusetts reported domestic violence restraining orders that were overturned on appeal to be valid but expired. By law it is illegal to expunge records of restraining orders, even when they were granted in error. The law did not require the records to be inaccurate.

(There is a judicially created exception when a lawyer would be incovenienced by a record of an order that should not have been granted. Then it may be expunged. Commissioner of Probation v. Adams, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 725 (2006).)

[bernard11]

John,

I think our state has amply demonstrated its administrative difficulties.

[John F. Carr]

Last month I read an interesting essay about the early marketing of Viagra. Unfortunately it appears to have gone behind a paywall. https://www.statnews.com/2023/05/19/viagra-25th-anniversary-fda-approval-ethics-pfizer/

Pfizer hired an ethics consultant who had them make up a new disease to be cured. The world got "erectile dysfunction." Pfizer got swimming pools full of money. It reminded me of people in 2023 tacking on "care" for marketing purposes in medical contexts. You write "care". I hear "euphemism". Obviously it works on some people.

The modern boner pill business reveals how regulators are willing to look the other way. You can get your prescription meds online from a doctor who never saw you. Without even explaining your symptoms. They know what you want. They know they won't get in trouble for selling it to you. There is some contraindication they are supposed to ask about. You can lie, by checking or not checking the box on a form. They won't check because the prescribing doctor is not your regular doctor.

What's easier to get these days, ED drugs or birth control pills?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I'm not mistaken, Viagra started as a blood pressure med, with an interesting side effect discovered in trials.

[Illocust]

Yep, and it is still used as one.

[John F. Carr]

But the company got permission to market it to horny men and men who want to be horny. Pfizer would not have gotten rich off a side effect. The medical ethicist who wrote for Stat was helping the company chase after the real market.

Now that the patent has expired Viagra is no longer such a big money maker. The market is still huge. The profit margin is way down.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well at least that was a labeled use. I believe all the sex change drugs are being used off-label.

[Brett Bellmore]

The chief contra-indication is low blood pressure, not an issue for most people who'd be taking it.

There are actually genuine medical reasons for taking it which are not directly for fun; For instance, taking it during recovery from prostate surgery helps prevent the usual long term effect of that surgery, which is... no fun at all.

But try convincing the insurance company to pay for it, even with a prescription and your doctor explaining why he prescribed it.

[Frank Drackman]

Also Coronary Artery Disease, which is an ish-yew for many people taking it.
Really shouldn't try to play Doctor without a license, it's not as easy as "House M.D." makes it look.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are a LOT of MDs who ought not be playing MD even WITH a license.

My attitude is simple -- if you can not explain to me why taking a certain medicine will benefit me and why you think so, I ain't taking it. "Because I am a cardiologist" isn't a reason.

And how long could Dr. House have been prescribed that amount of Vicodin without some bureaucracy stepping in?

[Commenter_XY]

John F Carr....you've hit a personal hobby horse of mine; the invented medical condition a new drug just happens to treat. The best example I ever saw of this was Nexium (AstraZeneca); they invented GERD and marketed the heck out of Nexium. Brilliant move.

I met the guy who devised that strategy for Nexium. Super smart. Thoroughly amoral. I liked him.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Gingivitis was also a marketing invention.

Giving diamond engagement rings was too.

[SRG]

FWIW for a skit I was writing, it started off with man in white coat saying, "do you get tired late evening? Do you find yourself yawning? Do you find it difficult to stay awake while watching late night television? You could be suffering from a common condition known as nocturnal fatigue syndrome"...

[Mr. Bumble]

I think GERD was the sequel to acid reflux. They needed to make it sound more serious when in fact it was agita. Rather than not eating spicy foods you could take a drug. Of course nobody could remember sodium bicarbonate or better yet Brioschi.

[SRG]

Sodium bicarbonate is too cheap, and tastes soapy. I consume a fair amount of sodium bicarbonate for training purposes, with the pleasant side effect of no stomach issues...

[Mr. Bumble]

Who needs an earthquake. San Francisco will self destruct on its own.https://nypost.com/2023/06/11/san-franciscos-millennium-towers-tilt-deepens-as-engineers-rush-to-reverse-lean/

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's built on top of a landfill -- is anyone venting the methane?

[hoppy025]

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/i-dare-you-cats-bus-video-released-after-driver-passenger-shootout/T3FN7LA5I5HGZMUUOKP4I3ZEOQ/

Perfect example of why we need a federal law prohibiting any employer from prohibiting their employees from carrying guns on the job, and we need that law to also prohibit any employer (outside of a police department) from being held liable for any employee's actions with a gun.

[Ed Grinberg]

we need a federal law prohibiting any employer from prohibiting their employees from carrying guns on the job

Disagree. The government has no business telling a private employer how to run his workplace. He should be free to prohibit (or require) anything he wants. So, for instance, I strongly oppose the outcome of this case:
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/kroger-pay-180k-firing-workers-refused-wear-logo-allegedly-resembling-rcna54550
As I see it, if you don't like your employer's policies (regarding uniforms, guns, or anything else) -- TS.

[Artifex]

I agree, another law just confuses things and the government really has no business telling the guy he can’t prohibit guns on the job.

On the other hand if my employer prohibited guns and I was mugged on the way to work or assaulted as a direct result of his limiting my self defense rights, I would be asking for rather large damages. If he prohibits weapons he is definitely responsible in the case of insufficient security and this is a financial choice he is making.

[Martinned]

https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/22840/A-Level/Law/What-is-the-doctrine-of-Novus-Actus-Interveniens-and-why-is-it-so-important/

[Bored Lawyer]

That has been limited in many U.S. jurisdictions.

[Bored Lawyer]

NOT. If you knew the employer's policy, and kept working there, you accepted the risks. (If it happened ON the job, you might have an argument, depending on the circumstances.)

[hoppy025]

Then why should an employer have to hire people favored by the left?

[hoppy025]

Yes, in a perfect world. But if employers must hire criminal blacks (many states have "banned the box") and mentally ill transgenders, then conservatives ideals should be protected too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hopefully security will be *very* tight -- and very professional -- but the Trump indictment could turn into another Kent State.

[Martinned]

You sound like you're positively salivating at the prospect, which seems odd for a Trumpist. Why don't you say the quiet bit out loud and explain what you think would happen if Trump was assassinated?

[John F. Carr]

The analogy to Kent State suggests concern for the safety of pro-Trump protesters and innocent bystanders.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And Anti-Trump protesters as well.

[OtisAH]

“Tuesday at 3pm in Miami” will be a significant barrier to such shenanigans. Very few people will leave work and travel to Miami three weeks before the 4th to stand outside a courthouse in the Miami heat. Plus most of The Villagers are up north by now.

[Frank Drackman]

Hopefully no unarmed Veterans will be murdered this time

[apedad]

Any odds out there that Trump's plane never makes it to FL and instead takes a left and heads across the pond?

Never to return?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whom do we not have an extradition treaty with?

[David Nieporent]

Russia.

[hoppy025]

That would make me laugh.

[apedad]

With Republicans imploding with Trump's indictments, Trump/Desantis, the House impasse, and Texas (AG case), is this the beginning of the end of their party?

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh noes the walls are closing in.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course not. The weaker the Republicans get, the more it is in the interest and ability of the Democrats to keep them around occupying the space an actually effective opposition party would otherwise grow to fill. So they're not going anywhere, no matter how bad things get.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, you do know what happened when the Whig party imploded, don't you? You could see a MAGA party coming out of the wreckage.

[Brett Bellmore]

Our election system was a lot freer at that time. Today the major parties have installed quite comprehensive defenses against third parties getting any headway.

[Frank Drackman]

"Freer at that time"?? are you really Senescent Joe?? 1850's when only Property Owning White Males had the vote?? Glad my vote cancel's yours out.

[hoppy025]

WTF?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, parties were more important back then -- they were on the county level and national candidates never even got to most states.

[Bored Lawyer]

At some point, Trump will crack, and the party will rally around DeSantis. Either Trump will drop out, or will split off and take a few of the crazies with him.

DeSantis will then clean the Dems' clock. And the rest of the GOP will fall in line with the winner. As an associate in my old firm used to say, "Best thing about winning? It beats losing."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump may be forced to by health -- he has visibly aged over the past two years, looks can be deceiving but he doesn't look healthy anymore. He doesn't have the energy at rallies he once did.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is that your "medical" opinion?
That he is still standing after seven years of constant turmoil is somewhat amazing.

[Bored Lawyer]

Which does not contradict what he said. My brother-in-law's father survived COVID at the age of 93, and he was in a nursing home. Pretty amazing, but he still lacks the energy to do much, let alone be president.

[Frank Drackman]

He's effin 93!

[Mr. Bumble]

I am not disagreeing with Ed. Only pointing out that given what he's been put through he seems to be holding up.
We all age differently and chronological age isn't the sole factor.
For example, compare Diane Feinstein and Charles Grassley. Both 89 but certainly different in their abilities.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

At some point, Trump will crack,

Trump has already cracked. That doesn't seem to have diminished the affection his bigoted, half-educated, superstitious, obsolete, backwater fans have for him. What development, in your judgment, will (or would) incline his fans to move toward another candidate?

[Bored Lawyer]

Since this is one of the rare times that you have asked a coherent question, not your usual rant, I will give you a serious answer.

You have to differentiate between fans (which derives from the word fanatic) and supporters. A fan will follow someone no matter what. A supporter, OTOH, can support someone because they believe he is the best candidate among the alternatives, and/or has the best chance of implementing the policies they prefer.

Trump has a lot more supporters than fans. The supporters, by and large, have concluded that he stands no chance in 2024 and are looking for alternatives. Don't believe the polls. Remember, they predicted a Republican tsunami in 2022.

If someone other than Trump is nominated, some will stay home out of spite, some will hold their noses and vote for the GOP candidate as better than Biden, assuming he lives long enough.

It's also possible that Trump will do an independent run. That might get Biden in, same way Woodrow Wilson got in when Teddy Roosevelt ran. Or maybe not. Time will tell.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it is not possible for Trump to do an independent run if he fails to get the nomination. Not as a practical matter.

Setting aside the states with "sore loser" laws, ballot access is very difficult for an independent candidate. It's not as simple as just filing some paperwork, as though you were running for county commissioner. By the time Trump knows he didn't get the nomination, it will be too late to legally qualify for the ballot in more than a few states.

Now, the same could have been said of Ross Perot; He didn't actually legally qualify for the ballot in many states, despite having more of a head start than the primary schedule would give Trump. What happened is that the ballot access rules were waived for him, in the interest of creating an effective spoiler. Something that seriously pissed off us Libertarians, who had to actually comply with those laws to get on the ballot.

So, I suppose you could see Democrats putting Trump on the ballot though he didn't legally qualify, just to split the Republican vote. Whether this could happen in any states that were competitive is another matter.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why are people falling for the myth of Juneteenth?

No slaves were freed that day -- the order is that they would remain except now be paid wages. From which would be deducted room & board, so they'd be worse off than before as there was no minimum wage. And the US Army kept them on the plantations. That's freedom?

The Emancipation Proclamation was a violation of the takings clause, Lincoln knew that which is why he *bought* the slaves in DC -- they actually paid compensation to the owners, although not initially the Black owners.

Slavery was still legal in the border states up to the 13th Amendment, and even then the Creek Nation had slaves because the 13th Amendment didn't apply to them.

And why was the forth paragraph of the 14th Amendment necessary?

So what is Juneteenth celebrating?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How long have people fallen for the myth of Christmas?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Slaves were freed on Christmas?

[Frank Drackman]

I got my first Slave on Christmas

[Theendoftheleft]

How long have people fallen for the myth of equality?

[OtisAH]

You literally get stupider by the day.

[Michael P]

Whereas you hit rock bottom long ago.

[Moderation4ever]

This kind of a stupid comment. Juneteenth celebrates the freedom of enslaved African in the United States. You are quibbling with what actually happened, but history is never as simple as it seems. The revolutionary war did not bring freedom to all the people. Women would wait till 1919 and the 19th amendment to get the right to vote, so is it right to celebrate July 4th as Independence Day.

The fact is you can celebrate any holiday as you like, including ignoring the day. So why not ignore Juneteenth and be quiet.

[Dr. Ed 2]

According to the letter John Adams wrote to Abby, it was July 2nd...

[Bored Lawyer]

Which answers your question. Not to mention that even after July 4, the United States was anything but independent. There would be five years of war until that happened.

[Longtobefree]

As always, the states (ok, territories) led the way - - - - - - - -
On December 10, 1869, John Allen Campbell, the first Governor of the Wyoming Territory, approved the first law in United States history explicitly granting women the right to vote

[Brett Bellmore]

"So what is Juneteenth celebrating?"

Not being called a racist for refusing to play along?

Everything you said was true, but the counter 'argument' is that anybody who brings it up is a "racist".

[Nige]

It's a red flag for sure.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Town of Ludlow, MA is proposing a library policy: https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/60/ae/8830e70045fb8f091521cd6ef911/library-resources-as-proposed-05.09.23%20(1).pdf

This is in MASSACHUSETTS....

[Martinned]

Are you somehow under the impression that the state that elected Mitt Romney governor doesn't have any stupid conservatives?

[Ed Grinberg]

Care to specify why you consider the proposed policy stupid?

[Estragon]

Ron Destantis wants to re-re name Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg. While I think Fort Liberty is kind of lame— Braxton Bragg was a TERRIBLE general. So even setting aside the treason in defense of slavery, this insistence doesn’t make a lot of sense to me from a military history standpoint. The guy was probably more responsible for the failure of confederate arms than any other general. I have to admit the self-ownage is somewhat delicious. Fort Forrest just a bridge too far I guess.

If it had to be a rebel, why not the original victim of cancellation, Pat Cleburne?

[John F. Carr]

To me renaming Fort Bragg is like renaming Mount McKinley. I don't like it, as it only sows confusion, but it's not going to affect my vote when there are better issues separating the candidates.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Bragg’s performance fighting against the U.S. military was so bad that he almost justifies this commemoration.

[bevis the lumberjack]

This isn’t a battle worth having. Nobody gives a shit these days about Braxton Bragg beyond maybe fifty people on each side of the argument.

[David Nieporent]

Why not name it after Alvin Bragg, who indicted Donald Trump?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I thought grand juries issued indictments.

[Bored Lawyer]

What's on your mind?

A groundhog invaded our garden and ate the leaves off a bunch of plants. (Not the tomatoes, however, something about their leaves it does not like.)
Sprayed animal repellent. Any other ideas out there?

[John F. Carr]

I have a rabbit around. I can't tell if it is eating plants I like. There is a lot of "wall lettuce" (Mycelis muralis, a relative of salad lettuce) which it is welcome to. There are plants I would slaughter a vertebrate to protect, if it were rabbit season and I had vertebrate-slaughtering skills.

I would suggest a dog for the groundhog problem, except my neighbors have dogs and they don't scare the rabbit away.

[Mr. Bumble]

AR-15.

[Brett Bellmore]

Traps can be effective.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You can try a chicken wire fence going about a foot into the ground or with an apron.

I've had pretty good look with our perimeter fence that's 3"into the ground with an electric wire one foot off the ground.

Although two nights in a row a young juvenile coon as been trying to get our cat food left out for our mousers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Blood meal. Smells like something died there, herbivores won't cross the line. Think a predator lives there.

[Frank Drackman]

All of these supposedly "Woke" commenters and I'm the one who has to point out it's the 60th Anniversary of the Murder of Medgar Evans (by a DemoKKKrat) ?!??!?!?!?!?

Frank

[robbbb]

It looks like your slippery slope blogging is catching on,

https://twitter.com/loganclarkhall/status/1667942395617345543?s=20

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Going on four days now and not a single Trump mouthpiece here has bothered to quote from the indictment to challenge any facts or laws.

We have, however, heard plenty of bullshit about Biden and Clinton.

That says everything anyone needs to know about the intelligence and honesty of Trump supporters.

Craven, unprincipled liars. Every last one of them.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You must've missed where I pointed out the "classified markings" ruse and the missing 71 documents.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It’s tough being a Trump mouthpiece when the checks he sends me keep getting lost in the mail. At least I think that’s what happened to the money he owes me.

How does Soros send you your checks? Digintally?

[MoreCurious]

You have to give them a little credit: there is no defending the indefensible.

[Michael P]

And none of you apparatchiks have quoted from Truth Social to debunk Trump’s defenses! Amazing!

[Sarcastr0]

Is this some kind of post-modernist push? Indictments are no more true than Trump's social media rants?

Come on, man. You can't just decide what to believe.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're already the dumbest fuck ever to post on these boards, Michael P.

No need to try so hard to maintain your position.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

For all I know, Trump could be guilty as sin (though I don't think they managed miraculously to find the *only* politician who committed crimes, most of whom seem to get away with it, e. g. James Clapper).

But I'm not going to decide one way or the other just because Smith procured an indictment. He also procured an indictment against another politician (former Rep governor of VA), and the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the indictment. No retrial took place though allowed.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If a company produces a product that intentionally exploits physiological or neurological processes to manipulate behavior or create addiction, are they violating any law?

Do the Big Tobacco cases act as any liability precedent for what we see now in product and food design?

The Democrats think gun manufacturers should be liable for firearm deaths. Wouldn't it be consistent for them to also hold Big Tobacco (who is now Big Food) liable for engineering addictive foods? Or Big Tech for engineering neurolically damaging user experiences?

[Longtobefree]

More profitable would be holding car manufacturers liable for any crime where a car is used in the commission or getaway.
I mean just between all the DUIs and all the 7-11 robberies, there is a fortune just waiting for lawyers.

[Kazinski]

I saw this on instapundit:

"Amogy Inc., a pioneer of emission-free, energy-dense ammonia power solutions, announced today the successful testing of the first-ever ammonia-powered, zero-emission semi truck. Amogy has received $150 million in funding.

The system has 5x higher system-level energy densities compared to lithium batteries. The volumetric energy density of liquid ammonia is almost 3x greater than that of compressed hydrogen. Over an equivalent distance, fueling a vehicle solely using ammonia would require approximately three times the internal tank volume needed for conventional diesel fuel but three times less than the volume required for compressed hydrogen."

This seems like a terribly bad idea. I realize diesel and gas are both pretty dangerous when there is a spill, but of course there needs to be a whole tanker truck of it like the wreck on I-95 for a really big problem. But anhydrous ammonia is a poison gas. 1 gallon of compressed anhydrous ammonia becomes 100 cubic feet of uncompressed gas, an 800-1 expansion. Then as that 100 cubic feet dissipates anything over 700 ppm is going to cause coughing, severe irritation and possibly permanant blindness. And of course that 100 cubic feet of uncompressed ammonia will contaminate 150,000 cubic feet of air at 700ppm.

I for one do not welcome our new carbon free Ammonia future even if it is more practical and cheaper than lithium batteries and compressed hydrogen.

And although they do use anhydrous ammonia as a source of nitrogen for fertilizer using it in an agricultural setting does seem safer than on streets, freeways and cities.

[Stephen Lathrop]

How do they get the ammonia to the agricultural settings? Do they drive it on streets and freeways?

I do agree it is nasty stuff.

[hobie]

Well, we've been using ammonia as THE commercial refrigerant for 150 years and I've never heard of mass casualties from it being around

[Brett Bellmore]

Mass casualties are rare, because the stuff is so irritating that normally people flee at the first exposure. On average a couple people die a year from it. Injuries short of death are somewhat more common, though, because exposure well short of fatal can cause permanent respiratory problems or eventual blindness.

[M L]

Looks like Trump is in hot water again. From the indictment, it seems he is charged with various crimes that generally revolve around having documents "corruptly." And how do we know he had a corrupt mental state? The indictment lays out the devastating evidence in detail. The way we know he had a corrupt mental state is that he bragged all about it excitedly in an on-the-record recorded interview with the media.

[Bored Lawyer]

You know, there is a reason that criminal defense lawyers tell their clients to shut up. Because anything coming out of the client's mouth is likely to hurt their case. Trump is the poster boy for that advice.

[not guilty]

Political reports that John Eastman and the California State Bar have compiled witness lists for Professor Eastman´s disciplinary hearing. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/11/john-eastman-disbarment-trial-trump-00101407 It should be interesting to see whether Eastman testifies to anything of substance -- he reportedly invoked his privilege against self-incrimination before the House January 6 Committee and before the grand jury in Atlanta.

Perhaps Eastman should heed Sir John Falstaff´s admonition that the better part of valour is discretion, surrender his law license and focus on defending the criminal charges he is likely to face.

[Bored Lawyer]

From what I can tell without reading the charge, the main complaint is they don't like his legal theory. That is an exceptionally dangerous basis to discipline an attorney. Lots of wacky theories have ultimately become the law. At one point in history, arguing that the Constitution barred segregation would have been a frivolous position.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He could probably find some downscale school that would engage him as a teacher without regard to whether he holds a law license.

Is there a reason his statements in a disciplinary proceeding might be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution?

Laying low and hoping for leniency might be the sensible course for John Eastman.

Instead, perhaps Eastman could call Eugene Volokh as a character witness (unless Prof. Volokh was part of the elite braintrust devising un-American legal positions with Eastman) and the disciplinary authorities could counter with a rousing contribution from Eric "Get a great fucking criminal defense lawyer, you're gonna need it" Hershmann.

[not guilty]

¨Is there a reason his statements in a disciplinary proceeding might be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution?¨

I suppose Eastman could assert a claim under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), that his statements were coerced, so as to make them inadmissible in a criminal prosecution. I doubt that he would be successful.

[M L]

FBI informant confirms that Joe Biden is "the big guy."

[Bored Lawyer]

You mean his Depends are X-Large?

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems more like a large. X-Large for Trump. Circus tent for Christie.

[Moderation4ever]

Do they actually have this informant or is this another one out there somewhere but they can't find them? Will this person sit for testimony or would that be too much to ask?

[Moderation4ever]

Michael Smerconish asked a good question the other day about why it is taking so long to report on the Hunter Biden investigation. My thoughts are that they have very little to really charge. Best they will be able to muster is a tax evasion charge and that will likely be plead out. I am guessing that negotiations on that plea are going on now. I am also guessing that unlike Trump, Hunter is letting the lawyers do the talking for him.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They've done nothing for five years. They will do nothing for fifty years.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Grassley said today on the Senate Floor that the FBI 1023 on the Biden bribery witness claims to have recordings with Joe and Hunter on the phone negotiating bribes.

Weird how the FBI didn't follow up on this.

As we all know, no amount of evidence would be proof enough for the bootlickers around here when it comes to Democrat corruption.

Conversely, no evidence is required to convince them of the terrible crimes of Trump.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What did the Buden Administration mean when they said my kids weren't my kids but belong to them and the queers?

https://twitter.com/whitehouse/status/1668422935172792321?s=46&t=1x-bpIxajEj2ansmlCdY_Q

[David Nieporent]

What did you mean when you fabricated a quote?

[Michael P]

Which quote was that, liar?

[mydisplayname]

First, let me say that I do not think that President Joe Biden is in any way responsible for the actions of his son (we will call the son "Junkie Biden" for clarity).

How many Americans have paid more in child support than Junkie Biden has paid in legal fees defending against the payment of previously ordered child support payments? Talk about being in the top 1% [grin].

[jonesroberts]

Hire Android app developers is the process of recruiting skilled professionals to build and maintain Android applications. YES IT Labs is an excellent choice for fulfilling your app development needs. With their expertise in Android development, they can help you create innovative and user-friendly applications that meet your specific requirements. Their team of talented developers possesses extensive knowledge and experience in the Android ecosystem, ensuring top-notch solutions. Trust YES IT Labs to provide reliable and efficient services, enabling you to bring your app ideas to life successfully.

[Michael P]

Castrati are given as an example of "virility", but "pride"-obsessed leftists aren't focused on chopping off boys' private parts, no sir.

https://madmimi.com/s/3bec761

[Stephen Lathrop]

After Trump's indictment, should Jack Smith ask for a gag order?

On one hand, without one Trump will say anything he can in public to incite violence, poison the jury pool, and tamper with witnesses. On the other hand, if left to run his mouth freely, Trump will probably hand the prosecution yet more evidence, not only for this trial, but also for the J 6 trial. Seems like a close question.

[Bored Lawyer]

The latter option. Your worries on the first option are overblown and can be dealt with in other ways, if and when they happen. Given the experience with the NY indictment, the outside damage (meaning not to Trump) from Trump's mouth has been minimal. And, yes, he is going to keep digging himself into a hole.

[not guilty]

A gag order would be a prior restraint of Donald Trump´s First Amendment rights. Prior restraints are disfavored. Any such order would have to be narrowly tailored, and the trial court would have to consider whether less restrictive alternatives would suffice.

I am not aware of the Eleventh Circuit having addressed the threshold legal standard for imposing a gag order on a criminal defendant. Other circuits are split. United States v. Carmichael, 326 F.Supp.2d 1267 (M.D. Ala. 2004), contains a good discussion of the issues involved.

[M L]

JP Morgan did nothing wrong. But they are paying $290 million to some victims of Jeffrey Epstein's elite CIA and Mossad-linked child sex trafficking operation.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

This is why people say you're an idiot with nothing but hot takes that you then try to backpedal from.

"But the judge noted that several pieces of evidence — including suspicious activity reports filed in relation to Epstein’s accounts in 2002 — suggest JPMorgan knew or should have known about the sex trafficking operation earlier."

JP Morgan's lawyers and insurance company obviously feel differently than you do, otherwise they wouldn't be settling a case for more than a quarter of a billion dollars.

[BrotherMovesOn]

No, you and JPM's lawyers are not living in the reality-based world.
M L has proclaimed they did nothing wrong.

[M L]

Multiple JPM executives did not visit Epstein’s island and his Manhattan townhouse. Jes Staley did not witness Epstein abusing underage girls.

edit: (check sarcasm detector)

[Brett Bellmore]

https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2020/11/05/2383543/detroit-video-shows-ballot-counting-center-covering-windows-video

You can swallow the excuses for covering the windows, but you can't claim they weren't covered.

[Nige]

Meh. Can't send ammo to an ammo factory. You deal with the situation as it is, and ignore the wild unfounded claims that are just different in a few degrees to the wild unfounded claims they were going to make anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

No one denied that. But maybe don't join forces with the white nationalist to defend 2020 election denial.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore: “You can swallow the excuses for covering the windows….”

No excuses and damn little swallowing is required. You had a prefab faux mob banging on the windows like unruly children playacting “indignation. So the windows were covered.

But here’s where wingnut tin-foil-hat fantasy veers from reality: Even after the windows were covered, there were still witnesses appointed by the Republican Party monitoring the ballot count.

Presumably you’re aware of that, but who knows? As shown repeatedly in these comments, you’re always willing to ignore an inconvenient fact to make a phony point.

[David Nieporent]

1) Detroit, of course, is not Philadelphia.

2) THERE WERE OBSERVERS INSIDE.

[Mr. Bumble]

Try selling that to "Dr." Jill.

[apedad]

Get re-elected then about a year later, resign.

That way at least Trump, Desantis, or Pence don't have a chance.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A practical course would involve Vice Pres. Harris taking a different (important) role -- she is young enough to have plenty of opportunities in the future -- and former Pres. Barack Obama accepting his party's vice presidential nomination.

[David Nieporent]

Any better ideas?

It ain't gonna happen, unless his health makes it unavoidable. It would cause an ugly fight within the Democratic Party; Harris is the obvious successor, and skipping over her would be seen as a snub to the demographic groups for whom she was picked in the first place. But of course she's a lousy candidate.

[hoppy025]

Ahh I see. It's okay to do things to make it look like you're cheating if the other side, in your deranged hypothetical, will make other claims anyway.

[Nige]

Literally everything that was done in the election looked like cheating to you lot. Even stuff that didn't happen looked like cheating.

[Gandydancer]

Dunno about Philadelphia, but the window covering in Detroit happened. Also the van loads of supposed absentee ballots that for some reason didn't arrive until 4am or so and reversed Trump's lead in Michigan after all the election observers were sent home because all the counting was "over". Since the windows were covered no one could see how many times those "absentee ballots" were counted, of course.

But, yeah, asking why the windows were covered is prima facie evidence that you're a "conspiracy theorist" and a "racist" and all of those other poo words that Lefty flings about so freely that they no longer have any meaning.

[Nige]

It's not the asking questions, it's the writing your own answers.

[hoppy025]

I'm not. I supported people like Cruz, DeSantis, and Paul, not the grifter Trump.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

hoppy025 doesn't care about Trump's conduct. Modern, mainstream America doesn't care what bigoted clingers like hoppy think or want.

Sunshine in America!

[Nige]

Is DN a leftist mind now?

[Nige]

An absolute world of your own with your own received truths.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not such a brilliant public speaker when it wasn't from prepared speeches. His gaffes occurred when he tried to speak ex extemporaneously.

[hoppy025]

Right, so it has nothing to do with the media. Obama is just SO brilliant that any gaffe was obviously an aberration, because he's good, black, and liberal. But any white conservative MUST be stupid, so the gaffes are indicative of a larger pattern.

Do you people realize how stupid and self-serving you sound?

[Brett Bellmore]

He makes them too publicly to really deny they're happening, but it gets reported as him having a stutter, or making a silly mistake, not proof that he's a brain damaged idiot.

It's just a charming eccentricity that he's constantly talking about his fictional history. Not, you know, him being a habitual liar.

[OtisAH]

I like the classics. The “Biden will resign and make Harris potus” bit was first given to us back in 2016 by geniuses just like the ones we have here who just *knew* it was all a setup to back door a Harris presidency.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : “Not such a brilliant public speaker….”

Those of us who lived thru the era (presumably not Bumble) remember Obama facing a room full of hostile Republicans in an informal seven-hour healthcare summit. Needless to say, he ran rings around them.

“Obama dominated the debate during Thursday’s nearly seven hour cross-party summit on healthcare, always in command not only of the room but also of the most intricate policy details, as he personally rebutted every point he disagreed with”

The whole “Obama can’t speak without a teleprompter meme” grew from two reasons, the first too obvious to bother over,

But the second illustrates an aspect of the right-wing mind. GW Bush was a lightweight, something seen repeatedly during his eight years. So the Right’s hive mind was determined to sell the story Obama was secretly dumb. Likewise, after Trump’s sleaze – pre, post, and presidential – the Right is addicted to “Biden is a criminal” porn, no matter how ludicrous. If they nominated better presidential candidates they could spare themselves and us a whole lot of projection.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-scene/obama-dominates-the-room-at-healthcare-summit-idUSTRE61O6H420100225

[not guilty]

Judge Loose Cannon is in a position to wreak havoc in favor of her patron, Donald Trump.

For example, suppose the defense moves to suppress all evidence seized from Mar-a-Lago pursuant to the search warrant issued by Magistrate Judge Reinhart. Suppose the defense seeks to revisit Judge Howell´s pre-indictment ruling that Trump´s communications with Evan Corcoran fall within the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.

Anyone who believes that Judge Cannon will give the government a fair shake on such matters as these has not been paying attention.

[grb]

Not as classic as the “Biden will come up with some excuse not to debate Trump” shtick. That was pushed hard in this very forum by the usual suspects, right up to the final days before the debate.

They don’t dare put him on the stage, we were told. But didn’t he debate Sanders four hours a few months back? That was then, we were told. He’s gotten dementia since then.

The result? Biden trounced Trump. The usual suspects waited a whole week before returning to their precious meme. Apparently Biden had “gotten dementia” in the interval….

[Brett Bellmore]

They might have actually been seriously considering pulling that trick after Biden hit the halfway point in his first term, before it became evident just how much of a disaster Harris really was.

[hoppy025]

All public accommodation laws are immoral and unconstitutional, but again, you don't get to demand the protection of them and then say you're just trying to be left alone.

[hoppy025]

He's good at spewing platitudes and other BS. He's an intellectually mediocre empty suit.

[Frank Drackman]

really good at pubic speaking?? Barry Hussein S-S-S-S-St-t-t-t-t-tutters almost as much as Stuttering John Fetterman, and hasn't even had a Stroke. And there was that whole "Nittily Lions" thang. Oh, and he threw like a girl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQLTekcur-E

Frank

[John F. Carr]

Those evidentiary disputes can be resolved before trial while the government has a right of appeal. There are issues that will come up at trial where a ruling in favor of Trump might not be appealable.

After the close of evidence the trial judge will hear a motion to find Trump not guilty. Suppose she rules that the evidence shows that Trump had authorized possession of classified documents after he left the White House, because the President can authorize Donald Trump, citizen, to have them. She can find him not guilty of the charges because he was charged under a subsection that only applies to unauthorized possession. That he might have committed a different crime under a different subsection does not matter. If she is wrong, can the government get a writ of mandamus before the jury starts deliberating and it is too late?

After that she can give jury instructions favorable to the defense.

[bevis the lumberjack]

There you go again, denying things that are obvious and we can all see.

It’s not a persuasive form of argument. What is even the fucking conspiracy supposed to be? When Biden greets someone as part of a crowd who has been dead for two years mentioning it is a conspiracy?

Doesn’t help your credibility to do this.

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : "..that are obvious and we can all see"

But they aren't and we can't. There is zero evidence Biden is a "brain damaged idiot", obvious or not. And if Biden faces DeSantis or Trump on a debate stage next year, he'll do just fine - despite all of the masturbatory fantasies of "dementia" and "brain damage" that brighten right-winger nights.

He's the same Biden as every - mumble-mouth, gaffe-prone, and given to fabulist nonsense over his past. He may be slowed by age but is handling the mechanics of presidential power with pretty impressive skill. Note the conventional wisdom that he took McCarthy to the cleaners in the debt limit thing.

Bonus point: Biden lies, as does all politicians. But certainly not more than typical for his breed. It is absolutely hilarious to see Brett waxing pious on this, given his religious devotion to "excusing" the worst liar in modern American political history.

Say what ya will about our Brett, the man is dead to irony!

[bevis the lumberjack]

To grb. I don’t know if Biden has brain damage.

It’s obvious several times weekly that he’s got at least a moderate form of something like dementia. Way too many gaffes and moments of confusion to deny it.

And the way he’s not allowed to take questions - and the way his occasional sit downs are controlled and even scripted - that the people around him know it and are trying to handle him accordingly.

No conspiracies, no oppo spin, just simple observation of an old man who is going through something many of us have observed personally in our own elders.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course Biden has brain damage. We may debate the extent of it, but he has a history of brain aneurysms, and he has pointedly refused to undergo any cognitive testing.

So it's reasonable to assume he has at least a little brain damage.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m perfectly to watch an old man garble thoughts and understand why.

I’m not qualified to make a diagnosis. So I didn’t.

Your obvious intent to excuse your Team Leader is horribly transparent.

[David Nieporent]

Of course Biden has brain damage. We may debate the extent of it, but he has a history of brain aneurysms, and he has pointedly refused to undergo any cognitive testing.

Biden's "history of brain aneurysms" is older than Tiffany Trump. They were in 1988. Stop playing doctor; it may be the only thing you're worse at than lawyer.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Biden’s “history of brain aneurysms” is older than Tiffany Trump. They were in 1988."

All that establishes is that he's had brain damage for a long time, nitwit.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The party of anything is just a bunch of words. Neither has any real principles or expertise. Remember when the Democrats were the party of middle class working men and women? I do, but that party is long gone. Remember when they were the party of freedom of speech? Lol. Now they’ve declared war on speech. They’re now calling themselves the party of science which is laughable. As a scientist, hearing someone say it makes me cringe.

The Republicans are just as bad. Your point about personal responsibility is accurate when observing the Trump cult. They also used to fashion themselves the party of fiscal responsibility, but that horse has been out of the barn for several decades.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If she is wrong, can the government get a writ of mandamus before the jury starts deliberating and it is too late?"

Heck, she can just acquit on every charge on the burden of proof issue. Its un-appeable.

[not guilty]

¨Those evidentiary disputes can be resolved before trial while the government has a right of appeal.¨

The government does not have an appeal as of right as to pretrial rulings not amounting to a dismissal. That would require a writ of mandamus. For such a writ to issue, three conditions must be met: first, the party seeking the writ must have no other adequate means of relief; second, the petitioner must demonstrate his or her right to the writ is clear and indisputable;and third, the issuing court must determine whether a writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. District Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).

[Mr. Bumble]

I'll stand by my comment (in full) and don't think you've done much to disprove it.

[Gandydancer]

“Obama dominated the debate during Thursday’s nearly seven hour cross-party summit on healthcare, always in command not only of the room but also of the most intricate policy details, as he personally rebutted every point he disagreed with,” wrote Caren Bohan, White House correspondent for Reuters, about the Feb. 25, 2010, event.

Nothing like looking to a Democrat press sycophant for an unbiased take on a Democrat Magic Negro.

What does she have to say about the sharp wit and unerring accuracy of Dementia Joe?

[OtisAH]

Yeah, maybe!

Dolt.

[grb]

Here’s an honest question : Disaster how? I see that Harris has not performed the feat of being a consequential Veep, something always difficult to do. Biden did it; Pence didn’t. Gore did it; Qualye didn’t. Cheney did it; but I’m not sure GHW Bush did, despite his subsequent election.

And I’m sure I’ve missed a minor Harris gaffe or two. But this whole “disaster” business looks like the work of Conventional Wisdom across our political culture doing its setting-like-concrete thing. Unless I’ve missed something more substantive….

[bernard11]

Oh bullshit, Brett.

There were people claiming Harris would be President by summer of 2021.

[Ed Grinberg]

Fuck off, slaver.

Please tell me you had the same reaction to the "Bake my cake!" case ...

[hoppy025]

But your type thinks that the hiring of homosexual men who leave their job at 5 p.m. to shoot off into their “husband’s” rears should be controlled by the government. Why?

[Brett Bellmore]

They cover them as "gaffes", not as evidence that he's a mentally compromised liar.

[bernard11]

They cover them as “gaffes”, not as evidence that he’s a mentally compromised liar.

Because it's not.

And Trump cultists like you criticizing anyone as a liar is completely fucking ridiculous. Your god lies as automatically as he breathes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bernard, you're so cute when you're angry.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bernard - I’m not a Trumpist. It’s well documented that Biden is a consistent long term liar.

Was his first wife actually killed by a drunk driver? Was his son Beau actually killed in Iraq (he pulled that one out again on Memorial Day)? Was he arrested while seeing Mandela? Was he born in the same hospital as his grandfather (they’re in separate states)?

There are websites dedicated to collecting the lies that he’s been telling his entire life. Whoppers.

Why bring up Trump in this. Obviously the facts are clear that both of them are pathetically dishonest. Does Trump’s chronic dishonesty make Biden’s ok or something?

[bevis the lumberjack]

No, idiot. I was pre-empting him dismiss my observation of Biden’s truth issues by accusing me of being a Trumpist. Which I’m clearly not but it’s a reflexive response y’all have to Biden criticism.

Do you have dementia or are you just incapable of reasonable discussion.

[Mr. Bumble]

See this:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/12/codifers-errors-and-42-u-s-c-1983/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Republicans are currently competitive because they can still rely on gerrymandering, voter suppression, vestigial bigotry, and our system's structural amplification of backwater voices and votes, but

1) gerrymandering is generally becoming more difficult, especially for Republicans in a nation that becomes less white, less rural, less religious, less bigoted, and less backward each day

2) voter suppression is fading, for several reasons

3) our nation becomes less bigoted every day, as older bigots die off in the natural course and are replaced by younger, better, less intolerant, more diverse Americans

4) Democrats have identified and seem likely to implement several measures designed to reduce structural amplification of rural votes

The future is dismal for the current Republican Party. The more sentient conservatives recognize this, which explains their desperation and disaffectedness.

[Frank Drackman]

With that Step N Fetchit DA Bragg, lots of peoples are shooting peoples in New York and not losing any voters.

[Frank Drackman]

Coach Jerry Sandusky, experienced with the sun not shining

[Theendoftheleft]

' Modern, mainstream America doesn’t care what bigoted clingers like hoppy think or want'.

AIDS, are you capable of doing anything other than lie??? Your liberal-progressive Americans are HEAVILY invested in trying to dictate and control what people like Hoppy can say or think, what can be taught in schools, said in media, etc. They, like you, are totalitarians, AIDS. You're anti-liberal and anti-science.

Where do your grandkids go to school?

[Frank Drackman]

"Young enough"?? When Barry Hussein was Common-Law Harris's current age he'd already been out of Orifice for 3 years. And BHO isn't eligible to be VPOTUS because he isn't eligible to be POTUS, and I don't mean because he's a Moose-lum, or that he was born in Kenya.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kirkland, B Hussain CAN'T BE a VeeP....

[Frank Drackman]

Ask Speaker Pelosi how dismal the future is.

[Theendoftheleft]

Are you THAT fucking retarded, AIDS? You know that the rest of the world is fully aware of how American blue states are gerrymandered for their own ends too, yeah?

Keep importing more religious Catholics and Muslims into the USA and see how that impacts your gay rights. (Presently you’ve got a super-majority of Papists on your highest court; just wait till it’s Muslims in 30 years.)

Your blue team has implemented voting measures that no other western democracy would copy because they’re fundamentally violative of the rule of law. Yours is a banana republic now, you fascist airhead.

Where do your grandkids go to school, AIDS?

[John F. Carr]

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 requires motions to suppress evidence to be made before trial. An appeal by the government is allowed by 18 USC 3731 "if the United States attorney certifies to the district court that the appeal is not taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding."

Rule 12 generally requires pretrial decision of

(A) a motion alleging a defect in instituting the prosecution, including:
(i) improper venue;
(ii) preindictment delay;
(iii) a violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial;
(iv) selective or vindictive prosecution; and
(v) an error in the grand-jury proceeding or preliminary hearing;
(B) a defect in the indictment or information; including;
(i) joining two or more offenses in the same count (duplicity);
(ii) charging the same offense in more than one count (multiplicity);
(iii) lack of specificity;
(iv) improper joinder; and
(v) failure to state an offense;
(C) suppression of evidence;
(D) severance of charges or defendants under Rule 14; and
(E) discovery under Rule 16.

[apedad]

"And BHO isn’t eligible to be VPOTUS because he isn’t eligible to be POTUS . . . . "

Wrong as usual.

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

As VP he wouldn't be "elected" as President and then he could assume the presidency under the other conditions.

[Bob from Ohio]

You are the wrong one here.

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Twelfth Amendment, last sentence

[Theendoftheleft]

You're telling me...

[Martinned]

Freudian slip...

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah my fuckup. Unrelated.

It was just like Brexit. The normies have become tired of the elite and they are lashing out. HRC was part of the elite. Not a good place to be in 2016. Or today for that matter.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, so? It was claimed I didn't think he did anything wrong, and obviously I DO think he did things wrong.

Not just what you think he did wrong.

To be clear, you'd have no ethical concerns with Trump at all, if you agreed with his policies. I mean, look at how you treat Biden's corruption! Doesn't exist so far as you're concerned. You probably think Obama didn't have any scandals, either.

[Theendoftheleft]

They were Anglo-Protestants who implemented European economic and political ideas in a new land, and they didn’t believe in the equality of different peoples or cultures for even one second. Their writings prove as much, present-day mythologizing and historical revisionism about them notwithstanding.

Don’t worry, though: your country has peaked, is on a precipitous decline, and is exhibiting shameful authoritarianism on its way down. Your Framers SHOULD have foreseen this, since its causes are fairly clear. It’s too bad, for you, that key ones were such fervent ideologues…

[Theendoftheleft]

Jeepers.

Queenie, you've already established your 'creeping' with your unforgivable ignorance of science. Your views about anything are worthless.

[Theendoftheleft]

You don't get to police a word's meanings.

Carry on Queenie, till your American betters Brievik you.

[Theendoftheleft]

What are the word’s OTHER meanings, fool?

As for AIDS’ grandkids, it’s vitally important to help him understand what’s going to happen when your country’s culture war turns hot, since he’s too stupid to see it himself.

Now, get back to your superficial trolling and lies, Queenie. And remember: your views on ANYTHING are worthless, and you’re just a useless American pig.

[Theendoftheleft]

See, all you do is lie: you didn't answer anything about the word's other meanings at all, especially the one which was germane to the way I used it. 🙂

Remember our 'conversation' about Dawkins and science, Queenie? You've established that you're an ignoramus and a liar who's only interested in trolling. Nothing you say, or do in this world, is of any value.

Now, go kill your whole family, and then yourself, to save others the trouble.

[Randal]

I feel like if Queen used the word, Queen gets to decide how it was meant.

Haven’t you ever read Through the Looking Glass?

[Theendoftheleft]

Well, that’s not a real norm…

But you FEEL that way, do you?

[Theendoftheleft]

'There is no meaning of creeper that includes “unforgivable ignorance of science.”'.

See, you lie even in the framing. I wrote 'Queenie, you’ve already established your ‘creeping’ with your unforgivable ignorance of science. Your views about anything are worthless'. Your ignorance of the word's various meanings, and lack of interest in learning about them, is your own failing.

You're having a bad trolling day, Queenie. I'm sorry, but I think we have to end our relationship here. There's no substance to your trolling. No passion. No substance. It's just TOO vapid. You're unworthy, even as a troll, to bother with any more.

[not guilty]

Will those who genuflect at the mention of Clarence Thomas´s name call out the Step N Fetchit reference here?

[Brett Bellmore]

Anybody who expected her to be President that soon was an idiot, or anticipating Biden stroking out during his inauguration. If she became President prior to the halfway point in Biden's term, she'd only qualify for one term as President herself afterward. Why would she agree to that?

[Theendoftheleft]

Don’t lie to me, Queenie. And remember: your opinion on anything is worse than garbage.

Still, your Framers repeatedly and explicitly asserted their inegalitarianism. They also all noted their support for a republic, and NOT a democracy, precisely because of their inegalitarianism.

Today, in the face of that concept & norm’s clear genealogy (ie, religious mythology), its being a spectral concept like any other, and its flying in the face of science, your ‘ideal’ is going into the rubbish bin of history.

Furthermore, you delusions about your country’s health, let alone of that of its global empire, are your own failings.

[Brett Bellmore]

In terms of obstacles to running for office, or starting up new parties, yes. The franchise was much more restricted, yes, but it was much, much easier to legally run for office.

So, while the Republicans had to convince people to vote for them, they didn't have to convince the Whigs to LET people vote for them.

[not guilty]

You are correct as to the granting of a defense motion to suppress evidence. That would not be true, however, of a ruling in limine to admit or exclude evidence, such as my example about Evan Corcoran´s testimony.

A biased trial judge can work all kinds of mischief.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The answer seems uncertain.

Would Republicans argue that former Pres. Obama also would be ineligible to serve as Secretary of State (high in the order of succession), or that he could not become vice president through such succession? Would conservatives claim he would be ineligible to serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives? Or would Republicans contend that Secretary of State Obama or Speaker Obama would be skipped in the order of succession?

I would prefer to observe former Pres. Obama be installed among the new Supreme Court justices after enlargement of the Court, at which point it would become the Obama Court in every context that matters.

[SRG]

I can proudly proclaim that I was there the day that Bob from Ohio was right about something.

[Brett Bellmore]

Kind of far back to find much documentation online. It was a major sore point among Libertarians, though.

[Theendoftheleft]

Queens die of AIDS.

[Theendoftheleft]

See, all you do is lie, Queenie.

The guy who wrote that hyperbolic declaration ALSO made it abundantly clear in his private writing what he thought about Black people (based on his many years of owning some). You are confusing his rhetoric and propaganda for his true views.

The socially constructed norm of equality is ITSELF based on reason??? Oh boy. OK, religious freak… (Funny how you sound like Arthur, hey?)

Nope: your Framers are basically ALL quoted as condemning democracy as a dangerous and stupid form of regime, and so preferring a republic as protection against it. And anyone who knows anything about 18th century Netherlands (where Adams visited), pre-Napoleonic wars Switzerland, and Renaissance Italy — as your Framers surely did, some with first-hand experience — knows full well, those were non-democratic republics. (And who gives a fuck what EV says about anything?)

Where do you live, Queenie? Tell me about your family and what you expect will happen to them when America’s cold war turns hot. Do you expect these Trumpians to burn you?

[Theendoftheleft]

Pathetic, Queenie, just pathetic. 3/10 trolling on your part, at best.

Having a bad day?

[Theendoftheleft]

Yeesh... 2/10. You're losing your edge, man.

Coffee break, perhaps?

[Theendoftheleft]

You would know: you just owned me, no?

I'm sorry that your skills are diminishing. This must be very sad for you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah but a woman who sleeps with another woman's husband for career advancement could qualify as a slut.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, it was because once the government printed the ballots, they could limit which candidates were listed.

The system of bringing one's own ballot to the polls had its abuses, and liberals wanted to replace it with a new system. Which reminds me of this from Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary:

CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.

[Theendoftheleft]

Many have, fool.

Now tell me that 2 + 2 = 5.

What's your address, Queenie?

[Theendoftheleft]

Oh, OK. Just clean up when you're done.

[Bob from Ohio]

All of our bases are about Liberty. Sounds like an WNBA team.

You could have kept Bragg but changed it to be in honor of his Union major general cousin.

George Thomas, who beat Bragg, and is a forgotten great general, is a far better name.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You didn’t read my post, did you?

I’m not going to engage in a discussion I don’t care about.

[Frank Drackman]

"Liberty" was the name of the talking horse in those inane "Rush Revere books ("Rush Revere and the first Thanksgiving/Star Spangled Banner/ etc etc " series of children's books. (Yes, I got them for my daughters, (and me, that's how I know they're inane)

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

Day ending in "y".

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"To be clear, you’d have no ethical concerns with Trump at all, if you agreed with his policies."

Ethics include the ability to discern right from wrong, and following the law.

Everyone here understands why you'd omit those from your criteria.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t know that it was that inchoate. I wasn’t in that frame of mind then, but I’m hella close now.

The Trump-Biden years have turned me from mildly jaded to massively jaded.

[Bored Lawyer]

Is there some Constitutional amendment that gives groundhogs the right to chew my plants? Must have missed that one.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Thank you for burying the hatchet and not burying it in my head.

My understanding was that the 19th century method was to bring a pre-printed ballot to the polls and drop it in the box. Pretty much all the ballots were privately printed by political parties. Though the voting was supposedly secret, the parties might have, say, different-colored ballots so spies could see which color ballot you had and arrange to get you fired if you worked for the government or a manufacturer. Also, if a candidate didn't kick back to his party, then his party might - oops! leave the candidate's name off the privately-printed ballot.

On the plus side, any party or faction which could afford a printer could print out ballots to give to its supporters. The parties and subfactions didn't have to register with the government or collect signatures or what have you.

Reformers got hold of the situation, complained about the (quite real) abuses, and proposed instead a government-printed ballot like the then-colony of Australia had invented. The idea was you all get the same-colored ballot, mark it in private, and the names of candidates are put on with a fee plus a very minimal number of signatures (sometimes the fee would be refunded if you got a certain number of votes). So from the beginning they were messing with the ballot, but it was all in the name of reform and small parties and factions still had a chance to get on the official ballot.

Gradually, the duopolists (or monopolists, in certain regions) discovered that now that they had their grubby little hands on the ballot, they could make little fixes (and I mean fixes) to increase the chances of their own candidates. Like raising the signature requirements sky-high to deter smaller parties and candidates. keep the candidates they don't like off the ballot. After all, they're the ones printing the ballots now, why *shouldn't* they dictate what's on them?

"Avoiding ballot clutter" wasn't the issue, of course, it was keeping interlopers off the ballot.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

When some fort or geographical feature, etc., is named after a bad person, pass a resolution that hereafter we're commemorating a good person of the same name.

Seattle is in King County, Washington. Naturally, they fussed when they realized that it was named after a slaveholding Vice-President, William R. King (this is the guy whom some describe as future President James Buchanan's boyfriend, but the only evidence is some weird letters and a mutual interest in chains and whips).

Anyway, they got the legislature to pass a resolution by which hereafter the county would be named after *Martin Luther* King - problem solved, no need to get new letterheads or anything.

https://www.historylink.org/File/11261

Name Fort Bragg after cousin Edward S. Bragg, the Union general

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_S._Bragg.

The "Lee" in Washington and Lee University could be proclaimed to be Bruce Lee.

Anything named after Jefferson Davis could, with a resolution, be named after (quickly looks) Geffrey Davis the poet.

Hey, this is fun!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

See generally, The Australian ballot: the story of an American reform, by Lionel E. Fredman. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1968

This book tends to give the positive angle of the reform movement.

A book which includes, but isn't confined to, ballot access shenanigans is Not invited to the party : how the Demopublicans have rigged the system and left Independents out in the cold, by James T. Bennett. New York: New York, 2009

[Brett Bellmore]

While ballots pre-printed by parties were common, you could just write your vote on a slip of paper, and a lot of people did that.

The really recent development is no longer permitting write-in votes. In my opinion, once they took that step, they were clearly violating voting rights. Until fairly recently, who could vote was restricted, but who they could vote for was totally free, the most they did was make voting for somebody they didn't like less convenient.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not too proud of this and this is NOT A RECOMMENDATION AS SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH MAY RESULT!
I live in a built up area, with neighbors all around who would report you for trapping squirrels with a have-a-heart trap to release in a park and of course no guns allowed (even pellet guns).
When a groundhog set up housekeeping under my deck and was eating everything in sight I was at my wits end.
Long story short, I found the tunnel he was using and late at night dumped a gallon of ammonia and a gallon of bleach into the tunnel and sealed it with a large rock.
Don't know whether it killed him or what but never saw him again.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, matter and antimatter don't mix well...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-s-miami-court-date-brings-fears-of-violence-rally-plans/ar-AA1cpL14

[Dr. Ed 2]

The way I once dealt with a groundhog after the cobblestones in the hole didn't work was get 2 of those 55 gallon plastic barrels that fruit juice concentrate is shipped in. Filled them both up, left both bungs open, and let both barrels go into the hole ALL AT ONCE. Never saw groundhog again...

NB: They always have another way out, I doubt I drowned him as much as made him think that a lake had let go into his tunnels.

[Gandydancer]

"No excuses" he says as he makes implausible excuses.

Pictures of windows being covered here:
https://www.freep.com/picture-gallery/news/2020/11/04/poll-workers-count-absentee-ballots-city-detroit/6158515002/

What this was supposed to accomplish other than hide hanky-panky is non-obvious. If anyone was banging on windows they could certainly continue to do so, but in the photos everyone seems to be well behaved while the paperers beaver away.
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2020/11/04/PDTF/8a1c587e-e024-404a-86af-3755bcd3f96e-VoteCounting_12.jpg

[Gandydancer]

1) “Philadelphia and some other blue cities” includes Detroit.

2) They were being kept away from actual vote checkers, using the COVID excuse, and then they were sent home at midnight while the vans of "absentee ballots" (supposedly pre-verified at the county clerk’s office, with no observers) arrived at 4am and were counted without observers as many times as necessary.

Are you stupid, ignorant, or dishonest, or all three?

[David Nieporent]

No, you're just a liar. There was no counting anywhere in the middle of the night without observers.

[Gandydancer]

Why? Are we supposed to be nice to race hustlers now?

[Gandydancer]

He said you don't take Lefty scandals seriously and you of course can't provide any examples of your doing so, so you drag "conspiracy" in from somewhere. Not even a good try.

[Gandydancer]

BB didn’t omit anything. Or suggest criteria for anything. Your brain is badly broken. Maybe you should give your mouth a rest rather than double down on shoving your sneakers down your throat. It's not a pretty sight.

[Gandydancer]

They keep insisting that I'm a Trump zealot too. LOL! Theswe people are doggedly determined to fight the phantoms that exist only in their "minds", such as they are.

[Gandydancer]

You're not. No mind at all.

[Gandydancer]

Who claims Obongo did that?

[Gandydancer]

Can you come up with any examples that anyone except Democrats and fellow travelers remembers with anything except derision? ~”Today is the day we stopped the rise of the oceans” and ~“We are the change we’ve been waiting for” spring to mind, but I have to admit that those were probably speechwriter bafflegab. But Obongo had to approve it, right?

[Gandydancer]

Did you follow the link? Quayle read it off a cue card provided by a teacher. Whether she notified the press as Brett said isn't established by Michael's links, but you're free to do your own research and debunk the claim if you can. Instead you've got nothing, just like what's between your ears.

[Gandydancer]

"Fooled by an middle school teacher!"

Queenie apparently can't spell either, and can't even blame it partly on a cue card.

[Gandydancer]

Given the "for" bit, why only "could"?

[Gandydancer]

Try selling the rest of the Biden family on getting off the gravy train and losing impunity any earlier than can be avoided.

[Gandydancer]

Besides, avoiding President Kamala is a problem they've made for themselves. How do they sub in Governor Greaseball without getting all the minorities unhappy at them?

[Gandydancer]

Why would BIDEN agree to that? She’s his insurance policy against no longer having impunity.

Anyway:https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/

Alsohttps://www.sfgate.com/national-politics/article/Poll-Kamala-Harris-loses-to-Trump-16688483.php

Etc. grb may be in denial, but everyone else sees it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigoted, illiterate, and ridiculous is no way to go through life.

[Nige]

The Republicans are just as bad he says, giving a Republican critique of Democrats, with all the credibility that entails.

[Frank Drackman]

Or Sammy Davis (jr)