Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Biden and the Whitehouse have evidently turned on their transgender supporters by setting them up, and showing why there needs to be laws regulating just what is allowed in events like Drag Queen Story hour.

"It was a brief shot where Montoya is seen topless with her hands covering her breasts alongside two others that prompted an edited version of her video to be circulated on Twitter by conservatives."

Conservatives pounced. Then the Whitehouse piled on:
“This behavior is inappropriate and disrespectful for any event at the White House. It is not reflective of the event we hosted to celebrate LGBTQI+ families or the other hundreds of guests who were in attendance,” the White House spokesperson said. “Individuals in the video will not be invited to future events.”

Montoya, who was not immediately available to speak with NBC News, addressed the backlash in a video on Instagram.

“Conservatives are trying to use the video of me topless at the White House to try to call the community groomers, etcetera,” she said. “And I would just like to say that, first of all, going topless in Washington, D.C., is legal, and I fully support the movement in freeing the nipple because why is my chest now deemed inappropriate or illegal when I show it off, however, before coming out as trans it was not?”

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/white-house-bans-trans-activist-topless-photo-pride-event-rcna89116

Now I know I'm going to be intentionally misunderstood, but I think legislatures should craft legislation that bans indecent displays in front of minors regardless of gender. As broadly as they can legally craft it. No lingerie, simulated sex, no display of sex toys, and definitely no nudity. And states can and should go even further in policing establishments that sell alcohol. Just because the first amendment allows.it, doesn't mean the 21st amendment can't ban alcohol in places that permit indecent displays in front of minors.

And as for the argument that conservatives are manufacturing this issue, I'll say Joe Biden is doing his best to manufacture it for us.

[Mr. Bumble]

But it's Pride month and he was just showing his pride.

[Martinned]

prompted an edited version of her video to be circulated on Twitter by conservatives.”

Conservatives pounced.
(...)
And as for the argument that conservatives are manufacturing this issue, I’ll say Joe Biden is doing his best to manufacture it for us.

Come again? Read your own comment again. And then go away and find something important to get upset about. How about asset forfeiture?

[Mr. Bumble]

See next post by Somin.

[Martinned]

I did, that's why I mentioned it. It seems like the rare topic that about 90% of regular VC commenters can agree on.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You really don't get the "Open Thread" thing, do you?

[Martinned]

Does it mean anything other than that I can comment about whatever I like?

[Mr. Bumble]

Everyone's a critic.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, it means that others can comment about whatever they like, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Like claiming someone's comments are out of scope when they are not!

[TwelveInchPianist]

And drawing an inference that the commentor doesn't "get" open threads.

[Frank Drackman]

It's like the Late/Great Rush Limbo's "Open Line Friday" in which he would take calls "On any topic" which usually ended up being 2-3 calls and Rush talking for 3 hours, not that it was a bad thang.
So here it's the "Reverend/Coach Sandusky" calling everybody who doesn't agree with him (every sane person) a slack-jawed hayseed, and "Queenie" saying your mom got raped by scores of Black dudes.

Frank

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's amusing because the Democrats gone so extreme in their defenses...but they don't want the actual results in practice.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm all for the "Reparations"!!!!
How much are the Blacks gonna pay everybody?
I've done hundreds of thousands of Shekels of unpaid
medical treatment on umm, "Peoples of Color"
have yet to have a POC do anything for me for free

Frank "cash please"

[Dr. Ed 2]

On a more serious note, between 50 years of Affirmative Retribution and 60 years of Great Society, any net balance due on reparations has LONG AGO been met.

Now as to reparations for damages done to the Black community BY said Affirmative Retribution and Great Society, including the current 76% illegitimacy rate, that's another story.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't think Montoya is intentionally misunderstood. He knew exactly what he was doing; his behavior was completely asinine. And a complete turnoff to anyone with functioning synapses (with the possible exception of Reason's ENB).

If the trannies were looking for understanding and tolerance, this was not the way to get it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But if the trannies are actually bullies ....

[Brett Bellmore]

An evergreen parody. And never more true.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. The gay rights movement achieved pretty much all its goals, now it's going to discredit itself by trying to trans and sexualize children, force men into women's sports, prisons, and battered women's shelters, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

I’ve heard this ‘you won, now be quiet’ nonsense about gays and blacks and women since I was in college, some decades ago.

No, actually, gay rights still has a way to go. Did you read the gay pride flag thread yesterday? That wasn’t hostility to trans people, it was full on homophobia. This forum is full of accusations of pedophilia towards gay people, and supporting other countries passing anti-gay laws.

Pretending the issue is all this trans stuff is eyewash. The right remains shot through with shitty anti-gay puritans, and that’s the issue.

Per Kaz they're coming at all sortsa stuff still.

[Ben_]

In other words, activists are invited by Sarcastr0 to be entirely uncivil assholes to everyone else in the US population, forever.

And Sarcastr0 will support their behavior, including going topless at the Whitehouse.

You have an obligation to be kind and tolerant and welcoming and understanding and sensitive. Meanwhile the special people can go topless at the Whitehouse, perform sex or simulated sex in front of kids, scream and name-call, and absolutely anything else.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say shit about activists' methods. But you have whole edifices of strawmen as your worldview.

I am not as angry about boobs as you, that seems clear.

[Ben_]

Everyone can see the double standards.

Go along with them and you and your family can be treated as second class humans forever, endless obligations and duties, never anything in return. Or demand single standards.

[Sarcastr0]

Your made up double standards are obvious to you, because you made them up.

Thanks for the Wake Up White People (or whatever) to me; I’m feeling pretty first class though.

[Ben_]

Because you never had to contend with hurdles you’re erecting for young people.

[Sarcastr0]

?

Is this still about gays protesting for stuff?

[Josh R]

now it’s going to discredit itself by trying to trans and sexualize children

WTF is "trans and sexualize children"?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Follow LibsOfTikTok for examples.

[Sarcastr0]

Follow a zealot who is into shading the truth and quoting randos as true!

That you uncritically trust sources like this is why you're uniformed in such an angry way.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who says I uncritically trust any source, Sarcastro?

You’re making up your own facts again.

Much of her content is just videos that the left makes themselves.

[Josh R]

If this what you are talking about, it's either false or limited to a far-far-end fringe.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Because you say so?

[shawn_dude]

If only you were so breathlessly panicked about children being shot in schools and having to learn how to hide from mass shooters in Kindergarten.

Children learning to express themselves? Mass panic among conservatives. Dude with an AR-15 spraying bullets into an elementary school? Thoughts and prayers.

[Kazinski]

Execute the mass shooters, too.

[Josh R]

The false part is a hunch. The far-far-end fringe part is based on no one in the anywhere-close-to-the-mainstream of the LGBT rights movement calling for such silliness.

[Nige]

Self-refuting argument. 'They got everything they wanted except not being subjected to yet another self-justifying campaign of hate and lies which is the sort of thing that made them a persecuted minority in the first place.'

[Don Nico]

You're going to ruin the Folsom Street Fair in SF.

[shawn_dude]

Only if he attends.

[Jmaie]

A young'un acquaintance of mine, some time ago, country folk and newly arrived in the city, checked the Chron to see if anything interesting was happening. Hmm, he thought. "Folsom Street fair, think I'll check it out."

Welcome to SF...

[Randal]

And as for the argument that conservatives are manufacturing this issue…

What issue? Nobody thinks that children should be exposed to indecency, and nobody (seriously) thinks that topless females aren’t indecent. The White House condemned the incident. Nobody disagrees about anything here.

I mean… if you dumbasses were at all consistent in your made-up grievances, you’d be standing by Montoya as having every right and freedom, as a biological male, to go shirtless in public. The conservatives who are up in arms about this have implicitly admitted that Montoya is a woman. Define "woman" now, bitches!

Let’s not forget that Kazinski is a wannabe domestic fucking terrorist.

[Kazinski]

Well maybe someday, but my manifesto is stuck at 3 pages. I can't really keep my self respect going on a rampage with a 3 page manifesto can I?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The conservatives who are up in arms about this have implicitly admitted that Montoya is a woman. Define “woman” now, bitches!

Well, no...shit-for-brains...they have not admitted any such thing (implicitly or otherwise). Montoya had himself surgically altered to have "breasts" (the display of which is what's at issue, though I don't get worked up about that sort of thing myself) that have the outward appearance of those possessed by women. The possession of such features does not make him a "woman". If a woman has a penis, or at least something that has the same outward appearance as an actual penis, attached to her nether-regions and displayed it in public the issue would be the same, even though the add-on would not make her a man.

Is this sort of thing really so difficult for you to comprehend?

[Randal]

And yet you think that woman with the penis attachment should be able to -- nay, required to -- flash it around in women's locker-rooms.

It makes-a no sense.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And yet you think that woman with the penis attachment should be able to — nay, required to — flash it around in women’s locker-rooms.

It makes-a no sense.

You’re right…what you just said makes no sense, and had absolutely nothing to do with anything I’ve ever said. Are you having a stroke?

[Randal]

There's no way that you of all people support trans rights when it comes to the great bathroom debate. Could it be true? You think trans men should use the men's room?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You've always been an idiot here, but I guess I missed it when you went all-in and became an incoherently babbling idiot.

[Randal]

I think I just exploded your brain, is all. You said

If a woman has a penis, or at least something that has the same outward appearance as an actual penis, attached to her nether-regions and displayed it in public the issue would be the same, even though the add-on would not make her a man.

The I asked you if "that woman with the penis attachment" should use the men's locker-room or the women's.

If they're supposed to use the men's, then you've "implicitly admitted" that they're now a man.

If they're supposed to use the women's, then you've condoned the very thing you just denounced: parading their penis around, indecently, in public, right in front of a bunch of unsuspecting women.

So which is it?

YER HEAD A SPLODE

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The I asked you if “that woman with the penis attachment” should use the men’s locker-room or the women’s.

Uh, no…you lying sack of shit…you asked no such thing. If fact you didn’t “ask” anything. You baselessly asserted…

And yet you think that woman with the penis attachment should be able to — nay, required to — flash it around in women’s locker-rooms.

Even ignoring the inherent stupidity of that (as well as the rest of your braindead argument)…you’re stupid enough to lie about what you said when it’s clearly visible barely a single screen’s scroll away.

That sound you here isn’t my head exploding, it’s yours imploding due to the differential between atmospheric pressure and the near-perfect vacuum between your ears.

[Randal]

A total dodge. Predictable. Also wrong.

“I asked you” right there: “You think trans men should use the men’s room?”

That’s a question, you know. One you still haven’t demonstrated the balls to answer. All this deflecting, but zero integrity. Man up and give us your answer! Or perhaps you’re trying your hand at presenting as a woman?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“I asked you” right there: “You think trans men should use the men’s room?”

That was a later response, AFTER you made the assertion...you lying sack of shit.

And you questioning anyone's integrity is like Elizabeth Holmes preaching about business ethics.

[Randal]

I'm just going to keep you squirming around in this trap you're in. You can't answer my question because any answer you give will contradict one made-up grievance or another. So it doesn't really matter. You've been caught. I'll go on poking you with a stick between the bars of your cage as long as you keep squealing.

So go ahead, caterwaul away, what other nonsensical evasions do you want to bark out? Poke poke poke!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think they should use the facilities at the nearest mental hospital, which is where they belong. Changing the DSM in response to political pressure does not suddenly now make them sane.

[shawn_dude]

It's legal for men to be topless in public, even ones with breasts. See: gynecomastia. Trans women on hormone therapy will get these as a result of estrogen and CIS men can also get these as a result of low testosterone or increases in estrogen. It can be augmented by obesity as well. So are you saying that heterosexual men with man-boobs are inherently indecent because they have the "outward appearance of those possessed by women?" Or are you tying this only to the intent to have women's breasts rather than the actual appearance of having them?

[not guilty]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the pecker checkers need to get a life?

[Super Scary]

"edited version of her video"

How was it edited? Jump cuts? Star wipes?

[Nige]

Weird how after decades of straight sexualisation of everything with little regard to how much or whether kids were being exposed to any of it, drag shows, a niche entertainment whose explicitly adult form is no worse than any straight blue comedian’s, is what sets you off.

Conservatives got mad at Obama for wearing a tan suit, they can feck off over their fake moral prurience about someone topless at the White House, with which there is no connection to drag queen story hours whatsoever.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, who leaked the Dobbs decision?
Where oh where is the Hale manifesto?
Where is the special prosecutor assigned to look into Biden's possession of classified documents?
When will another "Republican" become a candidate for president (13 and counting).?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think Roberts leaked it.

If you ask who would benefit, it would be him if he could have flipped one of the justices, and then what really makes it look like him was the court confirming that the document was genuine.

The more expected response would have been a "we will neither confirm nor deny."

[Kazinski]

It wasn't a justice it was a clerk. No justice would be stupid enough to think they would impact the decision of one of the other justices by leaking it

[David Nieporent]

Where is the special prosecutor assigned to look into Biden’s possession of classified documents?

I mean, I'm not a stalker so I don't know literally where he is, but his name is Robert Hur.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cute reply but I did not mean (as you surely know) his physical location but rather with his investigation. Now grand juries, no subpoenas, no mention of him by those watchdogs of freedom in the press.
So what is he investigating?

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, while I agree that it is appropriate for a Special Counsel to investigate Joe Biden´s handling of documents, what criminal statute(s) do you surmise that Biden has violated?

Please cite by number.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why would I or anyone else have any idea since there is no information out there as to what the documents were?

[not guilty]

We don´t know whether any grand jury is meeting or not. All indications are that Biden is cooperating voluntarily with the investigation. Should that change, compulsory process is potentially available.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Straight off indictment for espionage, Trump goes public with a prepared statement, apparently read off a teleprompter, to say explicitly that he did it, and to say farcically that the law permitted what he did. Left wing media are agog at what they style a confession. But no one explains how Trump's conduct could make sense. No one has anything to say, except on the left to say that in some un-specifiable way, Trump is bizarrely deranged, and on the right to demand, "What about Hillary?"

Consider. There can be no doubt that Trump's current attorneys, whoever they are, told him beforehand, "Don't do that." So Trump knows he is defying the law, and defying his own lawyers' advice. Fact is, he has been defying the law since the election. There can be no doubt that Trump is premeditated on this, and purposeful. Aside from the self-evident strategic goal to seize and hold power, what is Trump's tactical purpose?

No doubt money raising is part of it. But that can hardly justify the defiance, if it only serves to put him in prison. So Trump is rolling the dice on money raising—and on whatever else he thinks he can accomplish—with an expectation that he will avoid prison.

I expect that even Jack Smith is somewhat flummoxed. And that may provide a clue. While Garland and Smith intone repeatedly, "No one is above the law," they treat Trump with deference. They seem almost frightened, as if having broken free for a legal layup, they might ruin everything by misjudging their touch at the basket.

Thus, Smith expects to prove Trump a criminal, but out of an abundance of caution, to avoid muffing the chance, Smit declines to treat Trump like the kind of criminal he intends to prove Trump actually is. Trump gets no mug shot. Smith asks for no constraints prior to trial. Smith may even decline to demand recusal of Judge Canon, supposing his case is so strong that nothing can defeat it.

I suggest that giving Smith an opportunity to misjudge the situation in exactly that way is part of Trump's motive. He has succeeded already in compelling the prosecution to show deference that no other similar defendant would be afforded. That deference could prove fatal to the case. If Trump is to be convicted as a criminal, he must be seen to be treated as the criminal the prosecutors say he is. And Jack Smith is not doing that.

What other espionage defendant, caught red handed in possession of compartmented information, gets anything but detention until he is tried. Flight risk is not even relevant. Ongoing danger to the nation is the pressing concern.

Apparently, there were some documents in Trump's possession so secret, and so currently, imperatively secret, that they were excluded from the indictment, to spare their exposure during the trial. Trump knows what is in those documents. At liberty, he may find a means to disclose what he knows to America's enemies. Yet he is suffered to go free, and even to go abroad. Given that, who with any sympathy toward Trump can be expected to take seriously that even the prosecution believes Trump guilty as charged?

Here is a hypothetical, to put that concern in perspective. One of the undisclosed documents includes information on the identities of various actors around the world who are positioned to deliver to terrorists enough enriched uranium to build a Hiroshima-style bomb.

Here is another hypothetical. One of the undisclosed documents contains engineering information showing a means to build a nuclear initiator so potent that it amounts to a key to miniaturizing a hydrogen bomb.

Of course I know nothing about what those documents contain. Does even Jack Smith know and understand that information? If not, how can Smith accede to letting Trump stay at liberty pending his trial? If Smith does know, and judges the risks minimal, why should anyone on Trump's side of the case conclude that the trial is anything but a political persecution?

[Mr. Bumble]

Readers Digest edition of SL comment:
"Of course I know nothing..."

[Martinned]

indictment for espionage

No. Violation of the Espionage Act /= Espionage

[Krychek_2]

There's a wonderful joke circulating that Trump was meeting with his advisors and said, "I hate that Hillary Clinton. I want her destroyed, I want her reputation completely ruined, I want her disbarred and I want her in jail." To which an aide responded, "Sir, in that case, have you considered hiring her as one of your lawyers?"

[Armchair Lawyer]

But this is the reality of what Trump thought about Clinton.

""He said that, despite the chants of 'Lock her up!' from some of his supporters, he had felt after the 2016 election that the e-mail matter should be dropped," Barr writes in his new book, "One Damn Thing After Another." "Even if she were guilty, he said, for the election winner to seek prosecution of the loser would make the country look like a 'banana republic.'""

[Davedave]

No, that was Trump's excuse to his deranged cultists for not being able to follow through on his lies because they were lies.

[David Nieporent]

And yet… he (Trump, not Barr) told Sessions to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hillary. (Sessions was recused from all that stuff so he couldn't.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

He, and you, are morons if you think leading chants of “Lock her up!” didn’t make the country look like a “banana republic”.

Your (and Barr’s) defense of him is that, yet again, he was lying to his supporters and had no intention of delivering on his promises. He just manipulates anyone he finds useful, especially including his gullible supporters.

Finally, immediately after the 2016 election he said those sorts of things. But it didn’t last and you can’t memory hole the facts:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a tenuous hold on his job when President Trump called him at home in the middle of 2017. The president had already blamed him for recusing himself from investigations related to the 2016 election, sought his resignation and belittled him in private and on Twitter.

Now, Mr. Trump had another demand: He wanted Mr. Sessions to reverse his recusal and order the prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/jeff-sessions-hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html)

So, yeah, he was first for making us look like a banana republic, then against it, then for it again. Not a good look. He did precisely what Republicans think, without evidence, that Democratic administrations did. And now he’s promising to politicize the DOJ if elected again.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeez, you babble like a friggin idiot, tighten it up, you should be able to make your point in one sentence, like this.

[apedad]

This you?

Frank Drackman 2 hours ago Flag Comment Mute User

I’m all for the “Reparations”!!!!
How much are the Blacks gonna pay everybody?
I’ve done hundreds of thousands of Shekels of unpaid
medical treatment on umm, “Peoples of Color”
have yet to have a POC do anything for me for free

Frank “cash please”

[Frank Drackman]

I said "you" should be able to make your point in one sentence.
Geniuses like me can use as many as we want, and just look at the sample you picked to make a point, pure muscle and sinew, no filler words (except for the "umm" which is used to make a point) Hemmingway himself would put down his shotgun to read my work,

Frank "Jesus wept. Pussy"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Any government bureaucrat calling the designated contact at the DoE and asking "what is a nuclear

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gremlins from last night's storm.

Anyway, while DOJ and FBI may not know the seriousness of classified paperwork, I suspect they can quickly get someone to come and tell them.

And the biggest security risk of Donald Trump is what he carries around in his head -- I don't know what but I am sure he knows stuff that would damage national security were he to talk about it. Case in point then-VeeP Biden telling reporters about the deep shelter underneath the Naval Observatory which I somehow suspect was a classified secret. (Remember the "undisclosed location" that Cheney was in during State of the Union speeches?)

So my suspicion here is that Trump is like Cohen of Cohen v. California -- he wants to be even more famous and a SCOTUS decision would make him that. His attitude is if Clinton could steal the White House china, he could take the stuff he did.

SCOTUS has never really ruled on selective prosecution beyond those on a racial basis (i.e. Scottsboro Boys) and it's very clear to anyone who looks that there are two sets of rule now.

It's been that way in academia for 30 years and like everything else, that has now overflowed out of the cesspool and into mainstream society. This is true with basic protest marches, eg BLM and it is true with political prosecutions.

Judge Buckley once said that he "obtained immortality" with the Buckley v. Valero decision, and maybe that's where Trump's going. He knows this won't stand up on the SCOTUS level, and he wants to be a martyr. Remember he grew up in the era of Freedom Riders and Woolworth's Lunch Counter sit-ins -- and maybe he's just pushing this for the same reason that those folks pushed the stuff they did.

[David Nieporent]

And the biggest security risk of Donald Trump is what he carries around in his head — I don’t know what but I am sure he knows stuff that would damage national security were he to talk about it. Case in point then-VeeP Biden telling reporters about the deep shelter underneath the Naval Observatory which I somehow suspect was a classified secret. (Remember the “undisclosed location” that Cheney was in during State of the Union speeches?)

Dick Cheney attended every State of the Union speech.

Seriously, you don't have to say everything that comes into your head. Or in your case, anything that comes into your head.

[Josh R]

Don't over think this. Trump is a self-absorbed asshole who thinks the rules don't apply to him.

[Randal]

Yes, this is correct. His whole life, he's only ever had one play: self-aggrandize. He doesn't have any other mode of operation he could pivot to, even if he wanted to.

It's amazing he got this far without getting into trouble. I suspect there's a long trail of Stormy Danielses. Until now, he's always been able to deal with threats transactionally.

(This is really what "The Art of the Deal" should've been about. He's not good at dealmaking, as we all experienced. He is good at posturing and individual quid pro quos, which can make the actual dealmaking sort of irrelevant. That is, he always gets what he really wants.)

[Kazinski]

Biden just exposed a national secret for more sensitive than anything Trump exposed, and he admitted he was going to get in trouble for it.

“We have plans to build a railroad from the Pacific all the way across the Indian Ocean.”

Here’s the video:https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1669187098371391490?t=AzZt-ZFY3Wcn8LcbgQforQ&s=19

It’s not the specific plan that’s an issue, it’s disclosing the capability to build ocean railroads that is the problem.

Presumably this is technology that was developed as part of Californias High Speed rail and they decided to go undersea rather than through Bakersfield, which is responsible for the delays and massive cost overruns.

[shawn_dude]

ROFLMAO!

That's almost Mad Magazine-level silliness. Undersea trains! Hahahahaha.

Undersea trains are totally worse than giving the Saudi's US nuclear secrets that include US vulnerability analysis. So totally worse! Like, the worstest. OMG!!!11!!

LOL. You're a self-parody.

[Kazinski]

I’m just going with what Biden said.

A train across the Pacific and the Indian Ocean has to be undersea right?

I hope you aren’t telling me Biden has lost it.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

Can Eugene or someone else at VC show Ilya Somin how to post so that his lengthy posts (redundancy alert) continue after the break, so we don’t have to scroll the entirety of his 5,000 word posts to get to the next conspirator’s post? Thanks

[Kleppe]

The cruelty is the point.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The extra scrolling is good exercise for your tiny little fingers.

[Longtobefree]

Probably a violation of the ADA, given all the arthritic old farts wandering around here - - - -

[Martinned]

I'm sure you're all dying to read the report of the Privileges Committee on Boris Johnson. Here it is: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/committee-of-privileges/publications/

[Martinned]

17. The question which the House asked the Committee is whether the House had been misled by Mr Johnson and, if so, whether that conduct amounted to contempt. It is for the House to decide whether it agrees with the Committee. The House as a whole makes that decision. Motions arising from reports from this Committee are debatable and amendable. The Committee had provisionally concluded that Mr Johnson deliberately misled the House and should be sanctioned for it by being suspended for a period that would trigger the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act 2015. In light of Mr Johnson’s conduct in committing a further contempt on 9 June 2023, the Committee now considers that if Mr Johnson were still a Member he should be suspended from the service of the House for 90 days for repeated contempts and for seeking to undermine the parliamentary process, by:

a) Deliberately misleading the House

b) Deliberately misleading the Committee

c) Breaching confidence

d) Impugning the Committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of the House

e) Being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee.

We recommend that he should not be entitled to a former Member’s pass.

[John F. Carr]

Imagine if Trump were judged under a standard like the one that punishes "impugning the Committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of the House".

[Martinned]

Some of the things he said about judges who were presiding over cases where he was a defendant could have been judged under exactly that standard, but as usual the establishment chickened out.

[Kazinski]

I guess they take that sort of thing more seriously over there Adam Schiff just got a pass for lying to Congress.

There was a vote to censure Schiff:
"The Republican-controlled chamber defeated the motion by a vote of 225 to 196, with 20 Republicans joining 205 Democrats in opposition."

Some of the republicans said they voted against it because it included a $16m fine which seems attainerish, but the most interesting thing is 5 democrats voted "present".

[Sarcastr0]

Only you would think there is a lie at issue here.

This is revenge.

[Kazinski]

Every word of Schiff's statement are lies, unless of course you can show where he actually presented the evidence:

"Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that the House Intelligence Committee has an “abundance” of information that is not yet public, including evidence that President Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia and that his administration obstructed justice.

“There is certainly an abundance of non-public information that we’ve gathered in the investigation. And I think some of that non-public evidence is evidence on the issue of collusion and some … on the issue of obstruction,” Schiff said, according to The Guardian.

Schiff, who is the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the panel has seen evidence of money laundering, but has been unable to further investigate."

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/373985-schiff-house-russia-probe-has-evidence-of-collusion-obstruction/

[Sarcastr0]

? Trump DID collude with Russia, and his admin includes folks who went down for obstructing justice.

Evidence of money laundering I can't speak to, but it's also not clearly a lie.

[Kazinski]

And I get accused of believing in baseless conspiracy theories.

But again where did Schiff present his non-public evidence?

And as for any evidence of collusion between Trump, or the Trump campaign with Russia, do you have a cite?

[Sarcastr0]

The Mueller report is not really baseless.

But again where did Schiff present his non-public evidence? As a member of the public, I’m afraid I cannot say.

To be fair, I thought you were talking about when he imitated Trump and people called it a lie when he said things Trump didn't actually say.

[Kazinski]

Where did the Mueller report say Trump colluded with Russia?

Mueller said there was no evidence of collusion, surely you can point to one instance of actual collusion, can't you?

[Sarcastr0]

"Former special counsel Robert Mueller pushed back against U.S. President Donald Trump’s characterizations of his 22-month investigation, telling lawmakers on Wednesday that he did not evaluate “collusion” with the Russian government, and confirming that his report did not conclude that there was “no obstruction” of the probe.

“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.

“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”"

[Kazinski]

So you can't point to even one incident of collusion can you?

I'll ask again:

"And as for any evidence of collusion between Trump, or the Trump campaign with Russia, do you have a cite?"

[Sarcastr0]

Mueller wrote that investigators also found evidence of repeated communications — but not “coordination” — between associates of then-candidate Donald Trump and people claiming to have damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,"

So you have expectation, action, and communication.

Oh, and jail:
-George Papadopoulos, foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump
-Rick Gates
-Paul Manafort
-Konstantin Kilimnik
-Michael Flynn (admitted to lying about asking the Russian ambassador to refrain from responding to Obama administration sanctions against Russia)

[bernard11]

Do you think that any Representative who tells a lie should be censured?

[Kazinski]

I think any member of the Intelligence committee who does see things that other congressmen can't should be censured when they make up things for political purposes.

The rest of the asshats, well let them bray.

[OtisAH]

Yes, that is way more interesting than the fact MAGA tried another stupid stunt and it failed with 20 MAGA votes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Boris who?

[Martinned]

That's the spirit! One can only hope...

[Commenter_XY]

I’m sure you’re all dying to read the report of the Privileges Committee on Boris Johnson.

No, not really. The Limey's can deal with Boris. UK has been around for a while, they'll figure it out. Best of luck to our 'cousins'.

[Martinned]

For sure. But the notion that mendacious politicians should be shown the door rather than being left in their place until the next election (or longer) seems like something worth reflecting on...

[Mr. Bumble]

"But the notion that mendacious politicians ..."
Are there any other kind?

[Martinned]

2. This inquiry goes to the very heart of our democracy. Misleading the House is not a technical issue, but a matter of great importance. Our democracy is based on people electing Members of Parliament not just to enable a government to be formed and supported but to scrutinise legislation and hold the Executive to account for its actions. Our democracy depends on MPs being able to trust that what Ministers tell them in the House of Commons is the truth. If Ministers cannot be trusted to tell the truth, the House cannot do its job and the confidence of the public in our democracy is undermined. When a Minister makes an honest mistake and then corrects it, that is democracy working as it should.

Giving up on politicians telling the truth is equivalent to giving up on democracy. If that's what you want to do, just come out and say it.

[Mr. Bumble]

One can only hope for democracy and honest politicians but it becomes harder every day.

[Martinned]

I think we (well, I) had this conversation on the VC a while ago. American presidents and governors only ever talk to the press and at political events. They are not forced, like in the UK, to answer questions from people they can't dodge.

Prime Minister's Question Time is a joke, but British ministers, including the PM, do have to answer questions in parliament from time to time. And there are limits to how much they can lie or evade the question when they do that.

The US political culture would much improve if the president was required to appear before the House and/or the Senate from time to time to answer questions about what he's been up to.

[Mr. Bumble]

Different systems. PMs are not the equivalent of presidents in a system with three independent but supposedly co-equal branches.
Should the SC have to answer to Congress as to what they've been up to?

[Martinned]

Why would the President being required to answer questions from Congress detract from his status as a co-equal branch of government? It's Congress's job to make the laws and it's the President's job to see that the laws be faithfully executed. The more Congress knows about how he does that, the better they can adapt their lawmaking based on actual experience. (And ditto for appropriations, of course.)

The courts are not answerable to anyone for individual judgments. That is true in both the UK and the US. But I certainly think that the Chief Justice should be required to come to Congress if Congress has questions about the overall state of the judiciary, etc. Again, I don't see how that would be inconsistent with the equality of the branches.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're advocating a one way street.
Should Congress be called to answer questions by the president or the Chief Justice?

[Martinned]

If either of them has a case before the (Supreme) Court, you'd bet your damn mickey that they have to answer questions. And likewise, both members of Congress and judges can be investigated by the DOJ, IRS, etc.

[Bob from Ohio]

"democracy and honest politicians "

We've never had honest politicians as a group. No one has, including the UK.

Democracy refers to voters voting, not the quality [or lack of] of office holders.

[Nige]

This is the sort of thing you have to say when you voted for Donald Trump.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Giving up on politicians telling the truth is equivalent to giving up on democracy.

Equating something that has pretty much never existed with something that has and still does exist is pretty idiotic, even for you.

[John F. Carr]

It was enough to read about the case in a few news outlets. The UK has decided to expect some politicians to be honest. It's one of those odd customs like putting an extra 'u' in words.

I wish we could punish our COVID hypocrites too.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree completely = I wish we could punish our COVID hypocrites too.

[Martinned]

The UK has always expected politicians to be honest. That's why you're not allowed to accuse a fellow MP of lying in a speech on the floor of the House. It's such a serious accusation that it may only be brought in the form of a motion, as was done here.

Or, as Erskine May puts it:

The Speaker deprecates personal remarks about other Members. Any abusive or insulting language used in debate will be required to be withdrawn immediately. Accusations of deliberate falsehood, if seriously alleged, would be a matter of privilege and could be made only on a substantive motion secured by writing privately to the Speaker to obtain permission to raise a matter of privilege. Any such accusation made in the course of other proceedings would be disorderly and must be withdrawn.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmproced/writev/language/p19.htm

[Bob from Ohio]

"you’re not allowed to accuse a fellow MP of lying in a speech on the floor of the House"

You can't accuse a fellow congressman of lying on the floor of the US house either.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The UK has always expected politicians to be honest. That’s why you’re not allowed to accuse a fellow MP of lying in a speech on the floor of the House.

That a political body doesn't allow members to accuse one another of something is a pretty stupid reason to believe that some/many/most/all of those members aren't guilty of it, especially given millenia of real world experience to the contrary.

[Life of Brian]

Not quite having the patience to labor through the whole 108 pages of prolix meanderings, is he accused of anything not grounded in standing in the wrong place and breathing in the wrong direction?

[Davedave]

Yes, and then some. He lied to Parliament, while PM. He broke the law on multiple occasions, in various different ways, and then flat-out lied to cover it up.

[Life of Brian]

All about 2020-era cootie rules, though, yes? That was the "grounded in" part.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like a certain Democrat Congressman who claimed to have proof of Trump's collusion with Russia.

[Bob from Ohio]

"broke the law on multiple occasions"

Equivalent of speeding tickets. UK political culture is so weird in many ways.

[Martinned]

It's not the crime. It's the cover up.

[Martinned]

But much worse than Boris Johnson being his usual mendacious self is that the government is in the process of using its statutory powers to enact a rule that was expressly rejected as an amendment just a few months ago. And for some reason, the Labour Party in the Lords refused to vote against this measure (which would have defeated it).

https://davidallengreen.com/2023/06/telling-the-story-of-how-the-serious-disruption-public-order-statutory-instrument-was-passed/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Love him or hate him, Mark Levin was Chief of Staff to Ed Meese in the Reagan Admin and that *is* an impressive credential in speaking about the DoJ.

Levin argues that there is no basis for the Trump indictment, that -- if anything, it should be a civil suit by the National Archives against him., and cites audio cassette tapes (remember those?) that Bill Clinton had in his sock drawer.

Anyone care to explain how/why Levin is wrong?

The flip side to to this, apparently, is the 1917 National Espionage Act which, apparently, makes it a Federal Felony to even reveal even public source information if the government doesn't want you to. That strikes me as somewhat violative of the First & Fifth Amendments, but then I look at the time (1917) and understand the context.

But is this law Constitutional -- forgetting the politics of the current court, would the Constitutional Law as it exists today (or circa 2015) uphold this 1917 law? Particularly with regard to public source information.

And then there is the fact that the US lacks an Official Secrets Act like Britain has -- and prosecutions for the unauthorized release of classified information is based on what the releaser signed in order to get access, i.e. to get the security clearance. Except the President doesn't have to apply for a security clearance, he IS the security clearance.

He IS the Executive Branch, much like SCOTUS IS the Judicial Branch and there is a separation of powers issue with Congress telling the President (ONLY the President) what he can and can't do with classified information. That the President can be impeached or 25th Ammendmented for revealing classified info, but not criminally prosecuted.

[Michael P]

The projection isn't over "classified information" or an NDA, but over "national defense information", which the president doesn't get to define.

However, that only underscores the double standards applied to Trump. Examples abound of others keeping "national defense information", sharing it with others, destroying it, and so forth, without the demands or prosecutions applied to Trump. Others get to plead down to misdemeanors. Not Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

MP...We don't know what the documents actually are. The legal discovery process has to play out. If we are talking about a letter from Little Rocket Man to DJT that he retained as a trophy, big deal. Every POTUS has some discretion over what are personal records and what are government records. This prosecution seems...targeted.

I don't think the Espionage act was ever intended to address this situation (records dispute).

Let's see what happens.

[Brett Bellmore]

I remind you that a judge had ordered a Special Master with appropriate clearances to review the documents, to confirm the DOJ's description of them. The DOJ wouldn't have that, and successfully appealed the order.

I consider this cousin to spoliation: Having prevented an independent review of the documents, nothing the DOJ says about them should be assumed to be true.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nothing the current DOJ says about anything should be assumed to be true.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You never bothered to read the smackdown of Judge Cannon’s ridiculous rulings, did you?

I ask this only because you’re a fool deliberately obfuscating the truth. Like always.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Memory is that the FBI grabbed three passports --- I presume all valid -- and why would Trump HAVE 3 valid passports?

Could it be some "I am the President" stuff that he wanted to keep to display that this is all about?

[Martinned]

Let me just check: Are you saying that as some kind of defence of Trump?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suspect he'd have 3 valid passports in his files at home for the same reason I do: I'm not the only one in my family with a passport.

[Sarcastr0]

Personal
Federal
Diplomatic

[not guilty]

Spoliation doesn´t mean what you seem to think it means, Brett.

And the government appeal of Judge Loose Cannon´s order was not about who had clearances. The nut graph of the Eleventh Circuit´s (second) opinion states:

The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations. Accordingly, we agree with the government that the district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction, and that dismissal of the entire proceeding is required.

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202213005.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

I said "cousin to spoliation" for a reason: Because I know what spoliation is, and that this isn't legally spoliation, but it's damned well morally the same.

If you go out of your way to prevent people from being able to tell if you are lying, any reason to assume you're telling the truth vanishes.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Of course, that wasn't why the DOJ appealed Cannon's lawless rulings, but nothing even remotely close to the truth is going to stop Brett Bellmore from spreading bullshit he knows to be lies.

Fuck off, Brett. Tell the truth or remove yourself from the conversation.

[David Nieporent]

I remind you that a judge had ordered a Special Master with appropriate clearances to review the documents, to confirm the DOJ’s description of them. The DOJ wouldn’t have that, and successfully appealed the order.

That's wrong, of course, but you do you. That's not what the judge's order was.

I consider this cousin to spoliation: Having prevented an independent review of the documents, nothing the DOJ says about them should be assumed to be true.

Who cares what you consider? This is nothing like spoliation, you don't know the facts, and you don't know the law.

[not guilty]

Here is a summary of the documents listed in the indictment. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-are-classified-documents-trump-indictment

[Sarcastr0]

Michael, Trump didn't just 'keep.' That seems to be the issue. There is no double standard.

[Don Nico]

Michael,
The category is National Security Information, which is classified by presidential directives. In contrast is Restricted Data which is defined and classified by Congressional Legislation

[Dr. Ed 2]

True, but above and beyond that, there is a Separation of Powers issue -- while Congress can impeach him, Congress doesn't have the power to tell the President what to do beyond telling him what he can or can't spend money on.

It's the argument that the War Powers Act is Un Constitutional, and I think it is -- Congress' remedy is to impeach him if he is fighting a war they don't like -- or to cut off funding, which it did in 1975 for Vietnam, which is why it fell.

Remember that the Boland Amendment (Iran Contra) was FUNDING and hence why Ollie North needed to make a profit on the weapons he sold to Iran, that profit was to fund the Contras.

[David Nieporent]

True, but above and beyond that, there is a Separation of Powers issue — while Congress can impeach him, Congress doesn’t have the power to tell the President what to do beyond telling him what he can or can’t spend money on.

I repeat what I said the other day: What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Don Nico]

Goodness know what Mr Ed is blabbing about.
The Atomic Energy Act as amended is law that defines Restricted Data, the violations of which are criminal. It is not withing the power of POTUS to wish it away.

[Voize]

Trump hasn't been charged with AEA violations, the 31 counts are all against §793(e) which concerns anyone

having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document [...] relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation

The classification of a document doesn't affect its status under this statute, so his power over Executive Order 13526 isn't relevant, presumably that is why Smith chose 793{e}.
I wonder though whether there is a Hail Mary hiding in the "unauthorized". He might argue that as President he had the power to authorize anyone to possess national security information, and that authorization would survive the end of his term unless explicitly retracted. And so instead of claiming he declassified the documents, which is not relevant, he should be claiming that he authorized himself to have them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Has SCOTUS ever ruled that the Atomic Energy Act did NOT violate the President's Article 2 powers?

[Voize]

Others get to plead down to misdemeanors. Not Trump.

I'm not sure who you are thinking of who pleaded to misdemeanors in a similar case. David Petraeus pleaded to a sentence of probation, not to a lesser offense.
But I'm more interested in why you believe Trump isn't being allowed to plead. I think it is much more realistic to assume that he is the holdout, not Smith and not his own attorneys who have probably been urging him to take a deal for some time now. It hasn't happened because Trump is incapable of admitting fault.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or wants to make a point. See "Letters from Birmingham Jail" where MLK2 justifies being defiant.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha, what the fuck?

[OtisAH]

“Truths from a Gold-Plated Toilet” isn’t as punchy a title but will probably sell better.

[Zarniwoop]

You win the internet today.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Petraeus took a misdemeanor charge: mishandling classified material. I don't know of anybody who believes that Petraeus's behavior would not have justified a felony conviction if proved. Jesus, he illegally, and deliberately, had classified information in his possession, he lied to the FBI about it, he hid documents in his attic under the insulation, and he shared information with his concubine who was not authorized to have access. Petraeus got a great deal.

I used to have a lot of respect for Petraeus but his behavior displayed an essential lack of honor, integrity, and sense of duty. Hubris, I suppose.

[Voize]

Stella, you are right. It was a misdemeanor when Petraeus pleaded to it in 2015, three years later it was upgraded and the maximum sentence now is 5 years instead of 1. Maybe because of him?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And to those that say this is unprecedented—Bill Clinton was indicted over a bogus charge by a grand jury while president by a most likely unconstitutional prosecutor (federal prosecutors must report to AG pursuant Constitution AND I’ve never seen a DA get involved in civil litigation) and he fully expected to be charged as a private citizen and took negotiations with Ray very seriously. Clinton agreed to a plea deal because he believed he would be subject to a criminal prosecution as a private citizen in 2001 and that was for a crime nobody else would ever be charged for unlike Trump who is being charged for a crime a hero like Petreaus was prosecuted successfully.

[not guilty]

No, Bill Clinton was never indicted by a grand jury. While he was president, Justice Department policy prohibited charging him. He could have been charged after leaving office, but in the waning days of his presidency he reached a non-prosecution agreement with the Independent Counsel.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You are correct, he was forced to testify in front grand jury and Ray planned to indict him once he left office. Either way it shows that what is happening to Trump is not unprecedented. Why force someone to testify in front of a grand jury if indictment is not possible??

[not guilty]

President Clinton voluntarily agreed to testify before the grand jury pursuant to an agreement between his lawyers and the Independent Counsel; he was not forced.

Kenneth Starr and his underlings (such as Brett Kavanaugh) were carrying water for Clinton´s political opponents. Clinton would likely not have been impeached if he had simply told the truth.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

If a prosecutor calls you before a grand jury I would characterize that as being forced before a grand jury because it is a very serious matter with an individual that has the power to criminally prosecute you. Clinton cooperated with Ray because he took it seriously. Trump has not cooperated because he clearly believes he is above the law.

Apparently you believe the DA should go after Trump for his E Jean Carroll testimony in which a jury found he lied?? I’ve been involved in civil cases and every time we believe the other side is lying in depositions and not once did we consider calling the sheriff.

[SRG]

Thanks – that explains something that had baffled me. A couple of of the Trumpsuckers on the main Reason page had kept referring to the case Justice Watch vs NARA, and one was insisting that Trump’s offence was a civil matter under the PRA. As it was obvious that neither of them really understood what the fuck they were talking about, and didn’t know how to read the decision in the JW case (e.g., confusing an obiter dictum with the decision itself) I was pretty sure that they had acquired their argument from an external source, and it’s clear that Mark Levin is that source. My guess is that in fora around the internet the same argument is being pushed by Trumpsuckers who had either read Levin or had read posts by people who'd read Levin.

FWIW this is a classic right-wing-bubble thing – going from knowing nothing about a subject, perhaps not even that it exists, to 100% confidence in an argument that they just read, promoted by a highly partisan advocate, and, lacking the knowledge underlying the subject, not knowing – and indeed, not caring – what the reality is, though it doesn’t make them any less certain. It’s almost Dunning-Kruger by proxy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Levin is an attorney who served at a very high level of the DoJ. I am neither. Why is he wrong?

And it isn’t just postings — he was discussing this on his radio show last night when lightning took out the station — grrr….

[Sarcastr0]

Levin is an attorney who served at a very high level of the DoJ. I am neither. Why is he wrong?

Because he long ago threw away actual legal analysis and integrity to be an angry bomb-throwing right-wing tool.

Pays well I'm sure, but leaning on his expertise is hilariously off-base.

[SRG]

Why is he wrong?

From the decision:

NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.

https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin

Levin, trained as a lawyer, is not in the business of presenting an unbiased opinion, he's in the business of arguing a case for his client or his favoured position. Why would you expect otherwise?

[not guilty]

The Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. decision, 845 F.Supp.2d 288 (D.D.C. 2012), is a matter wherein the district court determined that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing. Id., at 305. The court accordingly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

How can that case be precedent for anything other than to show that a similarly situated civil plaintiff lacks standing?

[Super Scary]

Aww, you had to seek shelter over at Volokh. Such a shame, "mate."

[SRG]

First, fuckwit, I actually started commenting at Volokh well before I commented at the main Reason site, and second, I am not sheltering here as I am still posting there.

[John F. Carr]

The law Trump is accused of violating relates to

any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation

According to the sentencing guidelines, which are not authoritative on the elements of crimes but are likely to state the law correctly, the "document, writing ... or note" list does not require the possessor to be aware of the security risk. Only the catch-all "information" requires such proof. National defense documents should be labeled as such.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“… which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation ”

The President gets to define that, and even then, I suspect that a court would (hopefully) require that the information rationally could be considered as such. A love letter from Little Rocketman is something historic that ought to be in the National Archives, but as to this criteria, no…..

On the other hand, the President could print our most sensitive nuke secrets on highway billboards if he wished. Maybe the billboard companies might not agree — and Congress could impeach (and hopefully would) but he IS the President and has Article 2 powers.

JFK released the U2 photos, which WERE sensitive and which COULD (and likely did) help the Soviets in terms of understanding the capabilities of our cameras. His call.

That’s why who the President is really matters. And why Biden is really dangerous, he COULD legally do this…

[Sarcastr0]

the President could print our most sensitive nuke secrets on highway billboards if he wished
"By statute, documents are classified under the Atomic Energy Act if the Department of Energy and Department of Defense agree that the document (or category) falls within the categories laid out in the Atomic Energy Act. If DOE and DOD disagree, the President can break the tie (in either direction). This means the President could in principle force documents to be declassified by directing the relevant Secretaries to declassify the documents (and firing them if they don’t comply). But critically: the process must occur for the document to be declassified. It is not “at will” declassification by the President."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-are-classified-documents-trump-indictment

You should read things and not make up things based on Mark Levin's rants.

[Noscitur a sociis]

On the other hand, the President could print our most sensitive nuke secrets on highway billboards if he wished. Maybe the billboard companies might not agree — and Congress could impeach (and hopefully would) but he IS the President and has Article 2 powers.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but (and I really cannot emphasize this enough) Trump is not the president.

[David Nieporent]

The President gets to define that,

He does not. Also, Trump isn't the president.

[Life of Brian]

The law Trump is accused of violating relates to

any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation

That statute sounds hauntingly familiar. I guess Trump's mistake was keeping the documents in boxes rather than publishing them in a newspaper.

[jb]

That decision allowed the Times to publish the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg was still charged under the Espionage Act for giving the documents to them, as have other whistleblowers.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, they made such an example out of Ellsberg by huffing, puffing, and then ultimately dropping the charges that he did the next leak in plain sight, thumbing his nose at them.

[jb]

They didn't drop the charges. The judge dismissed the case due to egregious prosecutorial misconduct. (After ruling that Ellsberg couldn't even raise a defense that the documents had been illegally classified or that he was acting in the public interest.)

[Life of Brian]

The legal equivalent of bickering over whether you resigned or were fired. The charges were dropped, and Ellsberg was thus emboldened. Since you’re just picking at terminology, I take it you generally agree.

[jb]

Unsurprising that you got confused about the holding in the Times case, since you apparently also can't tell the difference between the government withdrawing charges and pursuing them so aggressively and unethically that the judge had to toss the case out.

[jb]

Also worth noting that Trump's DOJ prosecuted a number of people under the Espionage Act for leaking information to journalists. So neither in the 70s nor today has it been allowable to do so.

[David Nieporent]

Reality Winner, for instance.

[Don Nico]

The TS documents listed have plenty of labels such that anyone seeing them should have no doubt. They are all National Security Information. Only the FRD document is in a different category.

[Moderation4ever]

The case is not civil because the property of the American people was taken, so this is theft. The former President could have returned the documents and then filed a civil lawsuit to challenge the Presidential Records Act of 1978, but he had no right to keep them. If a person steals your car, you do not have to file a civil suit to get the car back.

[John F. Carr]

"If a person steals your car, you do not have to file a civil suit to get the car back."

Cars are a special case in law. Let's say your friend has your chainsaw and doesn't return it. Most police won't get involved. If he is merely forgetful he may not be criminally liable. If there is a legitimate dispute over ownership he may not be criminally liable. You can file suit to get it back. The court will decide who gets to keep it.

[Moderation4ever]

I take the point of your examples, but suggest they do not fit this case. The PRA of 1978 is clear about ownership of the Presidential records. In the same way that a car ownership is clear because you are the owner of record and should have a title. Smaller items with no clear title would fit you case.

I also noted that any former President could civilly sue to challenge the PRA, but NARA as the representative of the owners, the American people, can use criminal court remedies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No. It isn’t necessarily the property of the American People.

It gets really complicated, really quickly, but who own’s Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize? Are you claiming that Obama doesn’t?

And in some cases, you DO have to file a civil suit to get your car back — to prove it actually is yours. If you don’t have the title to it, get ready…

[Moderation4ever]

The NARA is the agency to make the call on ownership, any President can challenge that in court. President's can not make the call.

[David Nieporent]

It gets really complicated, really quickly, but who own’s Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize? Are you claiming that Obama doesn’t?

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Is Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize a documentary material created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President? Is Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize an agency record?

[Bob from Ohio]

"so this is theft"

Of copies. Not a single "secret" document is not still in US government possession.

[Nige]

Always fine to have copies of secet dosuments flying around.

[John F. Carr]

Trump is being charged for having contraband after he left office. Up until noon on January 20 he could disclose whatever he wanted to disclose. Whether or not the initial possession was legal, it is a crime if a person with national defense information

willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it [on demand] to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it

The text in brackets applies if the possession was authorized. You can keep it until somebody asks for it back. If possession was unauthorized then you have to give it back without being asked.

In my opinion Trump should have been charged under 18 USC 793(d) for refusing to return on demand documents that he initially had authorized access to. The prosecutor has chosen instead 18 USC 793(e) and will need to prove unauthorized access. I see a risk that Trump will get off on the document charges as a result.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that once the President (at the time) says that it is not national defense information, it isn't -- ever. Like Reagan giving the public GPS after the Korean airliner was shot down -- Clinton couldn't then declare it now national defense and confiscate it, could he?

[shawn_dude]

It’s a bit more involved than the president just “saying” that it’s declassified. There’s a process. Trump cannot go into the bathroom, look in the mirror, and say the nuclear vulnerability secrets he had in his possession were declassified and then walk out thinking that meant anything. Declassified documents are, among other things, marked as declassified. As far as I can tell, none of the classified material in his private bathroom and on the ballroom stage in Mar-a-Lago was so marked. And, as we’ve started to see, there’s recordings and notes that show Trump knew the stuff he had was still classified. So his “I magically declassified it by using my psychic declassification powers” defense is DOA.

[jb]

I guess it's convenient for the prosecutor in this case that he has a recording of Trump admitting that he didn't declassify at least one of the documents while he was still President, then.

[not guilty]

The operative language of 18 U.S.C. § 793(d), ¨Whoever, lawfully having possession of¨ documents, does not refer to having initially obtained possession of the documents. The line of demarcation between lawful possession under § 793(d) and unauthorized possession under § 793(e) is January 20, 2021.

Trump is being charged for conduct occurring after he left office.

[Krychek_2]

I think the GOP camp can be divided into two groups: The batshit crazy Trumpists, and the normal, mainstream Republicans. I may disagree with the latter group on policy but at least they're not crazy.

Assuming Trump is the 2024 nominee, and since his only real campaign plank is to seek retribution against his enemies, I wonder if there are some red states with enough not-crazy Republicans, who are just as ready to ring down the curtain on the Trump farce as the rest of us, that maybe a few red states might vote blue this time. Biden only lost Florida and North Carolina by a few points, and Ohio and possibly Texas might be in reach too.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Maybe read some non-left wing news sources?

[Sarcastr0]

He posts here.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Pretty sure a comments section isn't news.

Real Clear Politics offers a balanced viewpoint. Much better than the NY Times, Washington post, or MSNBC which will avoid many stories.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe you don't read the posts before posting in the comments sections, but quite an assumption that Krychek_2 doesn't.

Real Clear Politics offers a balanced viewpoint
You are an extremist. You have no idea what balance is. Hint: saying you are balanced doesn't mean you are.

[Life of Brian]

You are an extremist. You have no idea what balance is.

And there's the reflexive ad hominem response rather than taking on the actual subject of bias by RCP, which as you well know routinely links to articles on both sides of big issues.

Sad.

[Mr. Bumble]

What would you expect from an ass wipe?

[Randal]

Everybody, including Wikipedia, knows that RCP is right-wing, ever since “a large number of its straight news journalists were laid off.”

I think it’s fine for Sarcastr0 to assume the common knowledge, and then point out that the reason Armchair Lawyer might perceive RCP to offer a “balanced viewpoint” is that he himself, and you too I guess, are more extreme than you guys think you are.

[Life of Brian]

Everybody, including Wikipedia

Thanks for the belly laugh that Wikipedia is some sort of gold standard of truth.

knows that RCP is right-wing, ever since “a large number of its straight news journalists were laid off.”

Another person who's never actually consumed RCP. They mainly aggregate articles from other sources.

[Nelson]

"Real Clear Politics offers a balanced viewpoint."

RCP is firmly conservative. They only periodically dip their toe into fringe places like The Gateway Pundit, but they are definitely a conservative site.

Their self-generated content and polling consistently leans right. That's not a bad thing, but it isn't balanced.

[Michael P]

Similar, Democrats can be divided into two groups: the batshit crazy Marxists and the moronic suckers who follow the crazies. You seem to be throwing in hard with the former.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out the N-words who don't get the Irony of voting for the party of George Wallace, Richard Russell, Robert KKK Bird, that supports the aborting of 60-70 million of their own, destroyed what was left of intact Black families with welfare, but "I's getz mize Obama-fone! an my Obama-care! (OK, sounds better than "Medic-aid) and supports disarming the very peoples who need guns the most.
Of course "45" got more of the Afro-Amurican vote than any Repubiclown since Richard Milhouse in 1960, so maybe they're learning.

Frank

[SRG]

Frank, as one of our resident racist scumbags, do you tend to vote Democratic or Republican? If you vote Republican, that would suggest that they appeal more to “decent law-abiding white folk just like you” than the Democrats you excoriate.

[Frank Drackman]

First of all, it's "Dr" Race-ist Scumbag, just like "Dr" Jill Biden except I'm an actual Dr.
I've voted for DemoKKKrats, including the "Reverend" Al Sharpton in the 2004 DemoKKKrat Primary (initially as a Goof, then realized that as bad as he is, he wasn't as bad as the alternatives) Zell Miller, I even voted for George Wallace in 1982. Voted Perot in 92, effectively voted for Clinton in 96 by not voting, and except for "45" only vote for Repubiclowns because the alternatives are Babbling Aunt Jemimah look alike Stacy Abraham, or Black Supremercist Muslim Clerics, like Rafael Warlock.
That being said, if "45" doesn't get the nomination, I could see voting for RFK Jr or Marianne Williamson.

Frank

[ThePublius]

Your premises and assumptions make it impossible to have a rational discussion with you. Trump supporters are not "bat shit crazy," and Trump has many campaign planks that many conservatives support.

[Martinned]

Aren't they? https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/06/11/trump-indictment-supporters-reaction-rosales-pkg-nr-wknd-vpx.cnn

[Martinned]

But yes, there's lots of stuff here that conservatives support. The problem isn't that conservatives don't support it, the problem is that Trump doesn't. (Or at least not enough to be trusted to deliver any of the things listed there.)

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with that analysis is that he in practice turned out to be more trustworthy than your average Republican President. Low bar, I concede, but he cleared it.

I stand by my original evaluation of Trump: He mostly lacks conservative instincts or ideology, and is a self-interested pragmatist, but Democrats having aggressively burned their bridges with him, he saw that the only chance he had of building a positive reputation, (Which he desperately craves.) was to make conservatives happy.

And lacking any ideological commitments that would get in the way of that, he became more reliably conservative than your average establishment Republican, who actually WOULD have ideological commitments that run contrary to conservatism.

A good example of this was one of his major deviations from conservatism, the bump stock ban. He only did that after the NRA told him they were OK with it! A genuine conservative wouldn't have done it anyway, but an establishment Republican wouldn't have needed the NRA to sign off on it. IF the NRA hadn't been in a mood to throw more of their members under the bus, he'd have refrained, where a Bush, for instance, would have happily done it even if it offended the NRA.

[Martinned]

And lacking any ideological commitments that would get in the way of that, he became more reliably conservative than your average establishment Republican, who actually WOULD have ideological commitments that run contrary to conservatism.

You spelled "corrupt" wrong. (Unless of course you think corrupt and "reliably conservative" are the same thing.)

[SRG]

You're assuming principled behaviour from the NRA? Cute.

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh? Why the hell would I do that? I'm a life member, I know better than that.

You think I thought throwing bump stock owners under the bus was principled?

[Davedave]

No, throwing them in jail would have been 'principled'. But the NRA is a corrupt organisation, so principles are not in their remit.

[Nige]

Lifelong Member Of Corrupt Organisations Has Opinions

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

As a very rare NeverBush Republican and a Trump-curious individual I was never anti-Trump but lost interest in his presidency when he appointed the Bush Republican Tillerson to SoS. So the onus was on Trump to make nice with Democrats and the first several things he did were designed to annoy them including the blatantly unconstitutional Muslim Travel Ban that actually had the word “Christian” in it and appointing Flynn who is a nut and Tillerson who is dumb as a rock and not holding up judicial appointments to piss off McConnell and gain leverage over him. Then firing Comey only to appoint Wray is just the dumbest “own goal” in history.

[David Nieporent]

Trump supporters are not “bat shit crazy,”

Many are. Some are sane but evil.

[Krychek_2]

To those who responded to me, thank you for making my point.

[Commenter_XY]

Isn't the plank determined by Team R (and Team D) in their conventions next year? Seems premature to critique a plank that doesn't exist yet.

The 'burn it all down' mentality I am seeing more and more across the political divide is worrisome.

[Mr. Bumble]

Parties haven't had "planks" in ages and conventions are just coronation parties.

[Ed Grinberg]

The ‘burn it all down’ mentality I am seeing more and more across the political divide is worrisome.

You mean like initiating a BS prosecution of your main opponent in the upcoming presidential election?

[Don Nico]

C'mon Ed.
DJT was begging to be indicted. He is proud of being a scofflaw.

[Nelson]

"The ‘burn it all down’ mentality I am seeing more and more across the political divide is worrisome."

I agree, XY. The assumption that if something bad happens to a black person at the hands of a white person means they're racist is horrifying. The "groomer/pedophile" and rage at trans people is horrifying. The lack of any sense of decency or reasonableness from the fringes in their attacks on "fascists" or "socialists" is a frightening development.

Ultimately I believe that the vast majority of Americans are reasonable and rational and will see through the bullshit. The bomb-throwers drive media stories because they are loud and angry, but the borimg, reasonable people tip the scales. No matter how many Trumps or DeSantis' there are, I can't believe that is what the majority of conservatives embody.

[Darth Buckeye]

But who is more dangerous? A bat-shit crazy president who will spend an entire 4 year term in a life or death struggle with the bureaucracy in his own administration, or a senile president who will do everything the bureaucracy wants…and it mainly wants to preserve and expand its own power.

[Martinned]

Which one do you think Trump is?

[Life of Brian]

I'd love to hear you take a shot at explaining how Trump could possibly be fairly characterized as "a senile president who will do everything the bureaucracy wants."

[Martinned]

How do you think Trump ended up with so many Trump-appointed judges ruling against him? Because he signed whatever nomination decisions the Federalist Society put in front of him. As a result, most of those judges (Judge Cannon very much excepted) are very conservative but not hacks.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so you get there by stealthily redefining "the bureaucracy in his own administration" as consisting solely of a private organization. Right.

I guess that's mildly more face-saving than admitting you just threw out a snarky one-liner without really thinking it through?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The problem with a Trump presidency started with appointing Christie as transition director while Kushner was his top advisor…that’s not “Team of Rivals” that two people who hate each other’s guts!! So staffing up was always going to be an issue and Tucker Carlson highlights how he angered everyone in the pool of potential appointees by attacking Bush/Cheney and calling them liars that made a huge mistake invading Iraq.

[Martinned]

You're right. He should have just put his incompetent son-in-law in charge of everything from the start!

[Moderation4ever]

What you are describing has happened as Trump did under perform with Republicans in the 2020 election. The Republican party did well in the 2020 election. The fact is a significant number of people voted a strait Republican ticket with one exception, for the Presidency. A number of Republicans have commented on this including Brad Raffensberger and Senator Ron Johnson.

So, the question is not will candidate Donald Trump under perform with Republicans in 2024 but will he under perform more than in 2020.

[Bob from Ohio]

"batshit crazy "

How many are so crazy they believe a man can become a woman merely by thinking? Your side has millions of such crazies.

[Krychek_2]

Thanks for demonstrating that you don't understand the basic concept. Trans theory is that they are already women.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, there's a lot of fuss about AI and ChatGPT and so on. But, to those who are worried..

There's an amusing video of ChatGPT playing Google Bard at Chess. And the results are...amazing. Pawns move backwards, pieces take pieces of their own colors, other pieces magically transport. The game starts out normal, but then devolves quickly, where ultimately despite commanding advantage on the board Google Bard claims a draw through 3-fold repetition of moves (which did not occur).

I'm not worried. The AI revolution is not here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FojyYKU58cw

[VinniUSMC]

Had my first interaction with ChatGPT a few weeks, checking out how it works as an editor. It seemed to work okay for the first prompt or two, but soon it devolved and ended up entirely rewriting passages and completely changing the meaning.

It's got a long way to go before it can even be truly classed as AI.

[Mr. Bumble]

So far it's properly classed, artificial being the operative word.

[Brett Bellmore]

The systems we're talking about here aren't really artificial intelligence. They're unintelligent mimicry of intelligence. They are designed to look as much like the product of intelligence as possible, in some highly sophisticated statistical sense, but are generated by systems that have no actual element of intelligence.

The large language models don't actually understand anything, don't have concepts, they just do an incredibly good job of producing output that statistically resembles what a human might respond with if given the same prompt.

That's enough to get you output that might as well be intelligent, in most cases. But the difference is glaring at times.

[VinniUSMC]

Yes, exactly. They're not AI. They're glorified autocorrect.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

but soon it devolved and ended up entirely rewriting passages and completely changing the meaning.

It shifted into Sarcastr0 mode.

[VinniUSMC]

Thanks for the laugh!

[Martinned]

On Monday so many people on Twitter were taking screenshots of the CAT proceedings in Microsoft v. CMA that the chairman of the tribunal ordered the live stream to stop. (It did resume again later in the afternoon.)

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2023-06/2023.06.12_1590_Microsoft_Ruling_Streaming_of_the_Proceedings_0.pdf

[Martinned]

In the US the District Court issued a TRO on Tuesday. That litigation is continuing apace: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-microsoft-acquisition-activision-2023-06-14/

[Armchair Lawyer]

We still don't have an answer for why the Department of Justice ordered the entire investigative team off the Hunter Biden tax investigation. Nor any details for what's going on there.

We seriously need a solid, real, special counsel (chosen by the GOP, not a patsy chosen by Biden) to look into this, and the interference in the investigation by the DoJ.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/biden-family-business-needs-its-own-special-counsel

[Martinned]

I'm sure Donald Trump will get right on that when he's re-elected next year. After all, if there's one thing we know about Trump it's that he always keeps his promises, particularly in search for truth and justice.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"He said that, despite the chants of 'Lock her up!' from some of his supporters, he had felt after the 2016 election that the e-mail matter should be dropped," Barr writes in his new book, "One Damn Thing After Another." "Even if she were guilty, he said, for the election winner to seek prosecution of the loser would make the country look like a 'banana republic.'"

https://fortune.com/2016/10/10/donald-trump-special-prosecutor-hillary-clinton/

Looks like Biden said "Hold my beer, Banana Republic here we come".

[Martinned]

I call BS on that one. If there's anyone in the universe who thinks that Trump worries about making the US look like a banana republic, there's a nice bridge they might like to buy.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, you’re calling BS on a direct quote with links and everything?

Don’t know what to tell you. If you don’t believe reality, then this discussion doesn’t really work.

To be clear, it's a direct quote from Trump. The Biden part is a bit of a joke,

[Martinned]

I'm sure it's in Barr's book. I'm calling BS on Trump saying it.

[Mr. Bumble]

So Barr's a liar?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Why? Did Trump actually prosecute Clinton after the election? (no...)

I mean, what's your judgement for calling "BS" other than you don't want to believe it? If you pick and choose what's BS based on what you want to believe...there's not much that can be done.

[Martinned]

Why? Did Trump actually prosecute Clinton after the election? (no…)

As others have pointed out, prosecuting someone requires more than just the president pointing at someone and shouting "Off with 'er 'ead!" Like, say, evidence. And a prosecutor willing to play along.

I mean, what’s your judgement for calling “BS” other than you don’t want to believe it?

Literally everything that Donald Trump has said and done in the last 10 years.

[Krychek_2]

I call BS for a different reason. The president is not involved in criminal prosecutions. The decision to prosecute Trump was made by a career prosecutor, and it would be improper for Biden to intervene.

[Frank Drackman]

A Fairy believing in his own Fairy Tale.

[Krychek_2]

Frank, you're projecting. You know that if the shoe were on the other foot, Trump would do everything he could to interfere in the investigation and prosecution, so you're assuming Biden would do the same. Well, Trump notwithstanding, some people actually do play by the rules.

[Mr. Bumble]

Biden rules? No joke.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Krychek,

I mean...are you going to find a smoking gun where Biden ordered every detail of the investigation and prosecution? No. But to pretend that the DoJ didn't have the tacit approval of the White House with the investigation and prosecution is foolhardy.

This isn't a 2-bit bank robber. where the White House isn't involved. This is a case with major political implications. To pretend the White House wasn't apprised of the situation, of the choices that were to be made...is foolhardy.

To pretend the White House didn't put the people in place who are making these decisions, with full understanding of their predispositions...again, foolhardy.

The DoJ and FBI have the tacit approval of the White House for these choices. You simply don't order the raid of a former US president if you don't have that.

[Sarcastr0]

'Tacit approval' is really weak tea.

[Krychek_2]

Armchair Lawyer, set aside for a minute what you think happened. What is *supposed* to happen, since we're not a banana republic yet, is that there is a Chinese wall between the president and DOJ prosecutions, for the very reason that prosecutions should not be political. A decision to prosecute, or not prosecute, and the nuts and bolts of how the investigation is to proceed, is something no president should be part of precisely so that such decisions are made on merit and not on politics. The president's sole role in criminal prosecutions is the pardon power.

Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone always follows the rules, but those are the rules. And unless and until there's actual evidence that Biden acted as puppet master, snide insinuations don't cut it. (It's amazing to me how some on the right -- and this is not directed personally at you, it's just a general comment -- are able to simultaneously believe both that Biden is a senile dolt and also a criminal mastermind.

If Biden has involved himself in the Trump prosecution, it's wrong and he shouldn't have done that, but so far I've seen no actual evidence that he did.

[Bob from Ohio]

"simultaneously believe both that Biden is a senile dolt and also a criminal mastermind"

LOL You are describing The Resistance!!! re: Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob tries to deflect. It's not very effective.

[Krychek_2]

Not only that, I've not heard anyone on the left claim that Trump is senile. Evil, yes.

[Ed Grinberg]

I mean…are you going to find a smoking gun where Biden ordered every detail of the investigation and prosecution? No.

Of course not. Just like they never found smoking-gun evidence of Obama directly ordering every detail of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That had to do with digital fundraising happening pretty much overnight and the IRS being overwhelmed. I volunteered in the 2004 Kerry campaign and the 2008 campaign was light years different because of the internet and Blackberries and Facebook and texting.

[Randal]

The DOJ has "tacit approval" from Biden to go after criminals?!? Whoa, what a brilliant insight you've discovered!

Could Biden have shut down the investigation? Yes, but it would be messy, as Krychek pointed out.

Keep in mind, if your tiny mind can cope, that it's not like it's out of Biden's hands now. Biden's other superpower is pardoning. Why would he shut down the investigation early and messily, when he can let it play out and then, for example, save the day at the last minute by commuting Trump's sentence?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Note that, as Barr describes it, this conversation took place after the 2018 midterms (while Trump and was associates were trying to get Barr to agree to serve as attorney general). It seems just barely conceivable that, even if the discussion took place exactly as related, he may not have been completely honest about his thinking.

[Randal]

Yes, this is obviously the right reason that it's BS. As... someone... said above, Trump has all kinds of excuses for why his promises fail to materialize, and it's never the truth, i.e. "Well, I was just lying directly from my asshole, basically farting sweet lies right into your ear canal." It's usually some combination of "deep state" and "fake news." This one is the very rare (but still not true) "I thought better of it." Rare, but not unprecedented.

[Armchair Lawyer]

More importantly, we need a thorough investigation, no matter who wins. We need it now.

Bribery like this is a major problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

Good luck. The witness, the chief accountant at Burisma, just turned up dead.

[Sarcastr0]

BIDEN DEATH LIST.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The bumbling, senile, evil genius mastermind.

[David Nieporent]

Surely it was Killary's doing.

[Nige]

Probably too late to request a link to a reliable source on this. Because the lie is already halfway round the world etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't expect to get an answer, either. So long as the MSM has their back, they just don't care if it looks bad to people who find out anyway; There aren't enough of us to matter.

[Sarcastr0]

The lack of proof is more proof of the coverup. You pull this all the time. It's not healthy.

[Brett Bellmore]

A lack of proof, and a lack of coverage of that proof, are not remotely the same thing. There's plenty of proof of the fact that the entire investigative team was pulled off, they're not even denying it.

But they don't have to care if the MSM don't feel like making a fuss about it, because too few people will know for it to matter politically.

[Sarcastr0]

The pulling off seems well covered.

The why is something you/AL/your right-wing rags of choice are making up, which is it is not well covered.

[Nige]

Coverage of the sort of proof you claim is real tends to be sparse because there's no proof to cover.

[Sarcastr0]

AL is frustrated because this isn’t catching fire despite suggestive right-wing reporting.

He’s pretty sure that means a coverup.

There are other explanations, eh? I got caught some weeks ago saying this looked bad right before the DoJ released a statement explaining their side. Shoulda been more savvy knowing the source.

If it looks too good to be true; cool your jets and wait for the other shoe to drop.
But many on the right around here post ridiculous stuff and don't much care when it becomes a non-story; when debunked they file it as more proof of Dem evil and forget the details.

[Armchair Lawyer]

What was that statement? I note you don't actually say what it was, or link to it....

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry, that was your Jan06 whistleblower nonsense, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/gop-witnesses-undermined-jan-6-cases-conspiracy-theories-fbi-says-rcna85095

Not this one.
And not Biden bribery whistleblower that went up in smoke yesterday.

The GOP needs to do a better job vetting, and I need to do a better job of not trusting the one-sided stories you folks post.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Went up in smoke" is a nasty way of describing a witness in a bribery scandal turning up dead.

[Sarcastr0]

Timelines matter, Brett. This was falling apart well before that:
https://www.rawstory.com/sen-ron-johnson/

Nevertheless, I'm sure this will fuel your next political thriller you post as truth.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Are you referring to the Giuliani interview from Saturday?

This accountant: who was it and when was the death?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Seriously Brett, let us see your source for this claim.

I've looked into it and...like seriously dude? Please share your source so I know how hard to laugh.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Standard Sarcastro. Challenge him on a statement, and he suddenly diverts to a different topic....

Next...

[Sarcastr0]

Yes I did it on purpose bwahahahaha.

[Moderation4ever]

The Republicans have the authority in the House to investigate. Rather than holding up list of whistle blowers and beating their chest that no one in the DOJ will help the, why not help themselves?

They could invite William Barr to testify about the Biden investigation, he was AG when it started, and he claims he did not sign off on ending it. Why not have Rudy Guiliani and Paul Manafort testify as they recruited the Ukrainian informant, they know who these people are. Why not have whistle blowers testify.

It seems like the Republican in charge want to scream and throw poop, but don't what to actually do the work they claim to be doing.

[Randal]

I suspect it’s because they know that the answer to Armchair’s question is, obviously, that the DOJ investigation wasn’t finding anything. It would be easy for House members to find that out.

[Allutz]

Turns out Congress's investigatory powers are useless if the DOJ isn't executing their contempt orders for them. Chris Wray lied to a committee for 3 months about the existence of a document, then showed a partial document to two people, then showed a heavily redacted (in a way to favor Biden) to them after they finally scheduled a contempt vote.

All because he knows that even if they hold him in contempt, nothing happens, just like with AG Holder.

[Moderation4ever]

You are correct and Congress knows that so any contempt order on a member of the executive branch is moot. The committee could go directly to the courts. But that takes time and there is little likelihood of success. The real question is why focus here and not move on to all the other information the committee has implied exists. I would suggest that in fact they have little or nothing. Even here they are looking for a document that the previous administration found lacking enough to not proceed further.

[Allutz]

There are lots of problems for the committee. If they try to investigate directly, they need to get access to the confidential human source who the 1023 is about. But that risks someone like Shiff learning that person knowing the name and burning him.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yesterday I got a solicitation email from the Westlaw folks touting their new AI research tool and urging me to sign up. I had to go to my IT guy to make sure it wasn't some kind of spam.

[Darth Buckeye]

Will the Westlaw research tool hallucinate and make up favorable opinions for you, complete with citations?

[Brett Bellmore]

It being Westlaw, maybe they built in a module to confirm the actual existence of any cites the AI generates? They've already got the database that would rely on, after all.

[Don Nico]

And....what did he tell you?
And did the tool look interesting or valuable?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I didn’t go in for it. Despite the assurances of the IT guy.

[Martinned]

Why not? It might help you discover some exciting new precedents!

[Dan Schiavetta]

It might come up with something like the brilliant insight I had in law school. In the original Constitution "s" is often written like "f". So: the Supreme Court doesn't decide "cases and controversies". It decides "cafes and controversies".

This took a lot of research, including with a magnifying glass of old photos. The implications for originalists would be huge, requiring a lot of research into how people ate together in the 1780's. (The scenes in "John Adams" where Adams and Jefferson chat, or Adams and Franklin, would probably not be probative.)

But my argument got nowhere, either with professors or other law students. Was my argument frivolous . . . or maybe something else was going on here?

[Martinned]

Sounds like that time when Toby got bored and found a typo in the Constitution...

[Dan Schiavetta]

Toby thought it was smudge, not a comma.

“Punctuation is more likely to create ambiguities than to avoid them. The meaning ought to be clear from the words alone, without resort to punctuation. Punctuation is unreliable because it can capriciously disappear (as when a legal secretary has a momentary lapse of concentration) or appear (as when a fly explores the page and deposits something that could pass for a comma).”

Wydick, Plain English for Lawyers

[Martinned]

Toby: I read the Constitution. I think I found a typo.
CJ: In the Constitution?
Toby: Yeah.
CJ: Did you call the publisher?
Toby: It's a typo in the original.
CJ: #Constitution?
Toby: Yeah.
CJ: Sounds unlikely.
Toby: I read two versions because I have time, & there's an inconsistent comma. So I looked at every English language publication that exists. Half of them have the comma, half of them don't.
Toby: I called the National Archives & had some woman look at the original. She said she wasn't sure if it was a comma or a smudge.
CJ: There's a smudge?
Toby: Yeah, a smudge of law. Changes the meaning of the Takings Clause.
CJ: Seriously? I'm sure it doesn't.

https://twitter.com/KellyBreenMI/status/1174062645898616832

[Don Nico]

You might like the cafes, the the Court recommends, and then you may find them trashy and unworthy of patronage

[Dan Schiavetta]

But the Supreme Court is the final word!

[Noscitur a sociis]

You do know that ſ is not the same as f, right?

(Not that “cases and controversies” is written using either. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/downloads)

[Dan Schiavetta]

The similarity is . . . suspicious!!

Note: at the time I formulated by theory, there was no internet by which I could confirm my delusions — sorry, meant to say gather support to either prove or disprove it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

“AI” is a marketing buzzword (that Thompson Reuters and Lexis have been aggressively deploying for years). They’re not using a GPT variant.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“AI” is a marketing buzzword (that Thompson Reuters and Lexis have been aggressively deploying for years). They’re not using a GPT variant.

"AI" simply means "artificial intelligence", which legitimately applies to a wide variety of different types of computer software.
There's nothing about "AI" that implies any relationship at all with Chat GPT, nor any other software based on a generative pre-trained transformer architecture.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have segregated this because it is a completely different issue.

The Code of Federal Regulations are official US Government documents -- it used to be printed and mailed out (may still be) and now is available on line for all to read. It's public.

But say that Con Man Charlie convinces Dumb Danny that it isn't -- instead convinces Dumb Danny that it is a super secret document that one has to have an ultra-high security clearance to access (which Charlie has) and that Danny isn't supposed to be able to see it.

While this is unethical and (in the context of the situation) may violate fraud laws, has Charlie violated the laws regarding unauthorized release of classified information?

Remember that this is a public document that the US Govt would gladly give Dumb Danny a copy of (maybe for a fee) if he asked for it -- but he is too dumb to know that.

I ask this because we know that Trump is a con man -- it's one of his more charming qualities -- and I wouldn't put it past him to tell someone that something was classified when it absolutely wasn't. It's an ego thing, the same as having the biggest crowd in history at his inauguration (he didn't) or his buildings being the biggest and best (a subjective judgment, at best).

So Trump wants to impress a reporter and shows him/her/it a topographical map of Afghanistan that the reporter could get for $20 (likely less) if he/she/it asked the right office in the US Government, but the reporter doesn't know that, and instead believes Trump when Trump says it is a secret map that the reporter isn't supposed to see.

Even if it is a military map, that doesn't mean it is secret -- the DoD routinely releases all kinds of stuff -- the CIA of all people have a public CIA guide to foreign countries that they publish for the public. I once got a .jpeg of a cold soldier standing post with a machine gun in the snow from some DoD website, it had some legalese about how it had been cleared for public release but it wouldn't be difficult to convince someone that this is a super-secret picture that I took on my recent (made-up) trip to go see super-secret things.

That lie doesn't make the picture classified.

[John F. Carr]

The substantive offense is based on the true facts. Convictions for attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy can be based on mistaken beliefs. For example, if a police officer chatting online claims to be 15 years old the person who agrees to meet "her" can be convicted on sex charges as long as the jury thinks he intended to have sex with a 15 year old.

[Darth Buckeye]

But the police officer cannot be charged as a minor offering to commit an offense. Your argument might apply to the person that Trump showed the document, but not to Trump.

[Zarniwoop]

A more apt analogy might be the drug dealer who thinks he's selling cocaine, but the dealer himself got swindled and was actually trying to sell powdered sugar as cocaine.

None of which is remotely relevant, because in this analogy Trump was busted with a full baggie of pure, uncut Bolivian marching powder.

[Sarcastr0]

Quit with the fan-fiction.

[TS//NF//SPECIAL HANDLING] Document dated May 3, 2018, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries

[TS//SI//NF//SPECIAL HANDLING] Document dated May 9, 2018, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries.

[TS//SI//NF//FISA] Undated document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States, with handwritten annotation in black marker

[TS//SPECIAL HANDLING] Document dated May 6, 2019, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to foreign countries, including military activities and planning of foreign countries.

[TS//XX/XX//ORCON//NF] Document dated June 2020, concerning nuclear capabilities of a foreign country

[TS//SPECIAL HANDLING] Document dated June 4, 2020, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries

[S//NF] Document dated October 21, 2018, concerning communications with a leader of a foreign country.

[S//REL FVEY]Document dated October 4, 2019, concerning military capabilities of a foreign country.

[TS//XX/X//ORCON/NF/FISA] Undated document concerning military attacks by a foreign country

[TS//TK//NF] Document dated November 2017, concerning military capabilities of a foreign country

[S//REL FVEY]Undated document concerning military contingency planning of the United States

[S//REL FVEY] Paged of undated document concerning projected regional military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States

[TS//SI/TK//NF] Undated document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States

[S//ORCON/NF] Document dated January 2020, concerning military options of a foreign country and potential effects on United States interests

[S//ORCON/NF] Document dated February 2020 concerning policies in a foreign country

[S//ORCON//NF] Document dated December 2019, concerning foreign country support of terrorist acts against United States interests

[TS//X/TK/ORCON/IMCON/NF] Document dated January 2020 concerning military capabilities of a foreign country

[S//NF] Document dated March 2020 concerning military operations against United States forces and others

[S/FRD] Undated document concerning nuclear weaponry of the United States

[[TS//XX/ORCON//NF] Undated document concerning timeline and details of attack in a foreign country

[S//NF] Undated document concerning military capabilities of foreign countries

[TS//X/RSEN/ORCON//NF] Document dated August 2019, concerning military activity of a foreign country

[TS//SPECIAL HANDLING] Document dated August 30, 2019, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries, with handwritten annotation in black marker

[[TS//HCS-P/SI//ORCON-USGOV/NF] Undated document concerning military activity of a foreign country

[[TS//HCS-P/SI//ORCON-USGOV/NF] Document dated October 24, 2019, concerning military activity of foreign countries and the United States

[[TS//X//ORCON//NF/FISA] Document dated November 7, 2019, concerning military activity of foreign countries and the United States

[TS//SI/TK//NF] Document dated November 2019, concerning military activity of foreign countries

[TS//SPECIAL HANDLING] Document dated October 18, 2019, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries

[TS//X/SI/TK//ORCON/NF]Document dated October 18, 2019, concerning military capabilities of a foreign country

[TS//X/ORCON/NF/FISA] Document dated October 15, 2019, concerning military activity in a foreign country

[TS//SI/TK//NF] Document dated February 2017, concerning military activity of a foreign country

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-are-classified-documents-trump-indictment

[PaulS]

Did Biden never have documents like this or were they not found because they had already been taken from the unsecure locations by others? A lot of time has been spent (and will be spent) trying to deal with what Trump stored in a secure location - No evidence anyone has tried to figure out what might have once been in the unsecure locations

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Reports are that many of Biden's documents contained national security information with regard to China.

Of course it's China.

[Moderation4ever]

Who reported this?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1669032346199236610

JUST IN: Recovered documents from Joe Biden's personal stash of highly classified White House records is said to include national defense information related to China ... developing

[Moderation4ever]

So, we have a twitter account with no real source.

[Mr. Bumble]

When has the lack of a source ever bothered you? The MSM is always "reporting" based on anonymous "sources".

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Turns out many of those sources are from people in the DOJ/FBI and CIA and then the reports are used by the same people in the DOJ/FBI and CIA to get warrants to spy on you. When, of course, they bother to get the warrants in the first place since they’re not really needed to spy on Americans if NATIONAL SECURITY is at risk which they alone get to assert and their assertions can never be questioned.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Haha yeah, that must mean he doesn't have a source and is just making up this claim!

Thank you Queen for correcting me!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hahah yeah, we should totally dismiss it because Paul Sperry is just some internet rando and not a government approved
and licensed, real truth-telling journalist.

Hahah yeah, good one.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nothing Trump stole was stored in a “secure” location.

Nice try, troll.

[Sarcastr0]

Did Biden never have documents like this or were they not found because they had already been taken from the unsecure locations by others.

Or maybe it was space aliens. Speculation is extremely not proof.

A lot of time has been spent (and will be spent) trying to deal with what Trump stored in a secure location
No, actually. A lock on a bathroom door does not a secure location make.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That list accurately describes the classified markings on the documents.

Not whether or not they were still classified.

Neat trick.

And where are the 70 other documents they took?

[Mr. Bumble]

The bigger question is where is the special prosecutor assigned to look at Biden's classified document possession.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you're ignorant, then perhaps that is a valid question.

So for you...I suppose it is.

[Bob from Ohio]

Scary list. Bureaucrats do have a lot of scary stamps to put on documents.

[Sarcastr0]

When Bob takes refuge in weak nihilism, you know he's got nothing.

[Don Nico]

Ed, that post makes even less sense than your usual crappola. Read through S_0’s list . Another thing. Just because a person has a particular access does NOT mean that they can see a document in that control category. That is especially true with ORCON and Special Handling materials.

[Zarniwoop]

Of all the possible parallel universes, of all the infinite variety of the multiverse, I think we might be in the one with the dumbest "Dr Ed 2".

[Mr. Bumble]

What's with the disappearing reappearing open thread?

[Moderation4ever]

The Southern Baptists Convention has moved to expel churches with women pastors, is this a good move? I grew up in the Catholic faith which has only male priests. In a modern America where women have worked to access equal rights the idea of excluding women from leadership seems to be a bad idea. I think this has been shown by the declining number of Catholics. I cannot help but think the SBC will find itself in a similar situation. The SBC is free to do as it sees fit, but it should see that women are often the backbone of congregation and assigning them second class status seems foolish.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, if it distracts them from teaching that Jews are the children of Satan, that's a good thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

But what is a woman? Do Baptists know?

[Martinned]

Could be worse. The Archbishop of Canterbury was quoted on Tuesday as:

“Within the life of the church … we have to listen to one another and not, as a political party might do, impose one group’s views on people who entirely disagree.”

So yeah, it looks like the concept of organised religion is sometimes distinctly hazy even for people who do it for a living.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/anglican-leader-does-not-have-to-be-white-guy-from-england-says-justin-welby

[Mr. Bumble]

What would you expect from a church founded by an English king to free himself from troublesome wives?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Baptists split off from the Puritans -- who weren't on good terms with the Church of England.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No. No it isn’t. Make only pastors/priests falls into the rule of man bs rule of God thing. As does the thing about priests not being allowed to marry. Those are traditions that came about early in Christianity when the world was dominated by males.

Do you actually think that Jesus as described in the Bible would object to having women serve as leaders in a church?

[Commenter_XY]

I think you mean synagogue 🙂 = Do you actually think that Jesus as described in the Bible would object to having women serve as leaders in a church?

[not guilty]

I don´t have a dog in the fight as to whom the SBC or RoCaMBLA chooses to lead their churches, but I find it noteworthy that the Apostle Paul in Romans Chapter 16 recognizes several women at the church in Rome, including an apostle, Junia. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/march-web-only/junia-female-apostle-paul-fellow-prisoner-preaching-gospel.html (Some translations changed the name to Junius.)

[ducksalad]

For many centuries they’ve been saying the rules came from an omnipotent and eternal God. If they change the rules now they'll have to justify it. How?

God got overruled by the DEI Committee?
God looked at the latest retention numbers and decided to change the mission statement?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes they’ve got themselves in a real pickle, haven’t they?

[M L]

“Do you actually think that Jesus as described in the Bible would object to having women serve as leaders in a church?”

I don’t know or have a dog in the fight either, but apparently the Jesus of the Bible would affirm scripture on the topic, such as the following, presented without comment and up for interpretation:

“11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

and

“As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

[Martinned]

I suspect there's a fair few things that St. Paul wrote to make Christianity more palatable to Romans that Jesus wouldn't have approved of. Not in the least because Jesus said he wouldn't change one iota of the Law, while St. Paul happily ditched about 99% of it.

In any case, there is ample evidence of women taking leadership roles in the early Church for centuries until the 4th century when men took over everywhere and shut that sh*t down.

[M L]

That may be. But the question here specified “the Jesus of the Bible” who met Paul personally after having resurrected from the dead, among other incredible things, and selected Paul as his “chosen instrument,” directly inspired scripture and affirmed it again in Revelation, was God incarnate, and so on.

It’s true that early Christianity generally upended gender norms of the time and that women had “leadership roles.” I don’t think there’s any evidence of women being “pastor” of a congregation though, the 2000 year history seems pretty consistent until recently.

[Martinned]

You think Jesus met Paul? You know that Paul only converted years after the crucifixion, right?

[Ed Grinberg]

excluding women from leadership seems to be a bad idea.

I don't know.
Up until recently, my wife & I subscribed to monthly books-by-mail from PJ Library. We are not very religious, but we liked the idea of introducing our kids to Judaism through children's books. We cancelled our subscription earlier this moth, after my wife received the following email from them:

An Important Time to Align
June is Pride Month, and we are proud to stand with our LGBTQ+ friends and relatives. History has repeatedly taught us the importance of al tifrosh min hatzibur, the Jewish value of solidarity with one’s community. We’ve loved seeing this value and others in action at Keshet, a group dedicated to LGBTQ+ equality in Jewish life. Their website is loaded with learning, action ideas, conversation guides, event listings, and likely the internet’s best collection of free printable Jewish LGBTQ+ Pride signs and stickers like the funky flag above!

(The "funky flag" is the Rainbow Flag with the Star of David superimposed on it.)
Needless to say, my wife & I don't want our kids exposed to this sick crap. This isn't the sort of Judaism we are familiar with. You'd have a hard time finding support for this sick crap in the Bible.
Now, I'd be willing to bet that women make up a large portion of PJ Library's "leadership." And I think it's likely that, if this weren't the case, they wouldn't be veering off in such ... new directions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Haha Jesus.

[Martinned]

Since we got to talking about the West Wing above, please have this reminder of all the sick things the Bible endorses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CPjWd4MUXs

[Ed Grinberg]

Well, if you (and whoever you linked to) think the Bible is garbage, that settles it!

[Martinned]

If you can't stand the Bible Quote heat, get out of the kitchen.

[bernard11]

This isn’t the sort of Judaism we are familiar with.

You mean treating people with respect even though they are different than you?

[Bored Lawyer]

Reposting this:

Starbucks ordered to pay $25.6 million to a manager who says she was fired for being White

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/14/business/starbucks-manager-racial-discrimination/index.html

From the article:

This week’s verdict is the latest development in an incident that has sparked protest and outrage. In 2018, the two men were asked to leave the coffee shop after sitting at a table without ordering anything. The men, who declined to leave because they were waiting for a business associate, were escorted out of the coffee shop in handcuffs after a store manager called police on them. They later reached settlement agreements with Starbucks and the City of Philadelphia.

In a lawsuit first filed in 2019, Phillips said the company discriminated against her because of her race when she was let go.

A jury found in favor of a former regional director who accused the company of racial discrimination. The 2019 complaint said that following the arrest, Starbucks “took steps to punish White employees who had not been involved in the arrests, but who worked in and around the city of Philadelphia, in an effort to convince the community that it had properly responded to the incident.”

The jury awarded $ 600k in compensatory damages, and $ 25 Million in punitives. The jury must have been very angry to do that.

The pushback against woke corporate America will continue.

[John F. Carr]

The amount is ridiculous, but otherwise it's a routine discrimination case that happened to get attention. I expect the punitive damages will be reduced.

[Mr. Bumble]

No more ridiculous than Fox's settlement with Dominion.

[OtisAH]

Wow, you are so dumb. Astonishingly dull-witted. It’d be sad if it wasn’t so funny.

[Randal]

At least he's aware of his bumbling nature. He's also one of the few posters here who's willing to retract a dumb comment rather than double (and triple and infinitile) down on it.

[Zarniwoop]

Fox and Fox's lawyers are obviously less qualified than you are. You should offer them your services.

After you look up the difference between a jury verdict and a settlement that the defendant agrees to.

[Mr. Bumble]

My comment was only to agree with JFC on the ridiculousness of the amount.

[Michael P]

"John F. Carr" is my new favorite minced oath.

[Zarniwoop]

The people paying - FOX and their lawyers - thought it was reasonable.

But you should obviously go tell them how and why they are wrong. You're obviously so much smarter than them.

[Bored Lawyer]

"but otherwise it’s a routine discrimination case that happened to get attention"

No, it isn't. It's a case of corporate America trying to appease an organized racial grievance group, and having it blow up in their face.

[Martinned]

It’s a case of corporate America trying to appease an organized racial grievance group, and having it blow up in their face.

Yes, that never normally happens...

[Bored Lawyer]

It's not a "routine discrimination case." Yes, corporate America has suffered bad PR issues like this (hello, Target and Budweiser). But not an adverse jury finding and punitive damages.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yes, that never normally happens…

So we can add the meaning of "routine" to the extremely long (and ever growing) list of things you don't understand.

[Martinned]

Sure, as soon as you add "sarcasm" to the extremely long (and ever growing) list of things you don’t understand.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Holy crap...you really are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

[Randal]

This wasn’t interesting the first time you posted it. There’s nothing “woke” about firing white people for PR purposes. Starbucks did something stupid and illegal and, fortunately, will have to pay for it. Yay!

The only thing of actual interest here is the capitalization of “white.” That’s seriously evil and has gotta stop. If any part of this story is evidence of woke overreach, it’s that.

[Bored Lawyer]

There’s nothing “woke” about firing white people for PR purposes.

Keep telling yourself that. That's precisely what happened here.

[Randal]

Huh? Are we arguing about the definition of "woke?"

I don't care about the definition of "woke" at all. If you're using it in a way that includes "firing white people for PR purposes," don't let me stop you! I just thought you meant something else, more along the lines of "racial justice, left-wing style."

So let me rephrase.

There's nothing "racial justice, left-wing style" about firing white people for PR purposes.

[dwb68]

is .gov going to appeal Range, the 3rd circuit 2nd amendment case.

you would think that they would, but they havent filed notice yet. Meanwhile they filed an urgent expedited appeal in another case (Rahimi) that affects fewer people.

[Brett Bellmore]

Think about Heller: The government lost at the lower court level, the only reason they appealed that loss was that they expected to win at the Supreme court. If they'd known they were going to lose, they'd have taken the loss, to keep it limited to just DC.

Same thing here, I assume: They're confident they can win Rahimi, given the bad facts, but don't think they'd win Range, where the facts aren't that bad.

[not guilty]

I would be very surprised if the government does not seek SCOTUS review in Range. The Solicitor General ordinarily seeks review of a decision where a federal statute is found to be unconstitutional, and here there is an inter-circuit conflict.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ordinarily, but hardly always. Consider the case of United States v. Rock Island Armory. A circuit court struck down the NFA, on the entirely reasonable basis that the law had only been upheld by the Supreme court because it was a revenue measure, and that once the government decided it would no longer allow people to pay the tax, it ceased being a revenue measure.

The DOJ did not appeal.

Now, part of the reason they didn't appeal was that the 1968 gun control act backstopped the NFA. But I think they also didn't want to make that decision applicable nation-wide, because they can't really be confident that the 1968 GCA would hold up forever, and not appealing it gave them options outside the 3rd district.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You realize that’s not a circuit court decision that you linked to right? And that the government did in fact file an appeal?

[dwb68]

link to appeal?

[Noscitur a sociis]

is .gov going to appeal Range, the 3rd circuit 2nd amendment case.

Yes.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts is hiring about 200 new employees to process hundreds of thousands of driver's license applications from people who aren't in the US legally. A new law says no papers, no problem. Well, not quite. No immigration papers, no problem. Applicants have to show foreign license documents. New employees need to be trained to understand them. I wonder if the state can lay off some court employees due to a decrease in the number of prosecutions for driving without a license. Under the old law they were still driving on an invalid license from Ecuador, but could get in trouble for it.

[Martinned]

Why should there be any requirements for a driving licence other than knowing how to drive and being old enough to?

[ducksalad]

Of course you’re right. Especially if a driver’s license is literally just that.

But unfortunately in the US there’s been quite a bit of drift in the purpose. Whenever the state is going to do the “Your papers, please” thing the driver’s license is your papers. It’s a license to get on a plane. It’s a license to cash checks. It’s a license to buy alcohol or drink it in public. It’s a license to smoke cigarettes. It’s a license to buy a gun. It’s how you prove you’re the person shown on the voting rolls.

Personally I have no problem with immigrants doing all of those except the last one. But I can see how someone who is strongly against immigration might think they need to live like fugitives rather than openly doing normal stuff.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Ducksalad, as I replied to John F Carr elsewhere in this thread, I just don't get the outrage

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why should there be any requirements for a driving licence other than knowing how to drive and being old enough to?

Not surprisingly, your take is the extremely simple-minded one. “Driver’s license” is a bit of a misnomer because, as ducksalad points out, a DL isn’t just a license to drive. It is valid government-issued identification for a whole host of purposes, which is a very significant thing. It’s a little bit like calling those things everyone has “smart phones”, when in fact they’re pocket-sized general-purpose computers with, among a great many other things, wireless telephony functionality.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Wasyoungonce the phone call is coming from - inside the house!

[OtisAH]

Yes, Massachusetts decided that, since there will always be undocumented immigrants, it’s better to have licensed and insured undocumented immigrants driving around than having unlicensed and uninsured undocumented immigrants driving around.

[Frank Drackman]

Can I get me one of those "Undocumented" Drivers Licenses?? be useful to have in case of tickets/accidents that I don't want to go on my "Documented" Drivers License.

[ducksalad]

It only takes 200 because they have to do so much checking. They only have to do so much checking because we've - stupidly - conflated a permit to drive with a secure identity document.

The two functions need to be separated.

[bevis the lumberjack]

In Texas to renew your license you have to prove about six different ways that you’re a citizen. As a citizen, I find it aggravating.

[ducksalad]

Yup. I've got an elderly relative who misplaced all the documents that prove she's a citizen; now it's renewal time and she's thinking to just stop driving rather than engage in a month's long effort to get new passport, certificates, etc since those are all very difficult also.

[bernard11]

You mean you have to be a citizen to get a drivers' license? A green card or some resident visa won't do it?

[ducksalad]

Sure, a green card will do it. But a US citizen can’t get a green card without telling some huge lies to BCIS.

The toughest situation is if you are a US citizen but have lost track of your birth certificate and don’t have a passport.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You can get new copies of your birth certificate -- they require a copy of your driver's license....

[Don Nico]

Ditto for the social security card (& number).

[BrotherMovesOn]

So it's more like AAA printing you out a drive license to be read by traffic cops in Saudi Arabia or Holland?
Doesn't one want an insured, authorized driver of record in case of an accident?

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts passed a "right to repair" law allowing car owners access to telematics. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has recently told car makers not to comply with Massachusetts law. There is a possibility that hackers could do something bad, therefore the state law is preempted by federal law.

(I have not seen the NHTSA letter yet, only the reporting on it.)

[Commenter_XY]

Wow, now that is interesting John F Carr. Maybe the solution is to remove the telematics 'devices' from the cars.

[ducksalad]

Maybe we're not that many years away from it being illegal to modify any of your car's monitoring systems without going through approved channels.

It'll be a moot point when we eventually go to mandatory self-driving cars tied to central traffic control. (For safety, of course.) Your car won't be able to move without the telematics anyway.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump´s codefendant Walt Nauta was not arraigned in Miami, apparently because he had not yet employed local counsel. Nauta has long been represented by a Washington law firm which is being paid by Trump’s Save America PAC. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/05/trump-witnesses-legal-bills-pac/

Mr. Nauta has a (qualified) Sixth Amendment right to retain counsel of his choosing. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006). That being so, I wonder if defense counsel being paid by an entity closely tied to another defendant, whose interest may be adverse, is ethical or wise. There is a danger here of divided loyalties. Trump may here be following the maxim which Michael Corleone attributed to his father Vito -- keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

If the facts in this matter are as alleged in the indictment, Trump´s interests are best served by Nauta insisting on going to trial and not testifying. (He apparently has testified before the grand jury.) It may well be in Nauta´s interest, however, to reach an agreement to plead to a lesser charge (perhaps the false statement charge in Count 38?) and testify at Trump´s trial.

A federal district court is allowed substantial latitude in refusing waivers of conflicts of interest not only in those rare cases where an actual conflict may be demonstrated before trial, but in the more common cases where a potential for conflict exists which may or may not burgeon into an actual conflict as the trial progresses. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 163 (1988). The court must recognize a presumption in favor of the defendant's counsel of choice, but that presumption may be overcome not only by a demonstration of actual conflict, but by a showing of a serious potential for conflict. Id., at 164.

I wonder whether the magistrate judge will inquire into this at Nauta´s arraignment.

[John F. Carr]

Would it be enough to pay his defense counsel in advance? This many dollars to take the case up to acquittal or the notice of appeal. Then Trump's allies can't pull the plug.

[Zarniwoop]

It’s not clear to me how “payment in advance” would obviate the conflict issues. As I see them, the conflict arises at the moment of selecting Nauta’s attorneys, and potentially giving the attorneys marching orders that might create a conflict between Nuata’s interests and Trump’s interests. Particularly if the attorneys the 3rd (but Trump-aligned) party selects are partisan actors who care more about “defending Trump” than “defending Nauta”, it’s hard to see how merely altering the timing of their fees would magically eliminate the conflict of interest.

All that said, if Brand Woodward Law (the firm) is in fact operating independently of Trump's interests, the arrangement is probably in compliance with ethics rules and norms.

[Bored Lawyer]

If it were me, I would stay away. Trump has a way of burning anyone who works for him, even indirectly.

But the attorney has to make very clear at the beginning that he is representing this client only, and will do what is best for this client (subject to the client's decisions and instructions), even if it means hurting Trump.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many years in prison confront Nauta? What is the likelihood his lawyers would be able to overcome the evidence in the indictment (let alone other evidence)? How could any reasonable, competent lawyer representing a subordinate in these circumstances refrain from pushing strenuously for a plea bargain (leniency for testimony, or at least leniency for a guilty plea)?

Does anyone know the likely sentence for Nauta if he denies culpability, demonstrates no remorse, and is convicted of lying to authorities in this context?

[Frank Drackman]

Not as long as your sentence, "Coach"

[John F. Carr]

The guidelines sentence for a first offense of perjury, obstruction of justice, and the like is 18-21 months.

The guidelines sentence for refusing to return top secret defense information, plus an enhancement for obstructing the investigation, is 108-135 months.

The guidelines sentence for losing top secret information due to gross negligence is 27-33 months. The prosecutor makes a big deal of the lack of security at Mar-a-Lago, but if a spy had stolen some of the top secret information we would be talking about much less severe offense.

[Moderation4ever]

To add to the interest here is the story that Trump's lawyers tried to get a settlement but their client refused. If Nauta's lawyers also tried to get a deal what would their client do?

[not guilty]

I suspect there were discussions before the indictment was sought, but to no avail. The indictment ratchets up the pressure.

The Brand Woodward firm is reportedly representing several prospective witnesses with information about Trump. That includes some who are caught up in the ongoing January 6 investigations. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/30/legal-nerd-maga-bigwigs-stanley-woodward-00071385 Will they worry about whether and when the Save America PAC will turn off the $pigot? Will that compromise their advice to Mr. Nauta as to whether he should agree to a plea/cooperation agreement?

[Bob from Ohio]

Make the poor guy pay for his own defense so as to coerce a plea. Good plan.

[not guilty]

The word coerce doesn´t mean what you seem to think it means, Bob.

[Moderation4ever]

How often does this work to get pleas from poor people?

It is wrong when done to poor people and it would be wrong in this case, except the person providing the lawyer is under indictment for the same crime. I suggest there is a conflict of interest. I would rather the money come from a more independent source.

[Sarcastr0]

Make the poor guy pay for his own defense

You can't stop advocating for exactly this, you inconsistent troll.

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm not saying the taxpayer should pay for it, just the PAC should continue to do so.

His entire indictment is BS anyways, picking on a spear-carrier so to get "conspiracy" charges.

[Sarcastr0]

They didn't need to charge him to get conspiracy charges.

[Bob from Ohio]

Then it was just cruelty.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, you don't have a lot of standing to talk about cruelty in the criminal justice system. Your list for suffering of everyone else makes your sudden cry of mercy for this guy *who did crimes* ridiculous.

You claim it's only politicians who shouldn't have principles. And yet here you are.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

His entire indictment is BS anyways,

It is alleged he lied to federal law enforcement officials with respect to a national security investigation, seemingly belligerently. Perhaps recognizing that to be something other a "BS indictment" is the type of insight you don't pick up while practicing law in backwater Ohio, proofreading downscale residential deeds for a living.

[Theendoftheleft]

What do you think the whole world believes about Clinton's emails and erased drives, let alone her statements about them, AIDS?

Why do you look down your nose on some practitioner when you yourself have been repeatedly shown to be ignorant of basic logic and oblivious to your own hypocrisy and ignorance? Why, furthermore, talk of the types or qualities of 'insights' when you're yourself a parochial American ignoramus who blindly follows a cultish ideology even unto the point of doom?

Carry on clinger, till your misdeeds directly lead to your American betters Breiviking your family. Have you purchased cemetery plots for them yet?

[apedad]

Should Trump’s trial be televised?

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4047995-trumps-trial-should-be-televised/

YES! People should be able to watch live, recorded, YouTube, Twitter, etc., and make their own evaluations on whether the trial is fair.

[Mr. Bumble]

Followed by televising his execution, beheading and quartering.

[VinniUSMC]

Wouldn't even need a trial for that. They already know Trump is guilty, guilty, guilty.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird these trials are happening then. Almost as though due process is something the Dems respect.

[ducksalad]

Trials can have multiple purposes, due process to determine guilt or innocence is only one possibility.

For most the 20th century, across huge portions of the globe, the sole purpose of a trial was to parade the criminal before the public and recite their crimes, as an example.

Leaving Trump aside, I think you could concede that even in democratic countries we do some of that second thing.

[Sarcastr0]

No, actually. I don't think democratic countries use trials as public confessions. They're really boring for that!

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't think Japan is a democratic country? That's harsh.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry, not up on Japanese trial practice; what are you talking about?

[ducksalad]

Side note: the recital of crimes doesn’t necessarily have to be made by the accused. And it’s not necessarily oppressive, there is some legitimate value in the public seeing that criminals do exist and do get punished. Unless that motive starts to interfere with the goal of accurately separating the innocent from the guilty.

You might live in some very enlightened place. Down here it’s not uncommon for prosecutors to openly say they want to send a message, and to satisfy the public’s desire to see ostensibly bad guys punished harshly.

[Sarcastr0]

Can't argue with this comment. I still take issue with: 'For most the 20th century, across huge portions of the globe, the sole purpose of a trial was to parade the criminal before the public and recite their crimes, as an example.'

[ducksalad]

The portions of the globe I had in mind started somewhere in mid-Germany and continued eastward to the Pacific Ocean.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When the Federals have a 97% conviction rate, do you think that's because of due process and fairness or maybe some other thumb-on-the-scale machinations?

Now, I know you are a Bootlicker Extraordinaire and you only apply outcomes-based bias assessments/disparate impact analyses where your brain tenders allow, but maybe even you can see some flaws in a system where the system itself wins 97% of the time?

[OtisAH]

It’s definitely the “thumb on the scale” choice. They bring cases they’re at least 97% certain they’ll win and don’t prosecute cases they’re less certain of winning. Dumbass.

[Brett Bellmore]

And win most of the cases by obtaining plea deals by threatening to bankrupt people with legal costs.

[OtisAH]

Yes, like you I cry at night worrying about the financial security of drug and human traffickers, gangsters, neo-nazi organizations, corrupt pols, and financial fraudsters.

[Randal]

When are your fellow conservatives in Congress going to get on board with fixing this, Brett?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

This is the system that is also institutionally racist, right?

[OtisAH]

Yes. What’s your next stupid question?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How can a system that plays fairly to get it’s 97% win rate ALSO be unfairly racist at the same time?

How hard is that for you to grok?

[Randal]

What fever dream are you in the midst of now? You're the one who brought up "thumb-on-the-scale machinations." What does that mean? What would "playing unfairly" to get to 97% entail, exactly?

Of course the DOJ has its thumb on the scale of conviction when it prosecutes people. It presses for convictions. That's what prosecutors do. Why would a 97% conviction rate even be surprising? What could it possibly be evidence of other than competence?

And it's a complete mystery how you've tied this together with racism in your mind. There are a thousand ways for racial bias to enter the system. Just as one example, maybe the DOJ tends to ask for shorter sentences for white people. Ok one more: maybe the DOJ spends less time investigating white cases.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Gaslightr0 was arguing that the fact that cases go to trial is proof that these racist prosecutors are moral and believe in rights and justice.

You meanwhile, seem to be taking the stance that these same moral and upstanding very super racist federal prosecutors don't exploit system advantages to achieve immoral ends, but instead are just amazingly and incredibly competent.

[Randal]

Exploit system advantages to achieve immoral ends... I'm trying to decipher your point but it's very evasive. Are you concerned about the exploits or the immoral ends? What if they were exploiting system advantages to achieve moral ends, or staying within the system to achieve immoral ends?

That aside... you seem to have a very unsophisticated take on racism in which the only form racism can take is intentionally racist individuals. (Personally I agree with this definition when it comes to the word "racist," that is, I think "intentionally racist individuals" is redundant and just "racists" would be an equivalent category.)

But racism can result from sources other than racists. It can also come from unconscious bias and from institutional racism. The DOJ could be full of 100% moral people who believe in rights and justice and still suffer from unconscious bias and institutional racism.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

My point, I felt was pretty obvious, that the data suggests these prosecutors aren’t moral and principled as insinuated by Sarcastr0. The lack of morals and principles is supported by the racism in the system they operate and the extraordinary success rates they have, success rates which aren’t congruent with outcomes in virtually any other part of the government. It’s hard to believe that the one group of people in nearly the entire body of Federal government that’s competent are Federal prosecutors. And given the fact that the best and brightest graduates typically don’t seek work as civil servants. Civil servants tend to be low-risk midwits. It’s more likely that these Federal prosecutors exploit systemic advantages to achieve such high rates of success and such amazing racist outcomes. I don’t think I’m far off base in saying that 97% trial success doesn’t equal 97% justice served and there is harm caused by that 97% win rate. Moral and principled people don't exploit institutional biases to unjustly imprison people.

And you keep referencing “institutional racism” as if institutions are sentient beings and not the mere amalgamation of the people who operate it.

If an institution is racist, then the people who design, built, operate and maintain it are racist. This is a simple truism since institutions are nothing but the people who make up them. It’s not reasonable to believe that a system of oppressive racism is operated by moral and principled people who just succumb to unconscious biases and can’t ever seem to self-correct.

Take for your examples:

“Just as one example, maybe the DOJ tends to ask for shorter sentences for white people.”

Is that what moral, principled, and extremely competent Federal prosecutors do?

” Ok one more: maybe the DOJ spends less time investigating white cases.”

Are the Federal prosecutors spending more time investigating black crime moral and principled actions? Or are they doing it unconsciously, but can’t seem to self-correct after knowing this for decades while also being extremely competent?

That makes no sense. But this seems to be your belief.

[Randal]

Civil servants tend to be low-risk midwits.

Maybe that's true in general, but the DOJ is a very prestigious gig for a lawyer. It's not surprising to me at all that the DOJ is better than anybody else at only taking the cases they're almost sure to win.

If an institution is racist, then the people who design, built, operate and maintain it are racist.

Not quite. The point of institutional racism is that the people who designed and built it were racist. The institution they built is designed to buttress their racist beliefs, and simply changing personnel doesn't fix the built-in problems.

“Just as one example, maybe the DOJ tends to ask for shorter sentences for white people.”

Is that what moral, principled, and extremely competent Federal prosecutors do?

Of course not, but you could imagine it happening anyway. Maybe there's a policy / rule / sentencing guideline that says prior arrests should be considered at sentencing. Maybe more innocent minorities get arrested over the course of their lives than white people do... again, not necessarily because of intentionally racist actions by anyone, but just because, maybe there are more cases of mistaken identity or something like that. So now you have layer after layer of policy after policy that all function to screw over minorities through no fault of their own and also no fault of the people who are implementing the policies. It's just, like, the status quo. And not the kind of thing that any individual can fix on their own, no matter how pure of heart.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So there they are, these elite, moral and principled competent professionals choosing to investigate black crimes more than Whites, and choosing to seek higher sentencing for blacks.

And they're just helpless cogs, being moral and principled executing racist and immoral policies and, well their hands are tied they can do nothing but be moral and principled and competent as they unjustly imprison people!

You must work for the DOJ if you believe this nonsense.

[Nige]

If a system is racist, then it's going to be easier to use it to convict the people against whom it is racist.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, except when in applies to them. What did Ted Kennedy get for murdering Mary Joe Kopeckney? 30 day license suspension??

[OtisAH]

Go ask him.

[Frank Drackman]

Roger Mud did in 1980, Teddy babbled away like Stuttering John Fetterman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5TkhNWPspM

Frank

[OtisAH]

Then you have your answer.

[not guilty]

Federal court proceedings are not televised. I see no reason to make an ad hoc exception for this case.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad...The answer is 'No, it should not be televised'. My answer will be the same when that shoe is on some Team D foot.

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

Comrade Chuan Jin Guo threatened that if elected again, he’d appoint a Special Counsel to go after Biden. I am not interested in rehashing political arguments. I am interested in the constitutional and legal mechanics.The Special PROSECUTOR statute expired in 1999. Attorney General Janet Reno substituted it by a Special Regulation for Special Counsels.
Could a future president simply appoint a Special WHATEVER?
Would he need a new statute?
Could he issue an Executive Order?
Could he oblige his Attorney General to appoint one?
Any thoughts are welcome! Thank you!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's the same legal mechanics Comrade Biden used to go after President Trump.

Weird how you're incurious about those mechanics.

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

And those mechanics were?
Evidence?
When Bill Barr denounces your allegations as nonsense, you can be pretty sure that your imagination follows your preformed opinion.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The FBI and thus Bill Barr has been sitting on an FD-1203 report from the ex-head of Burisma asserts he has Biden and Biden Jr. on tape discussing bribes.

But since the FBI and Bill Barr say these allegations are nonsense, we should just assume your point of view and start licking State Boots like you love to do.

[Randal]

I'm trying to understand how bizarre your point is. Are you saying you trust the ex-head of Burisma over your own president's AG? Or are you saying that you think a special counsel should be appointed to also say "these allegations are bullshit" for PR purposes?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I like how incredulous you are that someone wouldn't believe the statement of a Democrat bureaucrat even after all the overt partisan behavior over the past 6 years.

Like how dare I think these perfect demigods would ever do anything untoward!

[Randal]

Bill Barr is not a Democrat, you know.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So what? Is that how you determine if someone is telling you the truth? Their public party affiliation?

If so, I'd suggest that's pretty fucking stupid.

[Randal]

Then I guess you’re pretty fucking stupid.

I like how incredulous you are that someone wouldn’t believe the statement of a Democrat bureaucrat even after all the overt partisan behavior over the past 6 years.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What does the second part of that quote mean to you as to why I was skeptical?

Any ideas?

[Randal]

There's all kinds of potential reasons why someone might "determine if someone is telling you the truth" based on "their public party affiliation." But whatever the reason may be, as you said, "that's pretty fucking stupid."

So go ahead and backpedal, explain to us all why in your case, it's fine to use party affiliation to determine credibility.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

But what was the reason I gave? You know, the reason I gave in my comment you keep quoting but somehow cant seem to comprehend.

[Randal]

Asked and answered. And with that, I’m declaring victory over this thread. (I just did a little victory dance. In your imagination. Now picture me dancing on your face. Good boy.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're dancing because you're a moron who can't read.

I clearly stated it was because of behavior. The words are plain as day and you look fucking stupid for insisting I didn't say what I plainly said. I added the label because it's you fucking morons the accept anything from your political hierarchy. Even some of the dumbest shit in the world.

[David Nieporent]

The FBI and thus Bill Barr has been sitting on an FD-1203 report from the ex-head of Burisma asserts he has Biden and Biden Jr. on tape discussing bribes.

Wrong. The FD-1023 — not 1203 — is a record of an interview with someone who talked to the Burisma guy. It's not the Burisma guy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There’s already a statute that authorizes the appointment of special prosecutors:

The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought.

28 U.S.C. § 515(a).

The difference from the older independent counsel statute is that these prosecutors remain under the control of the attorney general.

[Martinned]

Unitary executive theory FTW!

[not guilty]

The Department of Justice has announced the arrests of two men in the firebombing of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Orange County, California. https://abc7.com/irvine-arrests-fbi-raid-molotov-cocktail/13381742/ It is merely fortuitous that no one was injured.

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny that they still haven't been apply to find who planted the "bombs" in DC on Jan.6.

[VinniUSMC]

It was a "mostly peaceful" firebombing (at least, the facility was closed, and not say, full of police officers).

Active duty Marine. Jeez, this dumbass is gonna be going to prison, and then after that is done, the court martial will send him to the brig, E1, no pay, dishonorable discharge. For a single Molotov cocktail.

[not guilty]

The FBI is reportedly investigating at least 10 different attacks or threats on facilities between March and June of last year:

- Costa Mesa, California (March 13, 2022)
- Keizer, Oregon (May 8, 2022)
- Madison Wisconsin (May, 8 2022)
- Amherst, New York (June 7, 2022)
- Gresham, Oregon (June 10, 2022)
- Longmont, Colorado (June 25, 2022)
- Lincolnton, North Carolina (June 25, 2022)
- Everett, Washington (June 27, 2022)
- Nashville, Tennessee (June 30, 2022)
- Portland, Oregon (July 2022)

https://abc7.com/planned-parenthood-attacks-costa-mesa-orange-county-fbi-search/12719894/ Most of these locations are in states where abortion is likely to remain legal.

Isn´t it peculiar that a political movement with the chutzpah to call itself ¨pro-life¨ maintains an active domestic terrorist wing?

[Frank Drackman]

How many deaths in these "Attacks" ??

[Michael P]

The left probably couldn't find anyone to conduct false flag attacks in red states.

[Randal]

You can't just say "false flag" every time you don't fucking agree with something!

[Nige]

Oh he absolutely can and will.

[Frank Drackman]

So the answer is "Zero" deaths in the "Attacks" on the Abortatoriums, hey, you want to end Slavery, the Horror-cost, Roosha-Invading You-Crane, sometimes some Slave Owners, Nazis, Roosh-uns are gonna get killed,
Same with the Crematoriums they call "Women's Health Centers" except they use Mifepristone instead of Zyklon B.
I'm "Pro Choice" my self, believing Abortion should be Safe, Legal, and predominantly used by the lower Socioeconomic Classes, like Don Zaluchi said in "the Godfather"
"I don't want it near schools! I don't want it sold to children! That's an infamia. In my city, we would keep the traffic in the dark people, the coloreds. They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls."

Frank

[M L]

There have been 130 attacks on pro-life organizations since the Dobbs leak. Firebombings, assaults, vandalism, etc.

https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF22F17.pdf

Isn't it peculiar that a political movement all about killing humans maintains an active domestic terrorist wing?

Well, maybe not, I guess.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, that sucks too. Though roping vandalism into 'attacks' is tendentious.

But it is not a defense of firebombing. You seem to be offering it as such.

Pretty morally indefensible.

[Frank Drackman]

You'd be upset if someone firebombed Treblinka in 1944

[M L]

Here's a good update on how "ESG" is a woke thug cartel:

https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1668658866337218560?cxt=HHwWgICwtbyZoqguAAAA

NEW: From S&P Global to the London Stock Exchange, tobacco companies are crushing Tesla in the ESG ratings. How could cigarettes, which kill over 8 million a year, be deemed a more ethical investment than electric cars?

One answer: Tobacco’s gone woke.

S&P Global gives @elonmusk’s car company an ESG score of 37 out of 100. It gives Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, an ESG score of 84. Sustainalytics, another ESG rating, gives Tesla a worse score than Altria, one of the largest tobacco producers in the world. And the London Stock Exchange gives British American Tobacco an ESG score of 94—the third highest of any company on the exchange's top share index—while Tesla earns a middling 65. ..

Early ESG efforts were laser-focused on "sin stocks"—companies whose core business was deemed immoral—including tobacco. But as ESG investing has ballooned, so has the number of variables used in ESG ratings, which now encompass everything from labor practices and carbon pledges to diversity trainings and human rights. That has created countless opportunities to game the system, experts say, and lets even the most sordid companies score points—and investors—by toeing the progressive line.

"ESG company ratings often measure abstract woke goals that have no rational connection to companies' actual businesses," said Boyden Gray & Associates managing partner Jonathan Berry, who sued NASDAQ last year over its diversity requirements for corporate boards. "Companies score 'points' mainly by demonstrating their compliance with the latest dogmas issued by the DEI complex."

Cigarettes are the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, killing more people than alcohol, illegal drugs, and car accidents combined.

And their supply chain involves a litany of environmental sins: The industry's carbon footprint is substantial, and even e-cigarettes, marketed as a less harmful alternative to tobacco, can result in serious pollution because they don't biodegrade.

Tobacco farming, which mostly takes place in developing countries, causes deforestation and soil erosion. Tobacco workers are exposed to toxic chemicals, including high doses of nicotine, which can lead to hospitalization. . . .

While the ESG juggernaut is relatively new, tobacco's corporate progressivism is not. When Philip Morris began advertising in gay periodicals in the 1990s, it dismissed critics of the move as bigots opposed to "inclusion." (I’m not kidding.) By the early 2000s, the company was using "Corporate Social Responsibility," the precursor to ESG, as a prophylaxis against lawsuits, according to a memo from Philip Morris's then-general counsel Steve Parrish. "That will reduce the risks of lawsuits and improve our standing, when we are sued, as a 'responsible corporation,'" Parrish wrote to company executives in the memo. "Otherwise, we will stand out as a target." . .

BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard joined forces in 2021 to oust three ExxonMobil board directors who were out of step with the investors' climate priorities. All three firms own sizable stakes in cigarette companies, giving them a considerable number of proxy votes. Tobacco's talk about social justice, Henderson said, may be a ploy to avoid Exxon's fate. . .

[Not just talk . . . billions in cash, executive and board roles, newly created corporate departments are all being shaken out . . .]

[Sarcastr0]

ML comes out against the free market. Shocking.

[M L]

Eh? I like the free market. I do recognize it is a social construct, and a governmental and legal construct, not a state of nature. I fail to see how any of this relates, though.

[Sarcastr0]

You complain that there are issues companies are touting to their consumers you disagree with.
Your blaming of the private institutions said companies lean on for credentials is full of intimations, but in the end devoid of actual issues.

Companies do lots of things I don't like as well. I don't go calling them a thug cartel. But then I'm not nearly as into melodrama as you are.

[Michael P]

That's a lot of words to admit that his (valid and pointed) criticism isn't actually related to the free market.

[Sarcastr0]

What are the motives of these private companies in changing what they do?

Looks like market forces to me, invocation of cartels and thuggery are just rhetoric.

[Michael P]

The motive is almost always virtue signaling to other members of the "in" crowd. They substitute faddish opinions for actual analysis and business fundamentals, and rely on name-calling like "racist" or "white supremacy" to attack anyone who argues for things like hard work, timeliness, standard language, correct arithmetic, or the like.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird someone doesn’t come along making better choices and disrupt the market. Maybe you dint know what’s going on like you think.

[M L]

Well, they are engaging in corporate activism, which is fine. The article I posted brings attention, sunlight, and clarity to exactly what this highly significant corporate/shareholder activism consists of. That’s exactly how the “free markets” work, improving information and transparency. Far from “coming out against the free market,” this is supportive of and engaging in the free market.

Beyond merely improving information, sharply disagreeing with their activism is also supportive of the free market. This is called competition. This extends not only to criticism of the objectives and metrics of their corporate activism, but also to criticism of the overt political ideology being advanced, and criticism of the methods and means used as well (which might fairly be described as thuggish). This is all part of a free market process.

Moreover, I think they are being rather misleading with this ESG racket. Just read again about tobacco companies and their environmental and social effects. Then compare that to their sky high ESG ratings. As I said, the free market is a legal construct, and one function of that construct is to take aim at misrepresentation and fraud types of issues, broadly speaking, in order to facilitate a functioning free market. So again, it is fair game and supportive of the free market to point out things that are potentially misleading.

Finally, the idea of a “cartel” might seem like nothing but heated rhetoric to the economically ignorant, who assume it refers to Pablo Escobar or something. But it’s actually an economic term….

[Sarcastr0]

sharply disagreeing with their activism is also supportive of the free market.

You always backpedal.

Woke thug cartel is not disagreeing with activism, it's making accusations well beyond that.

it is fair game and supportive of the free market to point out things that are potentially misleading.
'I don't like that this raiding exists' rather calls into suspicion your subjective evaluation of it's legitimacy right after.

You are whining that consumer-facing companies seem to see consumers as not being with you on the issues they care about.

Your right. But also whining.

[M L]

Are they woke? Yes. Thug? Yes. Cartel? Yes. No backpedaling here.

“You are whining that consumer-facing companies seem to see consumers as not being with you on the issues they care about.”

Try again. ESG isn’t about consumers. It’s about "investors." And institutions. Including those that are “too big to fail,” those that get hired by the Fed to run the Fed’s bond purchases (!), those that get their own ETFs purchased by the Fed (!), etc.

BlackRock Is Biggest Beneficiary of Fed Purchases of Corporate Bond ETFs https://www.barrons.com/articles/blackrock-is-biggest-beneficiary-of-fed-purchases-of-corporate-bond-etfs-51591034726

[Sarcastr0]

Woke is not well defined.
Thug I'm not seeing
Cartel I'm not seeing.

If a company is acting to benefit it's investors not it's consumers, then you could have a lawsuit from other investors. But you don't see that happening. Maybe because you're wrong.

institutions. Including those that are “too big to fail,” those that get hired by the Fed to run the Fed’s bond purchases (!), those that get their own ETFs purchased by the Fed (!), etc.
Seems like the issue here is not about this social rating, eh?

[Randal]

If you think "environmental, social, governance" is misleading (how exactly?), then "cartel" is certainly misleading... especially combined with "thug." "I only meant it in the technocratic sense!" is pretty lame.

"Thug? Yes." How? What new definition of "thug" have you discovered? And allow me to prebut whatever you come up with as "misleading at best."

"Woke? Yes." My best definition of what "woke" means at this point is "whatever the conservative culture warriors are railing against now," so I guess you're right on that one.

[M L]

You guys are getting awfully butthurt and whiny over the big mean internet bullies criticizing poor widdle old BlackRock and Vanguard. LOL! Seems to be touching a nerve.

[Randal]

Just here to cheerlead your furious backpedaling. Faster! Faster!

[Sarcastr0]

You posted shit. We called it shit. Now you're saying 'why do you love some of the institutions mentioned in that shit I posted!'

Like 1990s Internet 14-year-old tactics.

You should be better at backpeddaling by now; you do it so much.

[M L]

Keep defending and clinging to your precious woke fund managers. Clingers gonna cling!

In Fink We Trust: BlackRock Is Now ‘Fourth Branch of Government’

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-21/how-larry-fink-s-blackrock-is-helping-the-fed-with-bond-buying#xj4y7vzkg

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not defending anyone, just noting how awful the argument you made was.

Your retreat to this new thesis is rather an admission.

[OtisAH]

Not that he’d take it but here’s my plea deal for former president Big Baby:

Defense: Pleads guilty on all counts; a full accounting of what happened with/to any and all recovered and un-recovered docs; serves the rest of his days in federal lockup.

Prosecution: Agrees to take treason and the death penalty off the table.

Easy peasy and we can have it all wrapped up before Christmas at the latest. Then he can go back to campaigning!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The prosecutors should not resist any Trump efforts to delay the Florida prosecution.

They should prosecute Nauta first (focusing on the lies and obstruction), in Florida. They should prosecute Trump second, in New Jersey (dissemination). After that, wait for Judge Cannon to schedule something in Florida.

[Frank Drackman]

Well that was a smart move "Coach" committing all of your crimes in one State. Too bad it was a "Klinger" state that gives rapists "Stiff" (get it?) Sentences.

Frank

[Michael P]

You do realize that the Constitution specifically defines treason, and it doesn't mean "disagrees with dumbass leftist trolls like OtisAH", right?

[OtisAH]

Some docs he kept as mementos. Others he kept to show off. And others were given or sold for services rendered or other considerations like, say, $2bn to get the SIL out of hock. The treason charges will arise from the last one and maybe the second one.

[Frank Drackman]

You should stick to Elevators

[Frank Drackman]

You can have my answer now,
My offer is this: nothing. Not even the $20,000 for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.
and then I'd put a Horse's head in Merrick Garland's bed.

Frank

[Michael P]

The Times of London published an article documenting classified military research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology on weaponizing coronaviruses between 2016, through late 2019.

Apparently-independent research from Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger names three WIV researchers -- including a coronavirus gain-of-function-focused deputy of the "Bat Lady" -- as Wuhan's first known cases of Covid.

Which of the "couldn't be a lab leak, couldn't be a bioweapon" crowd have apologized for pushing Chinese propaganda? Why are we relying on the UK and on independent journalists to break these stories? Why are the major US media failing on this?

[Commenter_XY]

MP...Didn't Dr. Robert Redfield call this way back when = most likely origin of covid is a lab leak.

Heck, what would the CDC Director, and virologist know? 🙂

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ground Zero of the pandemic was within a mile of a lab that did testing in the sort of virus that was the pandemic viral agent. Of course that one fact doesn’t absolutely prove anything, but to just dismiss the possibility out of hand was incredible politically induced blindness.

And calling anyone who suggested it racist was the proof in the pudding as to the reasoning behind the position. There were active attempts to actually shut down discussion.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump calling it the “Kung Flu”, and the resulting wave of anti-Asian attacks, didn’t help. You can’t blame Democrats for being less than perfect adults when Republicans were being racist children.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t. Kung Flu was racist as hell. Trump is about the worst example of a human being we gmhave going right now, at least in the non-dictator division.

Nobody - none of our so-called elite - served us well during the pandemic. I’m not saying one side was uniquely bad.

But on this specific topic, it was the Democrats that used an incorrect racist charge to shut down discussion in a very important topic for political purposes. Yes, Trump and his appalling king flu crap was racist, but the idea that a lab at ground zero could have been the source was not.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh Oh Oh Ohhhh
Oh Oh Oh Ohhhh
Everybody was a Kung-Flu Dying,
It hit fast as lighting, and a little bit frightening,
and with suspect timing,
Funky Retro Virus from Funky Wu-han Town,
N-95 flying off the shelves, couldn't keep them around,
Its an ancient Chinese trick, Falucci can suck my dick,
From 6 feet to Quarantine, nothing in between,

Everybody was a Kung-Flu Dying...

Wow, Weird Al makes it look so easy,

Frank

[Don Nico]

"less than perfect adults" was actually lying about the underlying science for a political purpose with no ostensible benefit to the US

[Brett Bellmore]

"the resulting wave of anti-Asian attacks"? I don't recall any resulting wave of anti-Asian attacks.

Oh, wait, looking it up, that was a thing... But I'm confused here: The racial composition of the attackers hardly fits the profile of your average Trump supporter.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"On June 13, an attorney for the No Labels Party of Maine asked the Secretary of State to reveal the evidence that No Labels workers had tricked any voter into registering into No Labels.

"Last month, the Secretary of State sent a letter to all 6,456 registrants in No Labels, asserting that workers for No Labels had tricked some people into registering with the party, and asking the recipient if he or she wants to re-register out of No Labels. In Maine, a party becomes ballot-qualified by persuading 5,000 people to register into the party....

https://ballot-access.org/2023/06/15/no-labels-asks-maine-secretary-of-state-to-reveal-evidence-on-whether-voters-were-tricked-into-registering-with-no-labels/

[M L]

The political parties' war on democracy continues to escalate, but mostly the Democrats...

[Kenneth Almquist]

While writing my previous comment, I looked at the No Labels home page, and found:

Thanks to these leaders [politicians supported by No Labels], a lot more has been accomplished in Washington these past few years than you might think. Our House and Senate allies led the passage of the biggest public works bill since President Eisenhower’s creation of the Interstate Highway System, the first federal gun safety bill since the 1990s, a major innovation bill to ensure America outpaces China in semiconductors and other key technologies of the future, and a rewrite of the outdated 1887 Electoral Count Act to prevent a repeat of the January 6, 2021, riots in Washington, D.C.

No Labels is trying to take credit for the Biden's achievements, but the logic escapes me. If I want to see the policies of the Democrats enacted, I'm going to vote for Democrats, not for No Labels.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The right to ballot access has nothing to do with whether their ideas are good, or duplicative of other parties' policies. That's for the voters to decide when choosing from among candidates *on the ballot.*

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What do you think of Congress’ supposed inherent contempt power? The Supreme Court says they have it – that the House or Senate can lock up, say, contumacious witnesses for the remainder of their session.

But there’s nothing in the Constitution which seems to delegate that power to them in clear terms. There are clear clauses empowering each house to punish members for “disorderly behavior,” or to expel them, but that’s for their own members, not the general public.

Anyway, if Congress *does* have this power, when was the last time they used it? Any plans for them to do it in future?

[Randal]

I would like to see them revitalize this power. Although I would really like to see them revitalize their legislative power first.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, Congress is inherently contemptible.

[Brett Bellmore]

During the Teapot Dome scandal.

[M L]

If you are supposed to turn over a server for the digital documents on it but you wipe the server clean instead, then hand it over, that would be like if you were supposed to hand over physical documents, but you incinerated them in a burn barrel first and then handed over the ashes.

[Randal]

True! But your backhanded whataboutism isn't fooling anyone.

[Frank Drackman]

it's "what--about-jism", get it right!
originated in 1998, "There is no evidence President Clinton had sex with "that woman", Ms. Luzinski!!"
"But what-about (the) Jism???"

Frank

[Randal]

Do you have this joke set as a macro?

[Frank Drackman]

it's good, isn't it? Sometimes I think I'm the reincarnation of Groucho, but he died after I was born.

[Sarcastr0]

Your timeline is non-alalogous to what you are implying.

But you're basically a shameless propagandist at this point.

[not guilty]

The New York Times has reported that Judge Aileen Cannon has remarkably scant experience conducting criminal jury trials in federal court. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/us/politics/aileen-cannon-judge-trump-documents.html

Of 224 criminal cases that have been assigned to Judge Cannon since she took office in November 2020, only four have gone to trial before a jury. In all, the four cases added up to 14 trial days.

Judge Cannon’s four criminal trials involved basic charges, including accusations of possession of a gun by a felon, assaulting a prosecutor, smuggling undocumented migrants from the Bahamas, and tax fraud. The four matters generated between two and five days of trial each.

[Dan Schiavetta]

This means that her attempts to protect Trump will continue to be clumsy and ill-informed.

[Allutz]

4/224 trials going to a jury is actually a pretty decent clip for federal judges. Almost every defendant ends up pleading out.

[John F. Carr]

Politico points out she has a complex criminal case that has not yet gone to trial.

Judge Cannon told Trump's lawyers to work on getting security clearances. I don't anticipate Trump going on trial before January 20, 2025.

[not guilty]

I can anticipate Judge Loose Cannon making a series of lawless, boneheaded rulings in favor of Trump, as to some of which the DOJ may seek interlocutory review in the Eleventh Circuit. That could delay the trial until after the election, depending on how quickly the Court of Appeals acts.

It is noteworthy, however, that Judge Cannon has previously been twice reversed by the Court of Appeals for wrongly interfering in favor of Trump at the investigative stage of this prosecution. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202213005.pdf Where it has reversed the same district judge in multiple appeals, the Eleventh Circuit has sometimes directed that the case be assigned to a different judge upon remand. 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). Should another reversal become necessary, the appellate court may well apply a three strikes, you´re out rule.

[David Nieporent]

That doesn't sound "remarkably scant." That sounds pretty much like what you'd expect for a relatively new judge.

[Ben_]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mother-of-transgender-teenager-los-angeles-county-killed-my-daughter

"Abby Martinez tried to fight back when a Los Angeles school, county social workers, and an LGBT group sought to transition her confused 15-year-old daughter."

"But once Yaeli Martinez was moved into foster care and later injected with testosterone, the heartbroken mother could only watch helplessly as the girl spiraled into depression that ended when she stepped in front of an oncoming train."

"They killed my daughter," a tearful Martinez told the Washington Examiner. "They had to pick pieces of her off of the track.”

[Ben_]

This week she told her daughter’s story to CA lawmakers debating a bill to make it easier for the government to do this to more children:

https://twitter.com/TheTonus/status/1669008371884732418

[Sarcastr0]

All the best stories are fraught anecdotes from a single source.

Does stoke your outrage fires though!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because the dead girl had 100 mothers and they didn't interview the other 99?

SHE believes that her daughter committed suicide because of what the authorities did. There is no one else to interview -- all the authorities could say, if asked, is that they couldn't comment.

So what other source is there? The engineer driving the train who got to watch her die? THAT's morbid...

[Sarcastr0]

Wow this is pretty stupid.

[Kenneth Almquist]

They could have looked at court records for an explanation of why the teen was placed in foster care at age 15. They could have talked to other people who knew the girl.

Look, you have a girl with depression and attention deficit disorder. She has been in therapy since age 6. At some unspecified age, s/he identifies as trans. He runs away from home at age 15. Social workers visit the home and determine that it is unsuitable for reasons we are not told. A judge agrees, and places him in foster care. While in foster care, he is not permitted to medically transition, but is allowed to go by his preferred name, Andrew. After he turned 18, he is no longer a minor and is able to obtain puberty blockers and testosterone.

Depression by itself is enough to explain a suicide, and a messed up home life could have been a contributing cause. I think that if the foster parents had insisted on referring to him as female rather than male, that would have made the problem worse rather than better. The mother believes that the authorities caused her daughter's suicide, but the article doesn't demonstrate that that belief has any basis in reality. I can see why the mother would be looking for a scapegoat, given that the alternative is to admit that there was something wrong with her daughter or with her parenting.

[Ben_]

"...a messed up home life..."

There's no facts to back that up.

"The mother believes that the authorities caused her daughter’s suicide, but the article doesn’t demonstrate that that belief has any basis in reality."

They took control. The responsibility comes with it. Through their actions, they achieved close to the worst possible outcome.

You don't get to meddle in peoples' lives and then pretend to be a bystander when it all goes tragically wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

You probably don't have the whole story. And you don't care.

Ed's idea that there are no other relevant people to talk to is stupid.

[Ben_]

"You probably don’t have the whole story."

Government acted. She died. That's the gist of the story.

You want to pretend there are more relevant facts because you don't like the known facts.

[Sarcastr0]

Look at you. Working so hard to avoid the possibility of facts beyond the narrative you've decided on.

Leaning into lack of critical reading skills to an impressive degree.

"Government acted. She died" also works for police shootings, the homeless, all sorts of stuff that is actually complicated and that'd be dumb for.

But simplistic and angry is your choice o how to go through life.

[Ben_]

There’s nothing to support the notion that there are additional facts of any relevance.

I prefer not to pretend.

[Ben_]

We know you guys prefer numbers on spreadsheets. Takes all the messy humanity out of deciding to meddle and manipulate others' lives.

[Sarcastr0]

One-sided anecdotes are the only truth Ben will accept!

[Ben_]

What's the other side? That she's still alive?

[Sarcastr0]

Friends, doctors, teachers. Who knows, and maybe it would all align.

But a single angry mother is all the Examiner is going with because they are a propaganda rag. And you're at the point where propaganda is what you seek out.

No nuance allowed for Ben - only the pure ragey stuff!

[Ben_]

It’s really too bad when government acts and it leads to a tragic death and there’s no "nuance" to make it all ok.

If only there were enough nuance, we could use it to paper over her death and potentially dozens or hundreds of others' deaths.

[JasonT20]

The first post and the comments that followed reminded me of something else that I've been thinking about. That is the "community standards" test.

When I look at the efforts here in Florida to restrict books in public schools, I wonder what happened to this idea. Calling all of this an issue of "parental rights" is way off the mark. The books and other materials and instruction being restricted aren't fulfilling an individual parent's right to determine what that parent's child is exposed to. It is that one parent (or small group of vocal parents, e.g. Moms for Liberty) making that determination for all children in the public schools.

I could see a review process that used the kind of community standard test used in Miller v. California to decide whether a particular book or work was fit for a school library. Where the people chosen to apply the standard included appropriate school personnel and randomly chosen parents of children at the school. (This seems to be the way that Utah requires these things to be done, as in the Bible case in the news recently.)

I could also see the process having three possible outcomes, rather than just two.

1) The work continues at its current availability.
2) The work is removed from the library.
3) The work is flagged as not being available to students whose parents want their children not to have access.

That might be a reasonable compromise, but I suspect that there would be at least some on both sides that wouldn't be happy with it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The books and other materials and instruction being restricted aren’t fulfilling an individual parent’s right to determine what that parent’s child is exposed to. It is that one parent (or small group of vocal parents, e.g. Moms for Liberty) making that determination for all children in the public schools.

Surely even you aren't that stupid. Restricting what a school presents to students in no way constitutes a restriction on what those students may be presented with elsewhere by others, including (but not limited to) their parents. Let's try an analogy (an imperfect one of course, as all analogies are):

All states currently prohibit the sale/furnishing of alcohol to those under the age of 21. Let's assume that actually applied only to those under 18 (as it used to in many states) to make the analogy work better. However, in most (perhaps even all, though I'm not sure) states it is however not illegal for parents to allow their own children to consume alcohol under their supervision (within limits that would not cause that practice to run afoul of child neglect/endangerment/etc types of legislation). When my own children were minors I was quite happy for the laws the prohibited others from providing my kids with alcohol. However, my wife and I are not teetotalers, and I did not want them growing up seeing us have a nightly glass off whatever and viewing adult beverages as forbidden fruit due to the effect that tends to have on children's behavior. So when they were 12 years old and up we, on limited occasions, allowed them small samples of whatever wine (or beer) we were enjoying at the time. We also did this on our vacations in Europe, and in the end both grew up without sneaking booze as kids or, now, abusing it as adults.

The point being that the restriction on what others were allowed to expose our children to in no way prevented them from being exposed to it. It only meant that they were exposed to it under our control, and in a manner we deemed best for them. The issue at hand is not substantively different from that...except that the restrictions under discussion are FAR less extensive.

[JasonT20]

Surely even you aren’t that stupid. Restricting what a school presents to students in no way constitutes a restriction on what those students may be presented with elsewhere by others, including (but not limited to) their parents.

So, why have a school library at all if it is so easy to get things elsewhere? It also works the other direction, if that is your argument. If it does not restrict children from accessing this material outside of school, then why is doing so at school so important? I mean, the internet exists and kids often know how to find things on the internet better than their parents.

The alcohol analogy doesn't really work. Alcohol has objectively negative effects on children. A parent looking to expose their teen children to small amounts of alcohol in a controlled setting is never the problem. The problem is coupling a mind-altering substance with an immature brain, which will harm their neurological development when they drink substantial amounts regularly. And having not fully developed judgement and sense of consequences of their actions often leads teens to dangerous behavior relating to alcohol.

The supposed harms of exposure to sexuality and LGBTQ issues in the disputed books is entirely subjective, from what I can see. The people that are most upset about it are not bringing scientific research with them to public meetings or when they go on TV or get in print articles. They are freaking out about vague dangers that amount to boogeymen. Of course, they also give away their feelings about what they see as the immorality of it all regularly.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So, why have a school library at all if it is so easy to get things elsewhere?

I guess I gave you too much credit, and you really are that stupid.

The alcohol analogy doesn’t really work. Alcohol has objectively negative effects on children.

The analogy had nothing to do with harmful effects. It was about how even far broader restrictions on providing kids with something don't prevent them from having access to it if their parents wish them to have it. I thought that was obvious. And whether or not you think something is harmful is irrelevant. What matters is what the parents think.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why is it acceptable to have so much black washing of White culture and history? Do they not have their own?

[Frank Drackman]

It's like the Bizarro World in Superman (why is it only Jerry Seinfeld and me who understand Bizarro World??)
They have their Black Planet, with a "Black House", had their own Civil War where the Winning side (Black of Course) put the Whites INTO Slavery, doing the intricate complicated jobs that Blacks were too stupid to do, Whites make up 90% of the Prison Population, where you go to Jail for NOT committing crimes....

Frank

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Are whites good dancers in Bizarro World??

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization turned negative over time, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data presented on June 15."

lmao no refunds vaxxholes

[Randal]

This is old news and also who cares. The vaccines did what they were supposed to do. Hospitals aren't full now, go to the hospital all you want.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And the disinformation served a positive purpose—killing white trash Trump supporters. Although now in the endemic phase vulnerable people are dying because they aren’t getting boosted but the fact they got the initial vaccines leads me to believe it’s not from disinformation.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think these people dying from the vaxx are dying because they aren't boosted enough?

lmao, you Covidians are something special

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You served your purpose—you helped promote disinformation that killed white trash Trump supporters. The pandemic has been over for months.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's not over for the vaxxies. lmao Hashtag DiedSuddenly

They're getting Jamie Foxxed. lol eat shit vaxxies

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You are like Gollum in the LOTR—you played your part in making America great again by helping kill tens of thousands of white trash. All praise to Allah!

[David Nieporent]

There are no "people dying from the vaxx," you deranged racist loon.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's so old it just came out today!

[Randal]

We've known for a while that the old (pre-omicron) vaccines increased infection rates for the current (omicron) variants. The fact that that leads to increased hospitalizations is not exactly earthshattering.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This faux libertarian, movement
conservative blog has operated for

TWO (2) DAYS

without publishing a racial slur and
has published racial slurs in at least

FIFTEEN (15) DISTINCT CONTEXTS

(that is 15 different discussions,
not 15 racial slurs -- many of the 15
involve multiple vile racial slurs)
during 2023 (so far).

This assessment does not consider the
incessant expressions of multifaceted
bigotry (antisemitism, Islamophobia,
misogyny, immigrant-hating, gay-bashing)
that are an everyday element of this
white, male, conservative blog.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You sound pretty vaxxed. Lol

[Frank Drackman]

Sounds like Coach has a case of the "Thursdays"

[Theendoftheleft]

This blog is plagued by Arthur’s repeated statements espousing Islamophobia (and indeed, the outright intention to destroy that faith altogether), his contempt for the poor and educated, and his American chauvinism.

Arthur has also repeatedly, and explicitly, called for, and stated his approval of, population replacement and cultural genocide. These are calls for action which would directly violate international human rights law.

He also repeatedly threatens authoritarian action, stating that ‘betters’ — which must be understood to include himself, on his view — shall silence those he dislikes, and furthermore implies that he/they will eliminate those disfavoured groups.

It is therefore of critical importance to have Arthur’s real identity released/publicized, as he should be — in the least — disbarred on these grounds. Further, all of Arthur’s clients, neighbours, and peers should be free to learn about his pernicious, politically unacceptable views, and about how he has spent YEARS trolling a website (almost daily) with trite, vicious, hateful content. This should provide everyone he knows with a more robust understanding of the quality of Arthur’s mind, and might deter them from any further association/utilisation of his professional services.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why not just ask Prof. Volokh to censor or ban me?

He has done it before. Some of that censorship stands to this day. He never expressed remorse or acknowledged the hypocrisy; to the contrary, he boasted about it. He might do it again. You seem like just the kind of guy for whom he would like to do a favor.

[Theendoftheleft]

Why on earth why would I want anyone to censor or ban you??? Quite the contrary, you do important work, AIDS.

For the more you (and people like you) speak and comment thus, the more Americans on the right become fearful, angry, and alienated. (Alienated not just from their fellow citizens, but from their government and major institutions, which they can now see are authoritarian and entirely untrustworthy.) Nay, not just those on the right, but also much more of the American white working and middle classes are becoming more politically and socially aware. (I sincerely do hope that you troll more blogs than this one, AIDS.) The more YOUR message of replacement, of cultural destruction and erasure, and of authoritarian tactics is repeated and spread, and the more it is BELIEVED by its hearers, the sooner YOU shall immanentize the self-sabotage of your own political ideals, let alone your country. It will most certainly lead to a direct impact on your own family’s well-being. Why would I want you to to be censored, when your own words and actions will lead to your family being slaughtered by your fellow Americans instead? One must consider the greater good here, of course.

At the same time, it would be wonderful if everyone who knows you, and works with you, was ADDITIONALLY made aware of these beliefs of yours (lest they don’t already). It would be wonderful for your social and professional life if you didn’t have to hide who you are, and what you really believe, any more. A true coming out.

Last, SURELY the entire Islamic world would like to know more about YOU AND YOUR FAMILY, given that you wish to destroy their faith, AIDS.

[Theendoftheleft]

https://www.newsweek.com/pro-trump-pastor-suggests-christians-should-suicide-bombers-1807061

Keep pushing millions of Americans till they snap, AIDS. 🙂

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/14/biden-white-supremacy-howard-university/

It's coming sooner than you think. And it took only one Anders Breivik to kill around 70 children. Soon the USA will have hundreds of thousands of such people, ready, willing, and able to act. Within a decade it will be millions. EVERYTHING you do and say pushes America more in that direction. (YOU are thus unquestionably the enemy of both the American constitutional republic and the very idea of a free society.)

But remember: when you try to seek refuge in one of our more civilized Western countries, you will not receive it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure he's an asshole, but you have the option of muting him so quit your bitchin'.

[Theendoftheleft]

No.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So apparently the Burisma whistleblower just turned up dead.

What an amazing coincidence, the guy managed to survive six years while the FBI covered up and hid his evidence, but as soon as it got out the public - he dies!

Seth Rich
Jeffrey Epstein
Burisma Accountant
JFK

No wonder Tara Reid fled to Russia. Her life was at risk.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Remember when the VC was about 80% attorney and 20% culture war crazies?
Good times. They were good times.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you referring to the commenters, the professors, or both?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Commenters, mostly, I guess.
The vibe was just different.

[VinniUSMC]

The years at WaPo attracted a crowd of lefty shits.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That’s how you get away with lying to the FBI, you say your source is a dead person. Nice try. 😉

[Nige]

'apparently'

[Stephen Lathrop]

An NPR radio report today seemed to assert that a Texas ordinance is in effect which makes it illegal for school students to have direct communication with government officials. I did not get the details. Is anyone familiar with any such law in Texas? I am having a hard time believing that could be an accurate description of any real law.

[Stephen Lathrop]

More research shows the Texas law outlaws classroom assignments from civics teachers at K–12 schools if they would give course credit for so-called direct communication between students and legislative or administrative officials at any level of government. It seems to be a law against letting K–12 teachers encourage civic participation generally, without regard to subject matter.

Is doing that constitutionally okay?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It seems to be a law against letting K–12 teachers encourage civic participation generally, without regard to subject matter.

As usual, your interpretation and “research” sucks. The provision you’re referring to is 28.0022(a)(3)(B) from the TX Education Code:

Sec. 28.0022. CERTAIN INSTRUCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROHIBITIONS. (a) For any course or subject, including an innovative course, for a grade level from kindergarten through grade 12: (1) a teacher may not be compelled to discuss a widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs; (2) a teacher who chooses to discuss a topic described by Subdivision (1) shall explore that topic objectively and in a manner free from political bias; (3) a school district, open-enrollment charter school, or teacher may not require, make part of a course, or award a grade or course credit, including extra credit, for a student’s: (A) work for, affiliation with, or service learning in association with any organization engaged in: (i) lobbying for legislation at the federal, state, or local level, if the student’s duties involve directly or indirectly attempting to influence social or public policy or the outcome of legislation; or (ii) social policy advocacy or public policy advocacy; (B) political activism, lobbying, or efforts to persuade members of the legislative or executive branch at the federal, state, or local level to take specific actions by direct communication; or (C) participation in any internship, practicum, or similar activity involving social policy advocacy or public policy advocacy;

So, no…it’s not any sort of restriction on direct communication or any "civic participation" in general, but only on teachers using their students for political activism.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...but only on teachers using their students for political activism."
Teachers wouldn't do that, would they?
As a kid I can regularly remember teachers telling us to make sure we told our parents to vote to approve the school budget.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they're results, and actual in the sense it actually happened, so that seems a reasonable assumption.

[Frank Drackman]

3: if they have the Body Habitus of Christ Christie, yes.

[VinniUSMC]

I, mostly, agree with Queenie, for once. Kaz's suggestion goes much too far. I wouldn't preclude the ability to regulate some indecency/decorum, but a blanket ban on lingerie? What's the limit? Are bikinis verboten? Sexy Halloween costumes? Halloween costumes that are not meant to be sexy but are somehow still surprisingly alluring? Women should be allowed to be topless anywhere men are.

Can we stop swinging the pendulum around so wildly?

[Kazinski]

Cisgender men certainly shouldn't go topless at the Whitehouse, or story hour at the library.

Let everyone go topless at the beach or lake.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess that lap band surgery isn't all its cracked up to be.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No, no they can’t. Neither end of the barbell has any desire to be reasonable anymore. I don’t know how this came to be but it has.

[Davedave]

"Sexy Halloween costumes? Halloween costumes that are not meant to be sexy but are somehow still surprisingly alluring?"

No child's fancy dress is 'sexy', and it shouldn't be 'alluring' to you. I suggest you get help prior to offending, if you haven't yet, and otherwise do the decent thing and turn yourself in.

[Kazinski]

Well I did say "indecent" displays, now surely your imagination can come up with a few examples of what am "indecent as to minors" display of lingerie would entail. I'm not saying all displays of lingerie should be covered when exposed to minors, although it there should be stricter standard for performances and events in venues that sell alcohol.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Much of the left did just last week when Barr said, in effect “yep, it’s a good indictment”.

The problem with political types such as yourself is that you totally dismiss anything from the other side since they are evil personified but when they say something that fits within your beliefs they instantly become credible. But only for a little while.

[Commenter_XY]

Just look at the people in DC and their media enablers = Neither end of the barbell has any desire to be reasonable anymore. I don’t know how this came to be but it has.

[shawn_dude]

Bothsidesism?

In the original comment, the Biden administration comes out and agrees it was inappropriate. How is that no "desire to be reasonable anymore?" Sounds to me like the Dems made the right call on this particular example. Hard to spin that into claim that the left is unreasonable here without ignoring the facts posted by Kaz.

[bernard11]

I think the lawyers call it something like "admission against interest."

Barr is generally on Trump's side, so when he makes an anti-Trump statement it's likely to be true.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does anybody know or care what they were?

[David Nieporent]

They had platforms last Presidential election.

The GOP didn't. They did in 2016; in 2020 Trump had no interest in policy or platforms so they decided not to adopt one.

[Mr. Bumble]

Where does the Constitution mention "professional independence"?

[Martinned]

@QA: For some that's a feature, not a bug. The professionalism of the civil service is one of the things illiberal politicians go after first when they're trying to blow up the rule of law and democracy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Professional and expert, two undefined and over used words.

[VinniUSMC]

No child’s fancy dress is ‘sexy’, and it shouldn’t be ‘alluring’ to you. I suggest you get help prior to offending, if you haven’t yet, and otherwise do the decent thing and turn yourself in.

Not referring to children in Halloween costumes Davedave the Dumbdumb. Quite obvious to anybody with more than 1 functioning brain cell.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“Sexy Halloween costumes? Halloween costumes that are not meant to be sexy but are somehow still surprisingly alluring?”

No child’s fancy dress is ‘sexy’, and it shouldn’t be ‘alluring’ to you. I suggest you get help prior to offending, if you haven’t yet, and otherwise do the decent thing and turn yourself in.

Are you really that stupid? Or is it just an act for our benefit?

https://www.spirithalloween.com/thumbnail/halloween-costumes/womens-costumes/womens-sexy-costumes/pc/4742/c/1326/4260.uts

[Ed Grinberg]

?
Where does he say he's "for" any of it now?
If you ask me, "gay marriage" is no less absurd than men in women's sports.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Oh come on, you weren’t for much of what the gay rights movement was for before this, were you?"

I've always been in favor of the gay rights movement. I don't care what people do in private, and I don't care if grownup cut their dicks or tits off. But cutting children's dicks off isn't gay right rights, and it's anti-gay bigotry to claim that it is.

[VinniUSMC]

Ah yes, confirmation bias. Cute.

[Bob from Ohio]

Barr is a DOJ institutionalist first. He's not going to say "its political".

[Magister]

Barr is trying to rehabilitate his reputation, and his interest has always been in expanding presidential power; that only put him on Trump's side while Trump was President. He's clearly as willing to throw Trump under the bus as Trump is to throw everybody else under the bus.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe rising the crossbar.

[Sarcastr0]

Now THAT's how you do confirmation bias.

Airtight!

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you went to school when new math came in.
Hundreds of years? If that's your position you'd better make your claim against Great Britain. Slavery was abolished less than 100 years after the formation of the US.

[Frank Drackman]

Not sure if he had just he lap band, or lap/band intestinal bypass, whatever it was, it didn't work.

[Frank Drackman]

Queenie thinks women can consent to rape, I guess she really is a dude.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is a lie, Lil’ Frankie’s mom always consented happily."

Try and keep it credible, Queenie. No one's ever consented happily to sex with you.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, Queen, it's called a mistake, like your father did by not pulling out, and your mother did by not pulling you out.
Ha! that's a great line, could have been said by Rickles or Rodney D in their prime....

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Does it help you to answer if I correct my mistake?
Funny that they still haven’t been able to find who planted the “bombs” in DC on Jan.6.

[Mr. Bumble]

obfuscate
ŏb′fə-skāt″, ŏb-fŭs′kāt″
transitive verb

1.To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand.
2,To render indistinct or dim; darken.
3.To darken; to obscure; to becloud.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

[Theendoftheleft]

All of which was predicated upon land theft. Accordingly, why don't you give all the land back to the 'Indian' people, dismantle the US government, and depopulate the 'country' of settler colonists of all other races/ethnicities?

Why do you believe in America's legitimacy?

[Mr. Bumble]

Raising

[Mr. Bumble]

Says the man presenting as a queen whose typical response is BBC references.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well since you present as a woman you should know.

[Randal]

I don't think that works, Queen. You can't change genders just by cross-dressing. "A man dressed as a woman" is definitely a possible state.

[bevis the lumberjack]

But the evidence is trending more and more toward the lab leak source, which the left and the media branded as racist because they worried that would help Trump. This despite that from a probability standpoint point it was always the most likely.

Party of Science my ass.

[Sarcastr0]

'the evidence is trending more and more' in 2023 doesn't really say much about where things were in 2020.

[Stephen Lathrop]

bevis, what change has there been in evidence for a lab leak? I have not kept up.

[Nige]

Is it? Or is there loads of tortuously circumstantial arguments bolstered by speculation and some outright lies?

[M L]

Here's the full article for you. I'm sure you were interested . . .

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/how-tobacco-companies-are-crushing-esg-ratings/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Woah, I didn’t realize the Official Approved Opinion of Perry was so low. From now on, I will only use Official Approved sources when criticizing any member of the State.

Thank you for correcting me on what the Official Approved allowable opinions were.

Can you share with me the link to the State Department Website of Official Approved journalists so I can be sure to ignore all other sources?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Oh yeah my bad, I forgot about the Blessed Infallible Fact Checkers, the ultimate deciders of the Real Official Approved Truth.

PRAISE TO THE FACT CHECKERS!

[Kazinski]

I think Pink Floyd said it:
"Leave the kids alone".

Seriously do what you want, I don't care, leave the kids out of it, that's the point.

This is the movement that is being targeted:
"Underage children were exposed to adult nudity at a recent drag show at Oregon State University’s Lasells Stewart Center, hosted by the student-fee funded campus LGBTQ group Rainbow Continuum on June 2.

The drag performance—called “Illegal Drag Show”—openly encouraged LGBTQ members to “Be Gay. Do Crime." An Instagram post advertised the event to "all ages," alongside a note that it would contain "adult themes."

https://campusreform.org/article?id=23429

[Frank Drackman]

OK Queenie, don't blame me when you end up in a shallow grave (seriously, don't blame me, I don't take "Internet Tough Gays" seriously, it'll be someone else)

Frank

[Kazinski]

Now tell me one conspiracy I've espoused.

And there is a difference between allegations and a conspiracy.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What if Trump said it was a bright, sunny day?

You'd have a crowd of journalists in overcoats and umbrellas on a cloudless day in the middle of summer.

[Frank Drackman]

at least my wife's hot, mom is too, not like yours, some fat Black Bee-otch from the Jungle, bone in the nose, have to roll her around in flour just to find the wet spot…. you really want to do a “Yo Mama So Ugly” throw down with a 4th Grader?? I used to make Dice Clay cry like a little bee-otch…

Frank

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’m sure the elephants want to block 3rd parties too – but isn’t it reasonable to ask for the government to provide evidence and an opportunity for defense before it asks voters to unsign a party's petitions?

I presume you don't believe claims of fraud made without evidence 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

Only the white ones

[Mr. Bumble]

dissemble
intransitive verb

1.To disguise or conceal one's real nature, motives, or feelings behind a false appearance.
2.To disguise or conceal behind a false appearance. synonym: disguise.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
More at Wordnik

[M L]

"unduly weighting the S stuff over the E or G stuff"

Where the "social" value of holding diversity trainings and putting woketards on your board outweighs your products killing 8 million people a year, yes.

[VinniUSMC]

That should definitely not be at a children's library, or in a K-12 school, or inviting children to attend without parental consent/awareness. And it wasn't.

An Instagram post advertised the event to "all ages," alongside a note that it would contain "adult themes."

It sounds like kids were there with their parents, on a college campus. I might object to the parents taking their kids to such garbage, but aside from personally not being a fan of the content, this particular event wasn't in a children's space and wasn't advertised to children. I think the kids were left alone just fine.

If it was in a middle school though, and advertised to the middle school students, I'd gladly be raising hell with you.

[Sarcastr0]

Calling people woketards makes me not really inclined to listen to your arguments.

You more than anyone else in this commentariat have a tone all over the place from offering right-wing criticism to bomb-throwing emptiness to lost cause insanity.

At least you stopped linking to white supremecist twitter accounts.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is calling yourself a queen considered "presenting"?

[Randal]

I think "gender identity" is an actual internal fact, and "gender presentation" has a meaning focused on externalization. They're not independent in that almost everyone prefers to present externally the same way they identify internally, but they also aren't coupled, in that anyone can present as any gender, but anyone cannot identify as any gender.

I can present as a woman. I could even present as Black. But I can't identify as either.

[Frank Drackman]

not a threat, more like a prediction, like Senescent Joe will stumble this week, wait, thats too easy, will say something incredibly stupid, even worse, I've got one
won't visit Hunter's daughter, i.e. Senescent J's Granddaughter

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

If you want to advocate for reparations start with your black brothers who sold captives to Arab traders who sold them to English, French, Spanish and Portuguese slavers who transported them to the New World well before there was a United States.

[Frank Drackman]

I think he means just because Kunta Kinte got his ass whipped for being uppity, doesn't explain Michael Brown shaking down Paki 7-11 cashiers for a pack of Cools. Same with Floyd George, trying to pass a bogus $20 (you even notice Andy Jackson has just the hint of a smile? sort of like the Mona Lisa) Its actually sort of a good thing Jackie Robinson and MLK Jr died young, they'd be ashamed to be seen with the current "crop" of DemoKKKrat Blacks, probably be hanging with Charles Barkley and "Uncle" Tom Sowell

Frank

[Randal]

True. The left misunderestimated Trump over and over. They sort of decided hey! Trump's imploding the Republican party, which frees us up to swing waaaaaay leftward. The Republican party has yet to fully implode, and may never do. Really, the Democrat's leftward lurch is what's kept the Republican party afloat. Just imagine if the Democrats had stayed relatively moderate and smart this whole time...

[Frank Drackman]

“Oh my god, there’s a novel respiratory coronavirus overtaking Wuhan, China, what do we do? Oh, you know who we could ask? The Wuhan novel respiratory coronavirus lab. The disease is the same name as the lab. That’s just a little too weird!”

[TwelveInchPianist]

"‘the evidence is trending more and more’ in 2023 doesn’t really say much about where things were in 2020."

He's talking about the evidence of where things were in 2020, Sarcastro.

[Michael P]

The actual evidence always pointed this way, but a bunch of people like you handwaved and lied, claiming that if you ignore the statistical oddities in the virome, and assume that it not having the most virulent known during cleavage site means it couldn't come from a lab, and ignore the known sources of related viruses, and assign the least corrupt possible explanation for willfully destroying scientific evidence (when the destroyers also lied about their motive), and so on and so forth, then the evidence didn't really support a lab origin for the virus.

[Sarcastr0]

The left is thinks everything requires a swing leftward.

You seem to think the Dems moved left because of Trump. I disagree - this is generational change, and they are chasing new voters. (A rare thing to see Dems do!).
Meanwhile the GOP seems stuck hustling to keep their old voters on board.

[Kazinski]

How can this be a conspiracy if Biden just disclosed it? Did he say it or not?

Speculating how it could have been developed under the radar is hardly a conspiracy, it’s informed speculation. After all it should hardly take 68 billion to build a railroad from Bakersfield to Merced, over mostly flat farmland.

The money has to be going somewhere, an undersea railroad is the obvious answer, and Biden just confirmed it.

Unless of course Biden's dementia is taking a great leap forward.

[Josh R]

Do you agree a natal-sex man can have a female gender identity?

[Randal]

It was a combination of factors, generational change was certainly one. But Clinton's loss to Trump was I think the major catalyst. A lot of AOC-style people blamed Clinton's centrism and started saying things like "socialism" all the time. A lot of people fell for Trump and MAGA-world's constant baiting, race- and otherwise, and fell into defending increasingly extreme left-wing positions that way. And a lot of people saw a weakened Republican party as an opportunity to push the boundaries leftward.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never read Dickens, you dolt?

[Kazinski]

So the courts are a forum for discussing conspiracies theories?

I thought they were where prosecutors or civil litigants had to substantiate allegations.

Well learn something new everyday.

But I can see the gray area, you thought Russiagate was an serious allegation, I thought it was a conspiracy theory.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your FBI at work. Two and a half years later and this:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/capitol-riot-pipe-bomber-phone-data-corrupted-fbi

[Randal]

Yes. I know quite a few of those!

What you end up with a lot is a sexed male who identifies as a woman but presents as a man. Until they come out.

Primary sex, identity, and presentation are all distinct.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz now has classification authority I guess.

[Kazinski]

Indecent displays like that one, can be outlawed by the states, Oregon obviously isn't going to.

But if Tennessee, Texas, and Florida want to it's constitutionally permissable, and they can go even further in banning public expenditures , and regulating venues with liquor licenses.

It's a political question, and it's going to be solved by public debate.

[Kazinski]

I guess so, and my kids turned out great.

[Sarcastr0]

Obscenity: This category is so offensive that is deserves and receives no First Amendment protection. It can be regulated or outlawed at the will of the states.

Indecency: This category is “less offensive” than obscenity. It enjoys First Amendment protection.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sources Inside the US government are saying that the first three infected people were three researchers at the Wuhan labs. They give their names, but the only one I remember is a guy named Ben Hu. Apparently he was patient zero.

Anyone who wants to tell me that this isn’t conclusive yet please don’t bother, I already understand that. But the trend in information is moving strongly toward the lab. Apparently those guys were infected at work and walked out of the building with the virus in their systems.

[Don Nico]

SL,
"lab leak" is actually a naming shift of the actual question
Was the Wuhan-strain SARS-CoV-2 virus origin a naturally occurring mutation or was it human engineered?
a) To date no naturally occurring precursor has been found
b) The most infectious aspects of the virus are well within the possibilities of human engineering.
c) The Wuhan lab had been experimenting with just such bioengineering on coronaviruses
That ground truth has not changed.

[shawn_dude]

Now let's apply this to conservative hype about a stolen election and the Jan 6th insurrection and riot...

[shawn_dude]

It's also a big 'ol strawman. Only adults can get gender transition surgeries.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’ve heard this ‘you won, now be quiet’ nonsense about gays and blacks and women since I was in college, some decades ago."

I didn't say be quiet, I said don't mutilate children. Black people didn't mutilate children when they won the civil rights movement.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird choice to use the present tense then.

[Sarcastr0]

No, the evidence didn’t. I read the papers at the time.

We didn’t even know enough about the virus or it’s close relatives to know what was anomalous or not.

That spike is still pretty tricky to figure both as design and as drift.

The lab leak is getting more likely by attrition. You don’t get attrition off the break.

[Heedless]

Dude, the man is fucking with you.

Try not to b be so literal.

[Longtobefree]

Nice.

[Don Nico]

“The lab leak is getting more likely by attrition” where attrition means that no naturally occurring likely progenitor has yet been found despite 3+ years of looking,
And where human intervention is and was within the state of biotechnology via Gain-of-function research techniques

[Kazinski]

But you do realize that there is a heightened standard recognized in the courts of obscene or indecent as to minors, right?

And there is also a lot of latitude allowed to the legislature in governing government speech, which speech the government will fund. And of course regulations for the types of adult themed entertainment that allows minors in establishments that serve alcohol.

All of those are constitutionally permissible.

[Kazinski]

I guess the criticism of the Biden administration is that they were so naive they didn't see it coming.

[Kazinski]

Thanks for telling him, he'd never figure it out on his own.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Don't forget Trump's March 11, 2020 address to the nation, when he said that that he was suspending travel from Europe to the United States starting on March 14. Over the next two days, Americans in Europe scrambled to get back to the United States before the March 14th deadline, and every single flight from Europe to the United States was completely full. There were huge backups in American airports due to the surge in traffic, creating huge crowds of tightly packed people--the perfect conditions for superspreader events.

The order Trump signed before the address blocked travel by foreigners to the United States. It placed no restrictions on Americans travelling to and from Europe, so it wouldn't have done much to stop the spread of Covid-19, but by itself it probably would have helped slightly. It had to be combined with Trump's inability to understand and/or remember what he had just signed to make the situation worse

[Stephen Lathrop]

bevis, see Don Nico's comment directly below. He may think he reinforces what you say. I see it otherwise. The only contribution he actually offers is, "That ground truth has not changed."

I understand Nico's ground truth differently than you do, apparently. You may suppose that early-recognized cases among lab staff provide strong evidence that the lab was the source of the infection. I think that is the weakest of evidence, simply because another explanation of early cases recognized among lab staff seems orders of magnitude more likely.

Consider. What you have is a lab set up to isolate dangerous biological organisms, with protocols to accomplish that. We know from experience with such facilities around the world, including in China, that escapes from such facilities have happened, but they have been extremely rare.

So to justify your supposition, either this instance is one of those rare occurrences, or something about the Wuhan lab made it for some reason unlike all the other such facilities elsewhere. Experience cannot rule out the latter possibility. But evidence for it in this instance does not exist. In short, there is no more direct evidence for an atypical outbreak from the lab than there is for a natural occurrence. In both instances the evidence is zero. It was previously zero for each hypothesis, and it remains zero for each hypothesis.

So consider what would logically happen not just at Wuhan, but anywhere in a world dotted with such bio-secure facilities, if a novel outbreak from a natural source began nearby. Most likely, illness caused by the novel virus would be attributed again and again to some more familiar ailment, while the outbreak grew and spread. Ordinary medical personnel are not typically equipped to diagnose diseases they have never heard of. They attribute medical outcomes they observe to ailments they are familiar with, especially in instances where no strikingly unfamiliar pathology presents itself.

At some point, the spread of such a new contagious pathogen would reach the vicinity of one of the laboratories where staff are routinely tested, and where monitoring for all kinds of atypical diseases is regularly practiced. Some member of the laboratory staff would catch the new disease, perhaps not at work, but by exposure elsewhere, and then bring it to work. Other workers might catch it that way. And then the routine testing, practiced continuously at the lab, would recognize the presence of a novel outbreak.

As unlikely as you may suppose that sequence of events would be, it seems many times more likely to fit the facts of the Covid outbreak's onset than does an escape from the Wuhan lab, no matter what kind of study was practiced there.

In presenting those suppositions, I am not arguing for a particular conclusion. I am attempting to show that evidence for any particular conclusion is non-existent, and that strong advocacy for any hypothesis is thus logically unsupportable.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Did you read the letter sent by the Secretary of State before posting this? It doesn't ask voters to unsign a party's petitions. It clearly states that:

If you wish to remain enrolled in the No Labels Party you do not need to do anything. [emphasis in original] However, if you did not intend to enroll in the No Labels Party, please be aware [of the procedures for changing your registration].

https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/No%20Labels%20Party%20Letter.pdf

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I thought this was a rerun of North Carolina, where the duopolists sought to have people un-sign ballot access petitions. If you have to be a member of the party to sign a ballot-access petition, this makes it *worse* than North Carolina, where anyone who supports ballot access for a political party can sign.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1781, and the US Constitution was ratified in 1789. And 1781-1789 = -8

Eight years *before* the formation of the US....

[Martinned]

Imagine how much faster slavery would have ended in the US if it hadn't declared independence from the UK, which abolished slavery throughout its colonial empire in the 1820s.

[Davedave]

Given your proclivities, the denial holds little weight. We all know what you meant.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not true. They perform unnecessary double mastectomies on girls as young as 12 and they castrate kids at 15 or 16.

[Nige]

Three years without proving the lab-leak, either, which surely ought to be, for lack of a better word, 'easier' to prove.