Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Interesting development in the Trump Espionage Act case:

Iran memo not among the 31 records underlying charges in Trump federal indictment

If the memo being discussed in the tape isn't included in the documents he allegedly illegally obtained what value is the tape to the prosecutions case? Would it even be admissible?

[santamonica811]

My guess is that they are holding it back, so that the prosecution can have, essentially, another bite at the apple. Iran document is a separate case, in a separate location. Would be no constitutional bar to, later on, filing a new charge in NJ.

Alternate explanation: No NJ prosecution is being contemplated. But the prosecution is genuinely worried about contents of this document coming out, as doing so would endanger our national interests, sources & methods, etc. So, even though it’s in some ways the strongest fact pattern, they are putting the country’s interests ahead of doing this additional prosecution, and are working to limit or eliminate the harm that could come from the contents getting into the public . . . which, I guess, is possible in a trial.

Or…some third alternative. (I don’t do crim law, so the above is idle musings and speculations only.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about the fact that Trump is a BS artist and there never was an Iran document?

Is it a crime to NOT possess classified documents? Unless one's under oath, it's not a crime to claim to have documents you don't (outside of fraud).

[EscherEnigma]

Well that would just support that it wasn't the prosecutors who "leaked" the tape, no?

[Gandydancer]

Why on earth would that follow?

They chose to put an alleged transcript of the tape in the indictment, as a pure propaganda move, evidently, so why would they hold back the tape?

[EscherEnigma]

Well first you have to assume that Dr. Ed is right (a difficult proposition, I know).

Once you're in that mindset --that the tape is proof of bravado, not a criminal mind-- then it probably doesn't make sense for the DOJ to use the tape at all, nonetheless leak it, because it doesn't support any crime.

Ipso facto, if you accept Dr. Ed's priors, the DOJ isn't the likely leaker.

[PLP 2]

This prosecutor has never been known to leak information in his cases, so I wouldn’t be so quick to point a finger. On the other hand, Trump himself had leaked a number of stories over the years to the media.

[David Nieporent]

My guess is that they are holding it back, so that the prosecution can have, essentially, another bite at the apple. Iran document is a separate case, in a separate location. Would be no constitutional bar to, later on, filing a new charge in NJ.

Nah. That's not plausible. If Trump is acquitted once on the classified documents issue, no prosecutor is going to be willing to bring a second prosecution. The optics alone would be terrible.

(And if your idea is that this hypothetical second one would be a slam dunk because of the recording, that makes it even less plausible. They're not going to deliberately put on a weak first case if they have a strong one available to them.)

My understanding, from reading coverage, is that they haven't identified/located this Iran battle plan document in Trump's possession. And they're not going to bring a prosecution related to that document w/o that document.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're not concerned about the "optics"; The optics are already horrible, half the population thinks this is a political hit job. The other half don't CARE if it's a political hit job, they approve of anything done in going after Trump.

You could send a hit squad to gun him down in public, make up some pro forma claim about having to do it to stop him from giving the nuclear launch codes to the Russians, and the optics wouldn't change much.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your understanding of American opinion on this matter is as fundamentally flawed as your understanding of....everything else you've ever tried to remark upon.

[Brett Bellmore]

Most Americans view latest Trump charges as serious

"On the other hand, 47% view the latest charges as being politically motivated, also unchanged from April (50%). These views are mainly driven by Republicans, while Democrats want to see Trump charged and to suspend his campaign. Interestingly, independents are split, with roughly half agreeing with all three sentiments.
Still, the share of Americans who believe these charges are politically motivated (47%) outnumber those who do not (37%)."

I think 47% is close enough to "half", don't you?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"The other half don’t CARE if it’s a political hit job, they approve of anything done in going after Trump."

That is the part where you're full of shit, as usual. That's not even mentioning your substitution of "political hit job" for "politically motivated."

Words matter, and yours are perpetually formed from ignorance, bias, and stupidity.

[Jerry B.]

Read the comments on any Washington Post article about Trump. There's lots of folks who'd be happy to see him in jail, regardless of whether he's guilty of anything.

[Sarcastr0]

lots of folks != half the population

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Good job policing the conversation!!

[David Nieporent]

Read the comments on any Washington Post article about Trump. There’s lots of folks who’d be happy to see him in jail, regardless of whether he’s guilty of anything.

I don't think there's anybody who doesn't think he's guilty of lots of crimes.

[Kazinski]

Probably true. The average. American commits 3 felonies a day.

How many people reading this are committing honest services fraud right now?

[Bob from Ohio]

"The average. American commits 3 felonies a day."

Libertarian stupidity. Show your work.

"How many people reading this are committing honest services fraud right now?"

Sarcasto certainly. He's a civil servant making political comments while on the job.

[Kazinski]

Harvey Silverglate did the work for me.

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00505UZ4G/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Bwaaah]

I think BB was only slightly off in his numbers. He may be a bit high in saying "half" don't care. (Maybe more like 40%?). But he's being charitable in saying they "don't care." At least 30%, in my observations, have endorsed any and all acts of prosecution of Trump, and they do so vocally, righteously, with abandon. Where do you roam that you see any significant number of people on the left who express ANY consideration of Trump that isn't negative? It's as if the name itself carries an inexorable stink, and it's brought up [by people on the left] only to affirm a staunchly opposing sentiment.

I don't know a single person on the left who read the Durham report, nor who cares that it describes very wrongful mechanisms of pursuit of Trump by the FBI. All they need to know is that it's about Trump, and that the NY Times and Washington Post both say, "Nothing to see here." (They did consistently add, way down in their reporting, that the "Russian collusion" investigation would not occur today because "safeguards" that have been put in place to prevent such wrongful actions of the FBI.)

BB is being relatively charitable in his word choices there. Do you not see the widespread animus, or must even the raw expressions of contempt be washed over by the moral revulsion that [somehow] justifies it?

[Estragon]

“I don’t know a single person on the left who read the Durham report”

I do! Allow me to introduce to you Dr Marcy Wheeler

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/06/20/a-guide-to-the-false-claims-john-durham-will-tell-congress/

[PLP 2]

I have read the Durham report at length. It is long on speculation and not so long on facts. Durham was able to bring just 2 indictments both of which went down in flames in court. Everyone Likes to forget about Cambridge Analytica.

[David Nieporent]

Three indictments. You forget about Clinesmith, who he caught having altered an email. But the two ones where he actually had to prove something, his cases went down harder than the Titanic submarine.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll remind you that, in February of 2017, before Trump had done anything notable, a clear majority of Democrats polled were in favor of impeaching him. And they didn't even know what he'd be impeached for! They just wanted him impeached.

47% of the Country Say Trump Has Violated the Constitution, but Few Support Impeachment Scroll down to "support for impeaching Presidents. In a February 2017 poll, Trump having been President only a few weeks, 58% of Democrats favored impeaching him They couldn't even identify a reason for impeaching him yet, they just wanted rid of him.

It's only gotten worse since.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'll remind you that you just linked to a source with absolutely no information as to how the survey was conducted. I will also remind you that your new goalpost isn't relevant.

"They couldn’t even identify a reason for impeaching him yet, they just wanted rid of him."

I didn't see that quote in your 'source.' You wouldn't be making up more bullshit yet again, would you?

Considering that your same 'source' alleged that approximately half of whoever the fuck they asked said that Trump had violated the Constitution, that would seem to be a reason to impeach someone, would it not?

JFC.

[Gandydancer]

"I’ll remind you that you just linked to a source with absolutely no information as to how the survey was conducted."

There are none so ignorant as those who don't wish to know the truth, and JC is a prime example of that. The page has a button labeled "DOWNLOADS" which anyone not as blinded by hatred to mere facts as JC might have noticed.

[DonP]

I could be wrong but ...

Trump committed the unforgivable sin of defeating their pet, "History Making" candidate. So, in their "minds" (using that term very loosely) he deserved anything they could do to him to teach him and all those flyover country upstarts that voted for him a lesson.

After an entire election season of being mocked and derided in private and public forums, he had the audacity to win. Then he allowed himself to be inaugurated! In spite of the protests and riots on Inauguration day.

[Sarcastr0]

Dems don't actually love Hillary, and never really did by-and-large, so yeah, you are wrong. Do you think if like Cruz or Marco Rubio defeated Hillary it'd be this level?

I, for one don't dislike Trump because he beat Hillary, I dislike him because he's an authoritarian liar who likes crimes, and isn't afraid to violently stir up his supporters to cover said crimes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I know they didn't love her. Trump would never have won in 2016 if she'd been even minimally likeable. He was only able to pull off a win because she was the most amazing combination of over the top political skills and negative charisma imaginable.

Without the first she'd never have gotten the nomination, without the second, she'd have ended up in the White house.

[Sarcastr0]

I've absolutely come around that Biden, for all his flaws, is absolutely doing better dealing with the GOP than Hillary woulda.

But point is DonP is wrong with his Trump committed the unforgivable sin of defeating their pet, “History Making” candidate. And you seem to agree he is wrong.

[PLP 2]

I'm sorry, I don't see your name above as "boss of the thread."

[Krayt]

Nah. That’s not plausible. If Trump is acquitted once on the classified documents issue, no prosecutor is going to be willing to bring a second prosecution. The optics alone would be terrible.

We spent, hell, are spending still, 6 years watching one side shamelessly and facetiously siccing government on a political opponnent over and over and over. I don't think optics is an issue for them.

"But he did a bad thing!"

That's not why you liars have skin in the game.

[Krayt]

And I didn't vote for him. Twice! I'm anti-weasel. I just won't butter up weasel opposition, abusing investigative power.

The purpose of the 4th and 5th and other stuff is not to protect the commoner wandering around with a bindle stick, though it does that. It's to protect the political opposition who irritates the king, who will investigate knowing they may very well find stuff.

Proof? Nobody gives a rat's ass about Hunter Biden except in the context of hurting the president.

"That's completely different!"

No, no it's not.

[Sarcastr0]

And I didn’t vote for him. Twice! I’m anti-weasel. I just won’t butter up weasel opposition, abusing investigative power.

This is the 'some of my best friends are black, but...' of the Trump era.

I don't care if you think he's an asshole or not, if you're so partisan you can't countenance the evidence behind the charges he's facing, and handwave your way into it all being a frame-up, that's a you problem not a Democratic problem.

[ducksalad]

There’s nothing inconsistent about believing that the charges are true, serious, politically motivated, and hypocritical all at the same time.

Like the Golfos accusing a Sinaloa of being a murderous drug smuggler.

[Sarcastr0]

Good rejoinder!
You can absolutely take issue with the charge, on a substantive basis. You'll be wrong and silly, but it's a legit way to be.

Did you notice how Krayt did not engage, but rather just waived his hand and claimed persecution by analogy to Hunter Biden?

Yeah, that sucks.

[Krayt]

Sigh. Both sides go after because they are opponents, not because they did something wrong.

Personally, I’d be fine with assigning prosscutors for all high officials, to churn indefinitely.

For that matter, if Wonder Woman’s magic lasso existed, they should all undergo testing on a regular basis, asked questions by opponents.

So, no, I have no illusions of the inherent rotten nature of politicians. Sans everyone under investigation all the time, it should not be political opponents.

Do you think we’d be here if Trump had declined to run again?

Do you think we’d be here if Hunter wasn’t a reactionary tit for tat?

Nobody cares about Hillary’s email server anymore, or the Benghazi channel (Fox News), not because they're over or false, two absolute irrelevancies to the politics. It’s over because she’s not running again.

[Sarcastr0]

Both sides go after because they are opponents, not because they did something wrong.

You just did it again. Made a broad assertion and absolved yourself of bothering to do an actual evaluation of the facts.

No, actually politicians do sometimes do crimes, it's not all political persecutions.

Do you think we’d be here if Trump had declined to run again?
I do, and I think you'd be here saying this was revenge due to liberals being outta control in that scenario. A blanket cynicism covers all bases.

Nobody cares about Hillary’s email server anymore, or the Benghazi channel (Fox News), not because they’re over or false, two absolute irrelevancies to the politics
You REALLY don't like making individual factual determinations, do you?

[ducksalad]

Krayt didn’t say they did nothing wrong. He said that’s not the reason the prosecutors are going after them.

Analogy: Surely you accept that sometimes black drivers are racially profiled and selectively pulled over. The claim is not that their driving and their car were legally flawless. The claim is that’s not the real reason the cops decided to pull them over, and if they'd been white they wouldn’t have been.

[Sarcastr0]

My main issue is that Krayt is not even examining the facts of each case, he's just asserting all cars being pulled over are due to racial profiling. That's lazy and wrong.

Your argument is also wrong - the proposition that no politician's guilt is worse (and thus more worthy of prosecution) than that of other politicians is also reductive. Such an argument must be made on a politician-by-politician basis, and requires individualized evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

BTW duck, just want to give you out-of-the-thread props on your 'We radically reduce the fraction of judges that come from Harvard and Yale' point.

[ducksalad]

A more accurate description of my opinion would be that while they’re not all equally bad, they’re generally bad enough that treating them by the standards applied to normal people would require a prison bus full of high officials leaving DC every month or so. And therefore, we’re haven’t applied that standard because it’s not compatible with having an elected government. We’d have a government selected through prosecutorial discretion rather than by the people.

Just limiting things to my lifetime: By normal person standards, a good case could be made that Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II, Trump, and Biden deserved terminal prison sentences. Kennedy, Bush I, Obama, borderline. I think Ford and Carter could avoid prosecution.

[Sarcastr0]

You're right on all counts, though I'm kinder to Obama than you are the rest seems spot on.

Except it's not politicians, it's elites; and it's been the case forever.
I mean, I reflexively give the rich and powerful a bump up in what I consider to be chargeable, just because that is in fact the way it is.

That sucks, but 1) I don't see a lot of hope for reform; power has ever been that way, in whatever system you care to construct, and 2) Trump stands out even by this standard, in lots of ways.

Elites get away with stuff. That doesn't mean you get to just decide when they don't it must be persecutions without checking the facts (and the baseline)

[Brett Bellmore]

"Just limiting things to my lifetime: By normal person standards, a good case could be made that Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II, Trump, and Biden deserved terminal prison sentences. Kennedy, Bush I, Obama, borderline. I think Ford and Carter could avoid prosecution."

Sounds about right. I mean, you could probably have gone after Ford claiming that the pardon was a quid pro quo for having been picked as VP, but it would be a stretch.

I've said many times that it would have been easy to justify impeaching Trump, but the Democrats had to go for BS charges because the serious ones would have set precedents they didn't want to have to live with.

[David Nieporent]

Yes; "BS charges" like illegally withholding foreign aid to try to extort a foreign country to interfere in a U.S. election, and then trying to overthrow the government.

[Nige]

‘Both sides go after because they are opponents’

Worth pointing out here that in a two-party democracy each side is somewhat responsible for keeping the other side honest and for holding them accountable, so actually the substance of the charges each side lays against the other can’t just be handwaved away – even if that were a good idea anyway – since they’re fulfilling an important function if they’re doing it honestly and responsibly and they’re treating it as a joke if they aren’t, and obviously there are degrees of abuse and fuckery in each, but come on.

And that *still* doesn't mean Biden thought it'd be great larks to sic the DOJ on Trump for this because THEY GAVE HIM EVERY CHANCE TO RETURN THE DOCUMENTS.

[Nige]

“But he did a bad thing!”

In the great game of bothsideism, Trump having done something and Biden not having done something (that is to say is not actually implicated in anything Hunter did) are exactly the same.

[Krayt]

I'm not comparing what they did, I'm comparing the politics of siccing the government against political enemies.

[Nige]

You're taking as fact that the Dems are siccing the DOJ on Trump.

[Gandydancer]

Your pretense that there is any doubt that that is what they're doing in laughable. But, then, YOU are always a clown act.

[Nige]

See Krayt? You're believing this loser.

[PLP 2]

@Kayt-That is a bold faced lie. Donald Trump has spent his entire life as a white collar criminal. This has nothing to do with being a "political opponent" and everything to do with his behavior.

[John F. Carr]

My guess is the government didn't recover the document and would have a hard time proving its case without a piece of paper and a chain of custody. Like proving murder without a body. Not impossible, but harder.

[Voize]

There are two equally likely possibilities. One is, as you say, they didn't recover the document. Trump lost it, destroyed it, or still has it.
The other is that Smith couldn't successfully negotiate the use of the document with the agency that originated it. This often involves redactions or substitutions that the agency accepts, and that the prosecutor believes will be acceptable to the court and will preserve the evidentiary value for the jury, but sometimes there is no middle ground and a classified document can't be used.

[Magister]

Trump might also have sold it.

[Gandydancer]

The claim that Milley's aged executive-level "plan" for invading Iraq would, if revealed, be a threat to national security is ludicrous.

[David Nieporent]

Iran, not Iraq.

And I see we've reached the, "Okay, he confessed to doing what he's accused of that I've previously been vociferously denying, but it's no big deal" stage of Trump bargaining.

[not guilty]

The tape recording would be admissible if offered by the prosecution pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(a) if authenticated by a witness who was present for the conversation as an accurate representation of what Donald Trump said. The relevance would be that Trump was mishandling a document that he knew to be classified and that he knew that his authority to declassify documents ended when he left office as president.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wouldn't it also have to be a one party recording state?

[David Nieporent]

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Frank Drackman]

and you're the simple stupid one to do it

[not guilty]

I haven't seen any indication that the recording was surreptitious. In any event, New Jersey is a one party consent state. https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-jersey/new-jersey-recording-law

[John F. Carr]

If hypothetically the recording did not violate federal law but did violate New Jersey law, would it be admissible in federal court?

[not guilty]

I haven't researched that question, but off the top of my head I would think that the feds there would benefit from the silver platter doctrine.

[John F. Carr]

Some wiretapping laws make evidence inadmissible but federal courts might decline to apply state rules of evidence.

[santamonica811]

Wouldn't "Erie" cover this question?
(Or is that only in diversity cases??? . . . It's been 30 years+ since law school and the Bar.)

[David Nieporent]

Yes. There's no exclusionary rule for things a private citizen does to obtain evidence. If I break into your home to steal your electronics and see bundles of cocaine on the kitchen table, I can testify about that even though, had a cop entered your home w/o a warrant, his testimony would've been suppressed.

Also, just to be clear, this is all a red herring because these were not secret tapes. Trump knew about and wanted the interviews recorded.

[OtisAH]

You guys really can’t handle the most basic details of any of these events. It’s really quite incredible. The tapes were made by Mark Meadows’s biographers who were interviewing Turnip. But even that is an un-retainable detail for you mooks. Truly astonishing.

[Gandydancer]

"The relevance would be that Trump was mishandling a document that he knew to be classified and that he knew that his authority to declassify documents ended when he left office as president."

It would be evidence that Trump SAID he had a document that he knew to be still classified and that he knew that his authority to declassify documents ended when he left office as president. But in the linked story Trump denies there was actually any such document,.

[David Nieporent]

Whether he was holding up actual Pentagon battle plans or a Lands End catalog he had just received in the mail, his admission that he knew he had no right to declassify documents after he left office would stand.

He can try to roll the dice with the jury on "Actually, I was lying to everyone in the room when I said I had such a document," even though the context of the recording makes clear otherwise. Good luck with that. But unless (a) he actually takes the stand and testifies (I think his lawyers might commit ritual hara-kiri if he did), or (b) he can find someone in the room to testify, "Yes, I was close enough to see it, and he was lying," then he can't get this denial in front of the jury.

[Kleppe]

It's just fodder to leak to the news media.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yep... Anything potentially damaging to Trump is leaked.

[not guilty]

Why do you surmise that it was “leaked”? Numerous people had legitimate access to the audio tape, including Trump’s defense team and the person doing the recording. Each of these people had every right to give the tape to CNN or any other media.

Do you find it peculiar that the recording surfaced in the media only after it was provided in discovery to the defense?

[Krayt]

Do you find it peculiar that the recording surfaced in the media only after it was provided in discovery to the defense?

Yes, but it's not necessarily what you think.

I worked for a company of 2000 people once. The CEO took a job in some European country's equivalent of a cabinet.

He sent out an email to all 2000 employees, "Hey, I'm leaving this job for that one.

"Pssst! Shhhhhh! It's a secret! Don't tell anyone!"

[jb]

Well, yes. This just demonstrates that there's plenty of folks other than the prosecution team who leaked it, and the timing indicates that it was likely someone else.

[Gandydancer]

The timing indicates nothing of the sort. As AL said, "Anything potentially damaging to Trump is leaked", and after it's not held only by the prosecution is precisely when the prosecution anti-Trump insiders are no longer the only possible source. But they are still the only motivated source.

[David Nieporent]

Given how many things Trump has done wrong, pretty much all facts are potentially damaging to him.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump now is reportedly claiming that he in fact was not showing off classified documents on the audio tape in which he referred to “highly confidential” material and “secret information” that he could no longer declassify. In other words, his explanation is that he was lying to his visitors.

“I would say it was bravado, if you want to know the truth, it was bravado,” Trump said in an interview aboard his plane with Semafor and ABC News. “I was talking and just holding up papers and talking about them, but I had no documents. I didn’t have any documents.” https://www.semafor.com/article/06/27/2023/it-was-bravado-trump-says-he-wasnt-holding-up-classified-documents-in-2021-meeting

Suppose the audio clip is played for the jury at trial. In order to get his explanation of the conversation before the jury, Trump would have to testify and subject himself to wide open cross-examination. Needless to say, cross-examining a witness like Trump is about as much fun as a lawyer can have with clothes on.

[David Nieporent]

1) Donald Trump has never used the term "bravado" in his life. His legal team crafted that 'explanation.'

2) I do love the "Don't believe my confessions to crimes; I was lying when I did that" — a/k/a "It's just locker room talk" — approach of Trump to accusations.

3) As you say, Trump's new 'explanation' doesn't get in unless he testifies. To be sure, if one of the other people on the tape testifies, "Oh, yeah, I was close enough to see and he was actually waving around a stack of Bed Bath and Beyond discount coupons, not a classified battle plan, when he said that," that could get in.

[Brett Bellmore]

“The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves. but they can get very excited by those who do. That is why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest, the greatest and the most spectacular.” Donald Trump, Art of the Deal.

You were saying?

[SRG]

Did he write it himself?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Schwartz_(author)

[Brett Bellmore]

Got no idea. Does Biden write his own stuff? But I think publishing a book under your own name does constitute "using" the words in it.

[Sarcastr0]

So when DMN offered that this sounds like his legal team crafted that ‘explanation’ you objected, but don't really have any particular follow-up.

[Krayt]

"Hey, Don. 'member when that ghost author wrote about bravado in your book? Let's use that!"

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, shame on DMN For not thinking and addressing all potential alternate scenarios in his opinion.

[Brett Bellmore]

My follow up was that, yes, Trump had used the word. Because he had. What's your complaint about that? You don't like facts?

[Nige]

Your example was another thing that was written *for* him.

[SRG]

Trump's ghost-written book uses the word. That's hardly the same thing.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Actually, it is the same thing. By which I mean, it was ghost written then, it was almost certainly ghostwritten this time too.

[SRG]

Indeed! LOL 🙂

[Bored Lawyer]

That sentence perfectly encapsulates Trump's appeal. The consummate con-man.

[David Nieporent]

You were saying?

Trump did not write the Art of the Deal, so I don't know why you think that helps your case.

[Bored Lawyer]

I do love the “Don’t believe my confessions to crimes; I was lying when I did that” — a/k/a “It’s just locker room talk” — approach of Trump to accusations.

I call it the "I make sh-- up" defense. Which in Trump's case is entirely credible. Whether or not he used the word "bravado."

As for being required to testify, see my comments below on corpus delecti.

[Sarcastr0]

I call it the “I make sh– up” defense. Which in Trump’s case is entirely credible.

No, it is not. No one believes this reversal. Except maybe for you.

Trump lies about broad stuff like numbers and scandals to aggrandize or defend himself.
He doesn't say 'this document about a war plan is secret and I shouldn't have it.' That's not credible.

YOU are credulous. Incredibly so, even.

[Bored Lawyer]

Since you mention it, I saw someone on the internet (who is not a Trump fan) raise the following. There is an old doctrine called corpus delecti. Basically, the Govt. cannot rely on a confession to establish that there was a crime, without corroboration that a crime in fact occurred. The leading case, still cited today, is Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (1954), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/348/84/.

Second. We next consider the extent of the corroboration of admissions necessary as a matter of law for a judgment of conviction. . . .
Whether the differences in quantum and type of independent proof are in principle or of expression is difficult to determine. Each case has its own facts admitted and its own corroborative evidence, which leads to patent individualization of the opinions. However, we think the better rule to be that the corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti. It is necessary, therefore, to require the Government to introduce substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the statement. Thus, the independent evidence serves a dual function. It tends to make the admission reliable, thus corroborating it while also establishing independently the other necessary elements of the offense. Smith v. United States, post, p. 348 U. S. 147. It is sufficient if the corroboration supports the essential facts admitted sufficiently to justify a jury inference of their truth. Those facts plus the other evidence besides the admission must, of course, be sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So Trump's statement, alone, would not be admissible against him. If not admitted, he would not have to testify that it was mere bravado.

Now the question is, what other corroborating evidence would the Govt. need? Clearly, if they can prove that he indeed had the Iran battle plans, that is more than enough under Opper. But it is claimed that, in fact, those are not part of the Govt.'s documents.

Is it sufficient under Opper to show he had other classified docs in his possession? Not clear to me.

[not guilty]

Nothing you have written suggests that the tape would be inadmissible. The corroboration requirement goes to whether an admission, without more, is sufficient to support a conviction.

And the SCOTUS decision you quoted predates the Federal Rules of Evidence, which were enacted in 1972 and became effective in 1973.

[David Nieporent]

So Trump’s statement, alone, would not be admissible against him.

No, that's not at all a correct summary of the doctrine you're talking about. The requirement of establishing a corpus delicti is not an evidentiary rule; it's a rule regarding the sufficiency of evidence. It would absolutely be admissible against him. If it's literally the only piece of evidence they have, it would lead to a judgment of acquittal.

[Noscitur a sociis]

David Nieporent is correct that the corpus delicti rule doesn’t have anything to do with whether a defendant’s statement is admissible or not.

But even more importantly, there is no corpus delicti principle in federal criminal law.

Other than that, great point!

[David Nieporent]

But even more importantly, there is no corpus delicti principle in federal criminal law.

I'm not a CDL, but is that right? Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (1954) seems to indicate otherwise. Now, maybe that's been abrogated by statute or later rulings — I'm not going to Shepardize just for a quick blog comment — but otherwise, it seems like federal courts do recognize it.

[David Nieporent]

Interesting development in the Trump Espionage Act case:

That is not a "development." It's just a random, and already-known, factoid that Trumpkins seized upon as a "Look! A Squirrel!" distraction after flailing for several days after the recording made Trump look even worse than before.

If the memo being discussed in the tape isn’t included in the documents he allegedly illegally obtained what value is the tape to the prosecutions case? Would it even be admissible?

It speaks to his mens rea, and yes, absolutely, it would be admissible.

Hypo: I'm prosecuted for negligent homicide because my submarine had no safety features and all the passengers on board died, and there's a recording of me saying, "I don't give a crap about safety; all I care about is selling tickets." Do you think this recording would be inadmissible if it turned out I was talking about a different vehicle than the one that sank?

[Bored Lawyer]

See my discussion above re corpus delecti.

And your analogy is not perfect, because presumably there would be independent evidence that the sub sank and lacked safety features. That is corpus delecti. If it were not clear whether there even was a sinking, then it might not be admissible.

[David Nieporent]

Again, corpus delicti has nothing to do with admissibility.

Also, it's pretty clear that Trump was in possession of classified documents, because (a) he returned some to the government in response to a grand jury subpoena; and (b) more were found pursuant to a search warrant.

So this is all a red herring on your part.

[Bored Lawyer]

I understand what you are saying about admissiblity. He would have to argue that under 403, it is unfairly prejudicial to admit ostensible admissions about other, uncharged classified documents (which the Govt. cannot corroborate without showing he had those specific plans). THat is likely a loser.

The rest of your response assumes that having other classified documents is sufficient corroboration as to the ones that are charged. Not clear to me that is correct.

But, yes, that evidence will probably come in, which means that Trump will have to testify that he was just BS-ing.

[Sarcastr0]

It establishes knowledge and thus intent.

[Gandydancer]

Speaking about BS-ing, Gaslightro is expert at that, and shows it here. The tape is inconclusive both as to knowledge (of what?)and intent (to do what?).

[not guilty]

I am surprised to be having to point this out, but an item of evidence need not be conclusive to be admissible.

[OtisAH]

For one, it obliterates any claim that he believes he has the right to declassify anything at any time in any manner he chooses. And any claim he just didn’t understand his obligations and restrictions. Both of those are major aspects of his defense so far.

[jb]

...and that everything that he had taken out of the White House was already declassified during his Presidency.

I assume that this document isn't included in the set of documents that he was indicted for because it remains sufficiently sensitive from a national security perspective that the prosecutor doesn't think it's worth the risk to national security to let defense counsel see it and for it to be discussed in front of a jury.

[Gandydancer]

You assume all sorts of stupid shit not in evidence, but no one need join you in making any such assumption.

The claim that revealing Milley’s obsolescent “plan” would be a threat to national security is ludicrous.

The fact that Trump said to a reporter that it was secret does not in fact establish that it was in the class of documents whose possession Trump did not have the right to retain, even if it exists. Nor does it establish that Trump knew he ought not possess it, particularly if what “it” is is unidentified.

[David Nieporent]

Trump did not merely say "secret." He said classified. He expressly said it was classified, that he could have declassified it before leaving office, but now he can't.

That does, in fact, establish that it was in the class of documents whose possession Trump did not have the right to retain, and that he knew he ought not to possess it.

[jb]

You seem pretty mad, dude. Maybe take an Internet break for a day or two.

[Darth Buckeye]

I have an idea. Biden should grant Trump pardons for the current federal crimes at issue. That would spare us from most of the argument that there are two levels of justice in this country.

[jb]

I can’t think of anything that would more clearly demonstrate that there are indeed two levels of justice in the country.

(Hint: they're not the ones you think.)

[Moderation4ever]

Agree a pardon for Trump shows that rich white men can do whatever they want and they system will let them go.

[Gandydancer]

The Hunter Biden sweetheart deal and the slow-walking that preceded it, as well as the Clinton server experience, etc. left nothing more to show. HB is pure impunity, and HRC was way more significant in terms of national security, It’s not even close. It's not even within several orders of magnitude.

[Moderation4ever]

Neither of the cases you suggest is relevant here. Hunter Biden accepted guilt. He got a good deal but no more than anyone else with the resources to hire good legal talent. Hillary Clinton cases was investigated, and, in the end, no criminal charges were filed. James Comey said that she was sloppy and did not follow procedure, but these did not rise to the level of criminality.

The charges against Trump are significantly more substantial than either of these cases. Allow the case to be adjudicated before any discussion of clemency or pardons.

[santamonica811]

With all the uproar over the Independent State Legislature theory, I'm sort of appalled by some of the arguments put forward by its supporters.

I think the opponents are correctly saying, “It's unconstitutional because of [reasons X, Y, and Z]. It's also the worst fucking idea in the past 100 years, and could bring about the functional end of our democracy.”

But I would think that at least many on the other side would say, “We think it's a valid theory, for [reasons A, B, and C]. BUT . . . we agree that it's the worst fucking idea in our nation's history. Or, at least, in the past 50 years. If the Sup. Ct were to accept our theory, it would mean an open invitation for states to say, in 2023, “We don't give a shit about the voters in our own particular state. If you end up voting for [our guy, or our girl], then great. Less work for us. But if you voters screw up and vote for the person from the other side, then we'll just swap in electors for our party's nominee.” Or other such nonsense on state elections.

That's just freakin' evil.

If the Constitution clearly says X, then our hands are tied. The only recourse is to change the Constituion. But when the language is not 100%, then surely it's fair for citizens and judges and justices to say, “What will be the result if we support this argument or that argument?”

This is just off the top of my head, but let's look at the 22nd Amendment. (Re how long a president can serve). It is correctly worded that, “No person shall be elected to office of president more than twice...” But imagine if it instead said, “No MAN shall be elected....” Sounds pretty clear that it doesn't apply to women, if you read the language literally. But that would be a (again) bleeping stupid reading . . . it cannot have been the intention that a male is limited in the duration of service as president, while a woman could serve FDR-lengths.

Or, as has been floated (but not seriously, and never by serious people): “Hey, W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, or Obama can be president again. Just put him in as VP, and then have the president resign. Woo-hoo . . . he's not elected as president for this third term, so the proscriptions in the 22nd don't apply. Again, a profoundly dumb argument, outside of law school hypotheticals and late-night bar conversations inside Washington DC. It can't be a seriously-considered argument that this amendment was set up to limit a president to 2 terms (and an extra 2 years, for fun edge-cases), but that there's this nice loophole built in, so that a well-crafted plan could end up with a president-for-life.

Putting aside the (not insignificant) slice of the country who have whored their integrity for Trump, how can any serious conservative POSSIBLY argue for the ISL, and certainly not without also shouting at the top of his lungs about exactly how dangerous and stupid it would be—regardless of its legality or illegality?

[Kazinski]

I think there is something to the independent state legislature theory but not much. And certainly it doesn't allow the state.legislators to override the will of the voters, and Moore v Harper was about the Legislatures authority in redistricting, not presidential elections :
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof..."

I think the legislature is bound by both its previous acts, and the state constitution in redistricting. But I also thing the State Supreme court, and lower courts of course, are limited in their powers when it does come to elections and redistricting, they may review and invalidate enforcement of legislative acts, but they can't craft their own redistricting plan.and impose it on the legislature and voters.

And Roberts said as much: "While the Court does not adopt a test by which state court interpretations of state law can be measured in cases implicating the Elections Clause, state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.

[Michael P]

I think the legislature is bound by both its previous acts, and the state constitution in redistricting.

The constitution, sure, but there's a doctrine that says no Congress can tie the hands of a future Congress. Why should the principle be different for a state legislature? (I don't think the case here is over alleged violation of rules that one session of the legislature set for itself.)

[Kazinski]

By that I mean the legislature can't pass laws for time manner and procedures of elections, have an election go south on them, go into emergency session and change the law and set a new date for a do over.

They can of course change rules for the next election.

[John F. Carr]

If I recall correctly the electoral vote reform act from last winter has some language limiting the ability of state legislatures to change the rules after election day. Some electoral reform is aspirational rather than truly normative because when Congress meets it can make up any rules it likes. The law should prevent the votes I scribbled in crayon on the back of a menu from reaching the Vice President's hands on January 6. The old law was good enough to keep Pence from having to handle the seven slates of "alternate" electors.

[David Nieporent]

Putting aside the (not insignificant) slice of the country who have whored their integrity for Trump, how can any serious conservative POSSIBLY argue for the ISL, and certainly not without also shouting at the top of his lungs about exactly how dangerous and stupid it would be—regardless of its legality or illegality?

No serious conservatives could or did argue for it.

But you've got to remember that Trumpkins also came up with the notion that VPOTUS could unilaterally declare whoever he wanted to be the winner of the election, regardless of how electors actually voted. That's even more insane.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, even in the 'worst case' balls to the wall ISL theory, the legislature has to care. Just because the state judiciary can't do anything, doesn't mean the state legislature isn't subject to federal judicial process, and Congress' own "time, place, and manner" authority.

The key point here, I think, is that the state courts don't get the final say on these matters, the way they would for ordinary state law. The federal courts really can say, "No, state court, that is NOT a reasonable ruling under your state constitution. Try again."

As for your circumvention of the 2 term limit, did you forget the last line of the 12th amendment? "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

[Sarcastr0]

If the upshot is federal courts must second guess state courts’ interpretation of their own constitution, that seems an absurd result.

[gVOR08]

It certainly seemed absurd to me in Bush v Gore. Of course they claimed a violation of the Federal Constitution. But that failed the long standing precedent of the laugh test. Hence the “OK, even we can’t pretend this is valid precedent.”

[Brett Bellmore]

The violation of the federal Constitution would be the failure to let the legislature call the shots, obviously. It would be pretty absurd if the federal courts were required to let state courts run amok when the topic is the election of federal officers.

[Kazinski]

What the Florida Supreme Court did was not only say that Florida's legislature got it wrong they also said "and now you have to do it our way", and that's why the Supreme court intervened.

Roberts again in Moore v Harper:
"state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections."

We can call it the "No Legislating from the Bench in Federal Elections Doctrine".

[JasonT20]

We can call it the “No Legislating from the Bench in Federal Elections Doctrine”.

Conservatives, like CJ Roberts, don't seem to like how courts issue remedies when legislatures muck up election laws, redistricting, or whatever. But they propose no alternate effective remedy for when a legislature would keep doing that. If they don't like that a court ordered some neutral third party analyst organization to draw a map that they would then approve or reject, then what do they think a court should do if the majority party in a state blatantly favors itself and then refuses to create a fair map? Especially if the old map can't work because the number of seats changed due to population changes.

I am fine with a court imposing remedies to election law disputes for the next election when there isn't time for the legislature to try again and have that go through court review. Unless you can think of another way for the rights of voters to fair elections to be upheld when legislatures won't do it.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, it is important to remember that the same Election Clause (if you can call it that) vests Congress with the power to change state election rules. So at some point, hanky-panky by a State Legislature would be overruled by Congress.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump’s statement, alone, would not be admissible against him
Under what world do you think there is no other evidence in this case???

[David Nieporent]

would be overruled by Congress

Have you met Congress? They can't even do things like confirm the appointments of military officers because one senator is throwing a tantrum about something unrelated.

[Kazinski]

That Congress doesn't or can't wield its authority doesn't give the courts license to step in and usurp it.

[David Nieporent]

Non-responsive. Bored Lawyer said that "at some point, hanky-panky by a State Legislature would be overruled by Congress." I suggested that it would not.

[Bob from Ohio]

"could bring about the functional end of our democracy.”"

Having elected legislators have the final say on one specific issue rather than judges could end democracy?

"Democracy", from the Greek for "judicial review".

"Just put him in as VP, and then have the president resign. "

Its the last sentence of Amendment 12, not any part of 22A, that prevents this.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Having elected legislators have the final say on one specific issue rather than judges could end democracy?"

When you avoid discussing the specifics and, instead, speak at the highest level of generality, you make it seem so anodyne.

But the reality is that in today's polarized environment, yes, allowing one or several partisan state legislatures reject the expressed will of their states' voters to install their preferred President certainly could cause the functional end of the U.S. democratic system.

You just have to look around the world and through history to see the fragility of democracy. A sizable portion of the electorate seems to think our system can be bent as far as desired for immediate ends with no long term consequences. They, you, are wrong about that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"When you avoid discussing the specifics and, instead, speak at the highest level of generality"

That's what you are doing. The "specifics" of this week's case was the constitutional language regarding apportionment.

[NOVA Lawyer]

No, I didn't speak at a high level of generality, I pointed out a specific instance where the rule you apparently advocate would cause serious stability problems with our republic.

You may disagree that if the independent state legislature theory were adopted in this specific instance, it would apply to the other. But that's not what most of its advocates say.

But, again, you avoided specifics altogether. I didn't. If you're going to disagree, at least do so with a modicum of reading comprehension.

[Gandydancer]

"A sizable portion of the electorate seems to think our system can be bent as far as desired for immediate ends with no long term consequences."

They're called "Democrats" and they are repetitively engaging iin lawfare against the presumptive opposition Presidential candidate over nothingburgers.

[NOVA Lawyer]

If you think Trump withholding government-owned documents after being asked for them multiple times, and then intentionally obstructing the government in locating and getting back classified documents (to include ensuring a false affidavit was submitted to the DOJ) is a “nothingburger”, then you really don’t have worthwhile opinions.

Ditto if you think his knowingly false claims about a stolen election and efforts to try to get the VP to violate his oath of office (which he repeated and made explicit in public comments a year later), to say nothing of the “perfect” phone call to Raffensperger, constitute a “nothingburger.”

Both instances are very serious. More serious than Nixon’s felonies. You might be able to make a sensible argument that, despite the seriousness of the offenses, it’s better not to engage the criminal justice system as would be done if anyone else had done these things. But you’re claiming they’re no problem. That’s a stupid opinion, frankly.

[David Nieporent]

then you really don’t have worthwhile opinions.

If it took you this long to deduce that about gandydancer, you're a slow learner.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Touche!

[Kleppe]

Hopefully today is the day Harvard gets spanked and the Democrats are finally prevented from treating college applicants differently based on the applicants' race.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

As long as legacy (George W Bush) and geography (Dick Cheney) are still allowed then I don’t care!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's not happening. No way is Roberts and the other DC elites going to take that policy away from their pals.

[Ed Grinberg]

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." (John Roberts)

[Estragon]

Your crystal ball needs recalibration

[Sarcastr0]

How much of the country does this effect? It’s not that big? Nor is it something DEI folks think is a keystone policy for expanding our talent pool, just a useful one.

I like AA and would prefer it remain but Dobbs this ain’t.

And yet the passion among many on the right is incredible. The resentful excitement is way out of rational proportion.

Disheartening how many are all in on white grievance even when it’s effects on them personally are remote.

[Ed Grinberg]

I like AA

Fucking racist ...

[JasonT20]

Yeah! It is incredible that someone might want to see even an attempt at an effective response to centuries of discrimination. We have to just declare that discriminating now is illegal, and that will fix it.

Seriously, though, if you think that affirmative action or its like are policies that will be ineffective, then feel free to propose alternatives. Simply assuming that opportunities for all are equal now, or equal enough, or that they will become equal on their own eventually is to be willfully blind to reality.

I am not going to be blind to how much easier my life was (as a white male) than it was for most Black, Latino, or Native Americans of my generation. I was pretty near the middle of the distribution for white Americans in terms of socioeconomic status while growing up and attending college. People in the minority groups that are targeted for help with things like affirmative action that are in the middle of the distribution within their groups have far less opportunity to reach their potential. And that is due to the history of intentional discrimination and neglect those groups suffered. That is what I think is meant by "white privilege", and it needs to be addressed.

[Brett Bellmore]

For sure this isn't Dobbs; Race based admissions are widely unpopular, even in left-wing places like California. Abortion had the country split down the middle, racial preference had the public on one side and policy makers on the other.

[Sarcastr0]

I was speaking to impact.

But I thought you didn't believe opinion polls?

[Brett Bellmore]

Remind me, didn't California just recently have a public vote on restoring racial discrimination in admissions? Which went very badly for the racists, I seem to recall.

I suppose you could call an election a "poll", if you wanted.

[Sarcastr0]

So no opinion polls, but a failed vote in Cali, you'll hang you hat on that.

Pretty clearly outcome oriented, chief!

(BTW I do believe opinion polls, albeit not as gospel; it's like 50% disapprove, 33% approve and the rest don't care. Intensity of opinion numbers are the real key to understanding)

[Brett Bellmore]

CBS News poll finds most say colleges shouldn't factor race into admissions

53-47 in favor of continuing affirmative action.
70-30 AGAINST taking race into account in admissions.

The public are perhaps mildly in favor of "affirmative action" if defined in the way Kennedy started it out before LBJ got his racist hands all over it. To “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race,"

At the same time they are so over using racial preferences that it's not even close.

[Sarcastr0]

And now you're straight-up bringing in opinion polls!
I'm not buying the disparity you bring up as people understand affirmative action to mean something from like 1960. It's just the same question asked 2 different ways.

And dude, you have been yelling racist today more than any social justice warrior.

[Brett Bellmore]

Make up your mind. Do you want polls, or don't you?

Yes, it's 'the same question asked 2 different ways, with radically different results. How to make sense of that?

It only makes sense if a substantial percentage of the respondents think AA is possible without racial discrimination. As, of course, it is, if you go back to the original concept of aggressive outreach followed by racially blind evaluation.

[Sarcastr0]

I said I do not discard opinion polls. I also provided numbers that AA isn't very popular.

You seem to be believing certain polls and not others. But not based on their method, based on their *outcome*. That's bad.

It only makes sense if a substantial percentage of the respondents think AA is possible without racial discrimination.
This is what happens when you don't care about sociology.
People could literally just be reacting to the word race appearing in print. In fact, that is what I think its happening there.

[Gandydancer]

Gaslightr0 is bullshittng. Great forceful expulsions of brown stuff.

Gaslightr0 makes a complete ass of himself. Believe him and not your lying eyes!:

BB: “racial preference had the public on one side and policy makers on the other.”

Gaslightro: “I thought you didn’t believe opinion polls?” [First mention of polls]

BB: “didn’t California just recently have a public vote on restoring racial discrimination in admissions? ” [election, not poll]

Gaslightro: “So no opinion polls,” [demands poll, not mere vote]

BB: [supplies CBS News poll consistent with initial claim]

Gaslightro: “And now YOU’re straight-up BRINGING IN opinion polls!” [patent, obvious, lie — whopping example of why we call him Gaslightr0]

And then there’s the false equivalence between calling Wokeists racist for demanding racist measures
and
calling those who object to that racists.

LOL!

[David Bremer]

Disheartening how many are all in on white grievance even when it’s effects on them personally are remote.

I disagree that it's white grievance as you describe. The more accurate description is that a lot of poor, unsuccessful whites are frustrated that they lose opportunities for social mobility because or programs premised on their supposed privilege.

Because, let's face it, it wasn't the wealthy, suburbanite liberals who lost their last chance at Harvard. They still had plenty of opportunities from their well-funded schools to get them in. It was the poor kids who did well enough in school and standardized tests, but couldn't have mom and dad pay for their resume-building enrichment activities. And even if they were the ones left out, there were always going to be substitute schools that were good enough to combine with their familial connections to get them ahead.

No, it matters to the people who don't have those connections and saw admissions to the top schools as their way of getting ahead in spite of their lack of social network. Those are the people you think have "white grievance." And when it involves them or members of their family, it's not as remote as you think.

[Sarcastr0]

No one here is poor unsuccessful whites.
They are, however very very very angry about AA.

And AA is just about the only time these folks mention the plight of poor unsuccessful *anyone*.

You seem legit. Detailed, thought through. I don't disagree, I just also see benefits on the other side of the ledger. I'm not going to be crying over the loss of this tool. We could probably have a good talk over coffee on the issue.

But plenty of the other folks on here seem motivated by the white grievance I talked about. They're the ones who insist the only possible motive behind AA policies is racism, or who say AA forces them to assume no black people are competent at any intellectual jobs.

[David Bremer]

First, I appreciate the comments. I agree that we could probably have a good discussion in person. In fact, for a long while, I honestly thought you might secretly be one of my good friends and former law-school classmate that frequently read this blog.

Turning to substance, I'm not necessarily saying those people are right or don't exaggerate the impact of this. I'm simply saying I see there position as something different than grievance. I can also see how that stays with someone. And while I agree that the loudest, most cantankerous voices on here likely are engaging in some racial grievance, I saw your post as being about public reaction in general. The most offensive and prolific commenters here aren't representative of that.

[Sarcastr0]

Could be re: law school friend. I've lost touch with a ton of those folks.

Yeah, it could just be sour grapes, there seems a lot of umbrage (now glee) taking on behalf of a cohort a lot of these people are quite removed from and who don't seem nearly as passionate on the issue.

This feels a more than just be the 'we got a win' jollies; so much anger remains. This issue no longer being a thing will be interesting times. Broad criticism of DEI efforts without AA to point at will be a hard nut to crack.

[Gandydancer]

You think this decision will make AA go away as an issue?

No you don't. This is just one of those stupid things you say that not even a mental defective like you could believe. E.g., California passed a constitutional amendment forbidding this kind of racial discrimination and crushed another intended to restore it and yet the UC system is rife with it, not to mention all the careerist DEI weevils implementing it 24/7.

And, btw, yes, any time I see a racism-eligible minority the default assumption, as a starting point, is that he or she was jumped above his/her demonstrated ability by racist measures. Why wouldn't I think that? It's true.

[bernard11]

It was the poor kids who did well enough in school and standardized tests, but couldn’t have mom and dad pay for their resume-building enrichment activities. And even if they were the ones left out, there were always going to be substitute schools that were good enough to combine with their familial connections to get them ahead.

Let's not forget the Asian kids who didn't have the right social skills or whatever.

[Gandydancer]

Don't believe the shit about "social skills", that's just an excuse to implement to quota.

[David Nieporent]

Nów Gandydancer suddenly believes in dog whistles.

[Gandydancer]

I have no fucking idea what you’re talking about, NoPoint. And neither do you. Or do you really believe Harvard’s (and others’) “social skills” scores represent a real deficit among “asians”?

[David Nieporent]

I have no fucking idea what you’re talking about,

Not a surprise. Mildly a surprise that you're willing to admit it.

[Don Nico]

bernard,
interestingly the percentage of ASIAN students in California universities was basically unaffected by the CA banning racial preferences in the 1996 (i recall). The big change in CA over the past 30 years has been a large decrease in white enrollment and a
correspondingly large increase in Latin enrollment. Other percentages are roughly equal across the period.

Now it may be that with racial preferences in CA, Asians would have tumbled from their nearly 40% enrollment in CA. But even if Harvard ignores SCOTUS, Asians who are kept out of Harvard can go the the Harvard and Yale of the West.

[Nige]

'The more accurate description is that a lot of poor, unsuccessful whites are frustrated that they lose opportunities for social mobility because or programs premised on their supposed privilege.'

Are there no programs poor white kids can avail of? None at all?

[David Bremer]

Not that provide the same boost that the AA programs offer. And not to the exclusion of wealthy kids.

At most, you'd get to enroll in a program for free or reduced charge. And honestly, some parents may not like taking that option because of a feeling of embarrassment taking the benefit.

[Nige]

So the problem isn't, or wasn't, AA, it's the lack of programs that poor white kids can reliably avail of.

[Gandydancer]

Bullshit. The problem is that others less deserving get benefits in a zero-sum contest, and they're screwed. Some program to jump up some of them too won't fix this, merely changing exactly who gets screwed.

[Nige]

You’re just agreeing with me that the problem is that there aren’t more programs to benefit poor people.

[David Bremer]

I'm not sure if Gandydancer would agree, but I do. All these schools talk about wanting diverse viewpoints, then proceed to fill their classes with kids who come from upper-class to upper-middle-class.

Saw today from NBC News that 43% of white students at Harvard are legacy, athletes, or related to donors or staff. 16% of minority groups fit that category. Since white students make up about 50% of the enrollment, that's about 30% of the student body that get in on wealth and nepotism.

Don't come in and tell me you want diversity when 1 on 3 kids already had familial connections to your school.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's kind of unavoidable; By the time they're old enough to be considering college, it's virtually impossible to undo the effects of the prior 12 years, so they're pretty much limited to bringing in kids who weren't damaged by those 12 years, which is to say, middle to upper class.

[Gandydancer]

If you think I said that you’re brain-dead.

Which, of course, we already know about you, Nige the lying clown dimwit.

Trying to undo discrimination by making the discrimination regime more complicated is a fool's game so naturally a determined fool like you is eager to play at it.

The ones who design such games are always the answer to “cui bono”, no matter that they pretend otherwise.

[ducksalad]

What I’d really like:

(1) We radically reduce the fraction of judges that come from Harvard and Yale. Like an 80 or 90% reduction.
(2) After that, we don’t need to care so much about some private institutions’ AA programs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Time to celebrate, they finally pulled the curtain on O'Conner's 25 years.

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v.
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE

"Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

[hoppy025]

So it seems that Roberts and Kavanagh joined the disastrous Alabama VRA opinion to provide cover as "moderates" for this.

Shame on them.

[David Nieporent]

It does not in fact "seem" that way.

[Gandydancer]

They demonstrated anyway that they are fucktards by doing it.

[Kazinski]

The NY Times is surprisingly doing some actual journalism in investigating the claims of the 2 IRS whistleblowers that claim US Attorney Weiss told them, and at least 4 others in a meeting that he did not have charging authority in the Hunter Biden "Sportsman" case. That of course directly contradicts what Merrick Garland told Congress assuring them that Weiss was fully in charge of his case and didn't need anyone's permission to charge Hunter for whatever crimes he and the IRS thought were justified.

Besides the 2 whistleblowers talking to Congress, the Times says: "That episode was confirmed independently to the NYT by a person with knowledge of the situation."

I think the we at a minimum need to hear from Weiss, was he lying to the IRS agents because he didn't want to charge Hunter and there was no good explanation for not wanting to charge him, or was Garland knowingly lying to Congress, or were some of Garlands Deputy AG calling the shots and telling Garland one thing and Weiss another?

Those are the possibilities I can come up with.

[santamonica811]

Kaz, Do you have any theories where Garland was deliberately lying, but where Weiss was not also deliberately lying? That’s the part that’s throwing me the most. It’s a bit hard for me to imagine Garland risking destroying his professional reputation about this, so I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. (But political people lie all the time, so I’m absolutely going to keep an open mind on this.)

But, why on Earth would Weiss also lie in support of Garland’s claim? Would this career prosecutor really risk destroying *his* professional career, as well as risk future perjury traps, etc.? I’m struggling to find Weiss’s motivation for doing this. (Your last sentence gives one possible explanation. All the more reason to get everyone under oath . . . let's find out who is lying, who's telling the truth, who made innocent mistakes, and so on.)

It’s genuinely great that Garland is on record as telling Weiss that Weiss is welcome to speak publicly, under oath, etc.; if Weiss wants to do this. I’m in the group that hopes Weiss does do this, and as soon as is feasible. I hated it, under Trump, when his cronies and toadies bent over backwards to avoid being put under oath (looking at you, VP Pence!!!). I’m no hypocrite. I’ll hate it if this Trump-appointed person avoids public scrutiny now that Biden’s in office.

[Kazinski]

Its not possible to come up with a scenario where Weiss wasn’t lying, its just a question of when he was lying, was he lying to the IRS and FBI agents who were on the case because he didn’t want to charge Hunter either because he thought it would be bad for his career or some other motivation, or was he lying to support Garland’s lie?

He did know at the time he told the investigators, and they knew too, that Garland had told Congress that Weiss had full authority.

[David Nieporent]

Its not possible to come up with a scenario where Weiss wasn’t lying,

It is. It's very easy.

[Gandydancer]

Not if Weiss said in a letter to Congress that he had full authority to charge Biden.

You on the other hand are just being an asshole, as usual. What is this unmentioned scenario (other, that is, than that (1) a Garland deputy told him what he relayed to the agents, or (2) that Garland himself lied, or (3) the agents and the NYT source are lying) where Weiss didn’t lie?

[David Nieporent]

Answered multiple times in this thread: Weiss said something unclear in the meeting where the IRS agents were present. They misinterpreted it. They're not lying; they're just mistaken.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Its not possible to come up with a scenario where Weiss wasn’t lying,"

It actually is. Garland calls up Weiss. "You now have full authority to press charges where ever you like, just for the next 24 hours. After that, things go back to normal. Also, send this letter to Congress now. And remember, you have a career to think of".

And then Weiss technically isn't lying when he sends the letter.

[Michael P]

Pretty much that. Or if he got that authority after the statute of limitations ran out on the key offenses.

[Nige]

'Pretty much that.'

Ah, right, you've already given up persuading anyone other than yourselves.

[Gandydancer]

You wouldn't agree that the Earth rotates around the Sun if it didn't fit with your partisan preferences so, yes, no one bothers trying to convince YOU of anything.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, to me—a person paying almost zero attention to the Hunter Biden stuff—a feature of your comment seems to be that if Garland was not referring to the, “Sportsman,” case specifically, but instead to other Biden-related legal phenomena, then where is there any contradiction? Maybe, “whatever crimes he and the IRS thought were justified,” had some tacit scope which did not reach to whatever the, “Sportsman,” case is about.

[Kazinski]

Better start following the case then, because just idle speculation without knowing previously disclosed facts is just a waste of time.

Yeah, there's a contradiction, nobody is disputing that: the IRS memo is wrong, Weiss lied, or Garland lied.

But the IRS memo looks solid, its a contemporaneous account, 3 to 5 (depending on whether Shapley's supervisor the IRS special agent in charge is either the 2nd whistleblower or the Times source or is neither) of the people at the meeting have verified it.

[Gandydancer]

Undisclosed "tacit scope" is lying.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Another possibility is that your whistleblower is lying, much like you are.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/us/politics/irs-official-justice-dept-hunter-biden.html

Your characterization of this quote is a bald-faced lie: "That episode was confirmed independently to the NYT by a person with knowledge of the situation."

That quote has nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged meeting the whistleblower claims happened with him and 'at least 4 others.'

Fucking liars. Every last one of you. No wonder you didn't bother to link your source.

[Kazinski]

The entire 20th and 21st paragraphs of the story:

"It is not clear if Mr. Weiss was convinced those strands of the investigation should be prosecuted or was simply making sure all potential charges were pursued thoroughly. But in mid-2022, Mr. Weiss reached out to the top federal prosecutor in Washington, Matthew Graves, to ask his office to pursue charges and was rebuffed, according to Mr. Shapley’s testimony."

"A similar request to prosecutors in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, was also rejected, Mr. Shapley testified. A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified, told House Republicans the same story. That episode was confirmed independently to The New York Times by a person with knowledge of the situation."

That's marginally better for Weiss, he wasn't lying to the IRS and FBI agents on the case, its much worse for Garland since it confirms that Weiss did not have charging authority.

But maybe that was a mischaracterization, now that I read it more closely, the Times source doesn't confirm what Weiss said in the meeting, he's confirming that Weiss tried to charge Hunter and wasn't allowed to.

It absolutely confirms what Weiss said in the meeting and even further confirms he tried to charge Hunter, at least in LA, and wasn't allowed to.

Tell me how else to read those paragraphs.

[David Nieporent]

Tell me how else to read those paragraphs.

Weiss identified potential prosecutions of Hunter Biden in DC and CA. They weren't worth his own time to prosecute, so he tried to foist it off on local USAOs in those jurisdictions. They said they weren't interested.

Again: you keep trying to attack Garland, but Weiss — not just Garland — said Weiss had full authority. On June 7, Weiss wrote to Congress — which means it's a crime to lie — and said, "I want to make clear that, as the Attorney General has stated, I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution, consistent with federal law, the Principles of Federal Prosecution, and Departmental regulations."

Obviously one possibility is that Shapley's pants are on fire. But — as I said above — the simplest explanation is that Shapley misunderstood something Weiss said.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Of course, a different possibility is that Weiss did not have full authority, until just before he sent the letter. Then Garland specifically told him "you have full authority to press charges where you would like now, for the next 48 hours"

Or something akin to that.

But from the whistleblower testimony (both of them), it's clear that Weiss did not have full authority over the investigation.

[Nige]

Or the rather less byzantine and considerably less dumb explanation DN suggests.

[Gandydancer]

Any explanation for why both Garland and Weiss are not technically liars in this instance will be Byzantine, and they will still be liars.

There's a reason why witness oaths demand "the WHOLE truth".

[Sarcastr0]

Garland specifically told him “you have full authority to press charges where you would like now, for the next 48 hours”

Under this scenario, Weiss sure is a tool.

[Gandydancer]

Of course he's a tool. Garland need a Trump-appointed US Attorney to improve his story about why Biden wasn't being prosecuted and recruited Weiss (or Weiss volunteered) from among many other Trump-appointed US Attorneys precisely because he would serve as a willing tool.

[not guilty]

Uh, no. Garland didn't recruit Weiss from among many other Trump-appointed US Attorneys. The Sixth Amendment grants a criminal defendant the right to be tried in the federal district where the crime is alleged to have occurred. Hunter Biden was being investigated in the District of Delaware. Joe Biden (not Garland, who then had not taken office) reappointed Weiss as U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware -- no doubt to provide continuity of the ongoing investigation.

[David Nieporent]

Mostly right — a lot more than Gandydancer, who never bothers to do research before having a tantrum — but not quite. Weiss was not "reappointed" by Biden; he never left office in the first place. Biden expressly asked him to stay on to continue the Hunter investigation.

And to be clear, it was Bill Barr who originally assigned the investigation to Weiss. (They could have handled it via the Public Integrity Section at Main Justice, or Barr could've appointed a special counsel. )

[bernard11]

This is an idiotic, hopelessly contrived, scenario.

Sounds like something one of the Trumpists would have suggested when trying to overturn the election.

[Bob from Ohio]

"which means it’s a crime to lie"

LOL DOJ is going to prosecute him for backing up his boss, the head of DOJ?

Carrying water for liberls is so libertarian!

[Gandydancer]

“Mark Lytle, the attorney for whistleblower Gary Shawl stated… Exhibit 10 to Gary Shapley’s transcript is… a copy of the email that Gary Shapley — where he took contemporaneous notes of that meeting with U.S. Attorney Weiss… That was a senior leadership meeting at the U.S. attorney’s office that was attended by the Special Agent in Charge from the IRS, it was attended by Gary Shapley himself, it was attended by the special agent in charge from the FBI, and the assistant special agent in charge from the FBI [—] wrote up to his superiors… And he said [that] Weiss stated that he is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed and he described the whole [series of] events that Weiss laid out at that meeting… where Weiss said he tried to go to the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office and they wouldn’t approve it and he was trying to charge it elsewhere in California and he was trying to seek special counsel authority and… that got denied…. And of note [in] this email that’s in exhibit 10 is the fact that Special Agent Shapley sent this up the chain to his command, including to Darrell Waldon, who attended it, the Special Agent in Charge, and asked Darrell Waldon, [‘]did I get this right?[‘] And Darrell Waldon says, yes, you did. And so, if he had gotten it wrong, Darrell Waldon would have said, no, I never heard that before. So, there is credibility, there’s corroboration of what Special Agent Shapley is saying.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/06/23/hunter-whistleblowers-lawyer-we-have-contemporaneous-corroboration-by-others-for-my-clients-claim-that-contradicts-garland/
(for partial transcription, partly quoted above)

https://www.fox.com/watch/4eb60859545760c64581d0895f371de6/ (Shapley interview begins at 4:23)

[David Nieporent]

or was Garland knowingly lying to Congress,

We did hear from Weiss. Specifically, it would't be just Garland; Weiss also told Congress that he had full authority to decide what prosecutions to bring.

I'm not sure why you immediately leap to someone lying. Maybe Weiss said something in the original meeting that was ambiguous, and the IRS agents misinterpreted it.

[Kazinski]

Read the Times story, which Jason linked in after I forgot to, the Times has an independent source who verified that Weiss tried to indict Hunter but wasn't allowed to.

That doesn't totally rule out that Garland's Deputy AG's were running things and telling Garland that Weiss had the authority, but telling the other US Attorneys don't let him indict in your districts, which does seem possible.

The Times story confirms Shapley's account.

[David Nieporent]

No. Read more better. It does not say that Weiss tried to charge Biden in those other districts, and was told he couldn't. It says that Weiss asked those other districts to prosecute, and they said that they wouldn't.

[Kazinski]

That’s some mighty fine hair splitting there.

Might pass with you, I won't think it will pass muster with Congress.

[David Nieporent]

You can't say that someone is a liar based on a vibe. You have to look at the actual words used.

[Kazinski]

Why do democratic scandals always come down to the meaning of "is"?

[Nige]

Because the meanings of words matter to them, but that's just hair-splitting to you guys because words mean what you want them to.

[Gandydancer]

Sure, meanings of words matter to Lefty. Like "man" and "woman" and "gender" and "racist discrimination" (which Harvard absolutely "doesn't" do).

[David Nieporent]

There’s no scandal. And this is no different than liberals accusing Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, etc., of “perjury” because they testified that Roe/Casey was “settled law.” Liberals want to read that to mean something other than what the actual words say: a promise that they wouldn’t vote to overturn those decisions. But it’s not perjury because it isn’t such a promise. You can't accuse someone of perjury based on a feeling; you have to look at the actual words.

[Gandydancer]

When Garland and Weiss said that Weiss was free to pursue cases against Hunter Biden they were lying. Full stop.

Where's the money HB owed in taxes on his unreported income in 2014 and why was the statute of limitations allowed to run out?

[Nige]

'That’s some mighty fine hair splitting there.'

That's just a way of saying accuracy don't matter.

[Gandydancer]

This from the guy who said Trump was a convicted sex offender.

You can't make his shit up, because he's already done that.

[Brett Bellmore]

If he had charging authority, he didn't "ask", he "directed". If they were then permitted to refuse, he didn't have charging authority after all.

[not guilty]

Actually, per the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, charging authority is vested in the grand jury for the federal district(s) in which an offense is alleged to have occurred. Charging by criminal information requires the accused's consent.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the real world, grand juries are composed of "mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed bullshit", and are just prosecutorial sock puppets.

[Gandydancer]

If he had, as claimed by the AG, actual “charging authority” backed by the AG, then the grand juries would have been summoned by the US Attys at Weiss’ request, or they would have been fired and replaced by someone who would try to get a GJ to charge Biden.

Is that precise enough for you?

[David Nieporent]

If he had charging authority, he didn’t “ask”, he “directed”. If they were then permitted to refuse, he didn’t have charging authority after all.

Wrong. Charging authority is not the ability to direct other USAOs what to do; it's the ability to do it yourself.

You will notice that when Durham initiated (failed) prosecutions outside his district, he did not order some other USAO office to conduct those prosecutions. That's not the authority he had. He (his team, I mean) prosecuted personally.

[Gandydancer]

So your claim is that Weiss had full "charging authority" but only for (Garland crosses his fingers behind his back, the better to deceive) SOME of Biden's crimes?

[jb]

The Times story you keep referring to also contains the following paragraph which makes it obvious there’s plenty of more innocent explanations that you are for some reason choosing to ignore:

“But it remains unclear how much of the difference in the accounts reflects possible factors like miscommunication, clashing substantive judgments among agencies over how best to pursue a prosecution, or personal enmity among officials working on a high-pressure, high-profile case. Investigators like Mr. Shapley whose job it is to uncover evidence often have different perspectives from prosecutors who have to take into account how to treat defendants fairly and present cases to juries.”

[David Nieporent]

Investigators like Mr. Shapley whose job it is to uncover evidence often have different perspectives from prosecutors who have to take into account how to treat defendants fairly and present cases to juries.”

Yes. And prosecutors themselves can disagree. Think about the current prosecution of Trump by Alvin Bragg. One guy quit and wrote a book because he was upset that Trump wasn't being prosecuted. Later Bragg decided to prosecute.

[Gandydancer]

Not seeing any "perspective" under which Shapley couldn't ask Biden about the "Big Guy" or act on his failure to pay taxes on $millions in 2014 income.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/irs-whistleblower-hunter-biden-taxes-ukraine

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The walls are closing in on Biden!! 😉

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No one seriously thinks anything is going to happen to any Biden. The dude came right out and confessed he sold state secrets in one of his senior moments and the best McCarthy could muster was " we are going to start thinking about a plan to impeach Garland!"

[Nige]

Even you guys don't believe your bullshit will stand up to scrutiny outside your bubble.

[BrianL.]

Really? I guess you saw the edited clip that ends before Biden says, "All kidding aside..". Here is the full video, where it's clear it's a joke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxlKUl-z368

[Gandydancer]

At least her actually said it, unlike in Lefty claims that Trump asked Russia to hack Hillary's server or said the Nazi's were good people. But everyone should watch the beginning of the clip and be appalled by what we have as a President.

[DaveM]

We’ve devoted several open-threads in the past to the corruption charges surrounding Hunter Biden, and all we heard then was this had nothing to do with the President, there was no possible connection, it’s all just Hunter’s businesses/shenanigans, nothing to see here, move along.

Huh. That didn’t age well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember, Democratic scandals are always lies until they switch to being old news, get over it. They're never current AND true at the same time.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy crap. You read the above exchange, am even posted about it. You know that the supposed story is far from buttoned up, and that Joe Biden doesn’t see, implicated.

And then you go and post this. As though the unanswered questions and issues don’t exist.

Just an incredible example of failure to retain what you don’t wanna retain.

[Gandydancer]

“Joe Biden doesn’t see[m?] implicated.”

In his AG’s uncontradicted (by Joe) lies about Weiss' ability to charge? In Hunter being excused from underpayment of his 2014 taxes? In what world does it seem that JB isn’t implicated? What’s the color of the sky there?

[Nige]

'I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s legally proven at this point,'

[OtisAH]

Hah! As soon as I read “NYT is surprisingly doing journalism” I knew it would be about them chasing some frayed thread MAGA has been drooling over. It’s the only time these dopes ever say that.

[grb]

Kazinski : “Those are the possibilities I can come up with”

Big surprise there, huh? Well, lets see if we can come up with another perspective, via H&R Block:

“Penalties for Civil Tax Fraud – You will probably never face criminal fraud penalties. At least 98% of the time, the IRS punishes fraud with civil penalties—fines of 75% added to the tax due. For example, if the additional tax due from fraud is $10,000, the penalty is $7,500, for a total of $17,500. Interest is added on to both the tax and the fraud penalty, starting on the date the return was due or filed, whichever is later”

So maybe these “whistleblowers” aren’t the flakes, whackjobs, and freaks the GOP has produced against Biden so far. Instead, they just believe Weiss (a U.S. attorney appointed by President Trump) was wrong to treat Biden with greater harshness than 98 percent of similar cases. Using the recently developed legal theory than Hunter Biden = Satan, they believe it should be one-hundred percent…

[Kazinski]

Hunters tax fraud amounted to 2.2 million, not 10,000.

[Magister]

So the usual penalty for civil tax fraud would be 1.65 million, right?

[Gandydancer]

That’s just for reporting fraud, plus there’s interest since 2015. (The $2.2M is just 2014.) Except it appears that Biden skates because the IRS failed to demand payment before the statute of limitations ran out: The $2.2M was tax-free. Thank you Dad!

[jb]

Weiss already wrote a letter to Jim Jordan saying he had ultimate charging authority and decision-making. I guess this fact isn't penetrating the right-wing info bubble, but it was included in the NYT article you're referring to so you should know it at least.

[Gandydancer]

Did you miss the fact that that's not what his agents say he told them?

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports that Rudy Giuliani has been interviewed by federal investigators under a proffer agreement in regard to Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/28/us/politics/giuliani-jan-6-investigation.html

Giuliani has been previously identified as a leader of an effort to put forward slates of illegitimate electors from seven states that Trump lost. If Giuliani reaches a cooperation agreement and tells investigators that he was acting in concert with Trump regarding the scheme, that would be hugely significant.

[not guilty]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/trump-campaign-officials-rudy-giuliani-fake-electors/index.html

[John F. Carr]

A little bonus from the NYT story:

More recently, prosecutors have been asking questions about Mr. Trump’s false claims that his defeat in the election was caused by widespread fraud, and how he aggressively raised money off those claims. The prosecutors have drilled down on the issue of whether people around Mr. Trump knew that he had lost the race, but continued raising money off the fraud claims anyway.

[Gandydancer]

Sure, let's criminalize politicians raising campaign money on the basis of claims that their political opponents in power deem fraudulent. I'm sure that will only affect Orange Man Bad.

[Gandydancer]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/06/28/nation/giuliani-sat-voluntary-interview-jan-6-investigation/

"If Giuliani reaches a cooperation agreement and tells investigators that he was acting in concert with Trump regarding the scheme, that would be hugely significant."

The "scheme" wasn't illegal, but with Garland as AG any kind of partisan crap is possible.

[David Nieporent]

Forgery and perjury absolutely are illegal. (I'm not saying that those are the precise names and extent of the offenses; wire fraud, for instance, would work.)

[not guilty]

[duplicate comment deleted]

[Kazinski]

There is no doubt things are heating up for Joe.

“Members of President Biden’s family may have accepted in excess of $40 million from foreign nationals in exchange for favorable policy decisions, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer suggested Wednesday.

The Kentucky Republican said that his panel has identified “six specific policy decisions” where Biden, 80, took actions that indicate he may have been “compromised,”https://nypost.com/2023/06/28/comer-says-overseas-payments-to-biden-family-could-exceed-40m/

It may be hard to prove the 6 specific policy decisions were a quid pro quo, but if they can prove the money from foreign corporations and its anywhere near 40m then Biden is toast. Especially since the chairman of CEFC is a Chinese Intelligence asset who Hunter assured him he’d be getting his money’s worth: “The Biden’s are the best at doing exactly what Chairman wants from this partnership. Please let’s not quibble over peanuts.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12240445/New-Hunter-WhatsApp-messages-demanding-10M-Chinese-investment.html

[Jason Cavanaugh]

James Comer eh?

Boy he's turned out to be about as reliable of a source as...you, or Bellmore, or Drackman, for that matter.

How long until his allegations turn out to be bullshit again? How much longer after that will people like you parrot the lies?

[Theendoftheleft]

James COMEY eh? Boy he’s turned out to be about as reliable of a source as [insert literally any presently-serving American official].

Fixed it for you, Yankee Doodle.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Comey is a Bush Republican…remember when you voted for Bush/Cheney?? Lol.

[Theendoftheleft]

I've never voted in America and never would.

[Gandydancer]

You mean when the Lefty alternative was Al "My Jet is Green" Gore?

Actually I probably voted Libertarian, because I liked that name not because I was thrilled with the party. I live in CA so it was a consequences-free vote.

Now tell us again about the poor Iraqis.

[Michael P]

How long until you point to any actual facts instead of just calling people names?

My money is that none of us will live to see that.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Comer's "evidence" of the corruption he's alleged over the past few years has fallen apart every time.

There's a fact for you.

Do I need to point out that you were too busy being a snarky moron to recognize it? No.

[Michael P]

Still no facts. Keep it up, projection man.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I can't help you if you're too stupid to actually read and comprehend.

So...I can't help you.

[Sarcastr0]

'This guy says Biden is super guilty!'
'His story doesn't hold water.'
'WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS?'

Try at least a little, dude.

[Gandydancer]

No facts from you, either, I see.

Biden is in fact super guilty, unless you believe the fairy tale about his family sucking up $millions without him knowing anything about it or getting his Big Guy share.

[David Nieporent]

It may be hard to prove the 6 specific policy decisions were a quid pro quo,

You can say that again. If for no other reason than that Joe Biden was a private citizen at the time of these events. One would have to believe the crazy notion that a Chinese company was paying tens of millions of dollars to the family of a retired vice president just on the off chance that he decided to come out of retirement, run for president, and win. Why would they have done any such thing? In 2017 there were scores, if not hundreds, of people who would've seemed more likely to be able to provide a quid pro quo at some point in the future.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Why did Saudi Arabia pay Kushner $2 billion??

[Frank Drackman]

"Reparations"?????

[OtisAH]

For what?

[Kazinski]

Read the article, the 6 events Comer is talking about were early in the Biden Administration.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The NYPost article which was conveniently missing any details of the alleged events, or the dailymail article where you quoted a text message from 2017?

[David Nieporent]

Read the article, the 6 events Comer is talking about were early in the Biden Administration.

Yes, obviously. But we're talking about a quid pro quo, and the purported quid — payments from China to Hunter — was in mid-2017, when Joe Biden was retired and Donald Trump was president. China couldn't have been bribing Joe Biden to do anything because Joe Biden wasn't in any position to do anything.

[OtisAH]

You’re not suppose to notice he wasn’t in office while all this was going on. And tbh, it’s a little tacky of you to point it out…

[Theendoftheleft]

Same with Russiagate?

[OtisAH]

Not even remotely, no.

[Theendoftheleft]

I wasn't really asking your opinion. Why would anyone trust it anyway?

[OtisAH]

I didn’t offer an opinion, dumbass. I answered your stupid question.

[Theendoftheleft]

Your response was nothing more than your opinion, imbecile.

[Nige]

'then Biden is toast'

The new 'the walls are closing in.'

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz has always been a bit out there, but it’s sad to see him drop down to Armchair Laywer levels of reading the deeply unserious Daily Mail/NY Post and breathlessly posting how it’s getting even more serious now.

The Rachel Maddow of the Volokh Conspiracy.

If nothing else, it is a good example of critical thinking to see other people take him in hand and explain how these stories are not well foundationed.

[Kazinski]

Well actually I read a view days ago and not in the Daily Mail, that Whatsapp text was obtained by subpoena by the IRS, and the whistleblowers turned it over to the House Ways and means committee.

When I did quick search for the cite, that and the Daily was the only result I found. Seems there are a lot of news outlets not interested in the news.

Seems your quarrel is with the press for not doing their job, not me for having to go overseas to find someone willing to print evidence presented to Congress by IRS whistleblowers.

To coin a phrase Democracy Dies in Darkness, but that seems to be a feature not a bug for the press.

[grb]

Kazinski : “It may be hard to prove the 6 specific policy decisions were a quid pro quo…”

Don’t be so modest. I’m sure you’re up for the task of “proving” anything, no matter how absurd. After all, you’re dumb (or desperate) enough to believe a Ukrainian oligarch paid Joe/Hunter a 10 million dollar bribe to pursue something that was already White House policy, State Department policy, bi-partisan congressional policy, and supported by almost every single government & institute in the western world. You’d think a savvy oligarch would want better value for his bribe, particularly since it was to prevent a “investigation” that never existed.

Yet you believe this bribe nonsense! To my eye, that shows a lack of self-respect, since what you believe or don’t believe is completely meaningless.

Bonus Point: Should we apply your Kazinski Standard to the last administration as well? Given Trump’s crew peddled deals around the world throughout his presidency, it wouldn’t be hard. It might be difficult to prove a policy decisions was quid pro quo, but I’m sure you can manage …

[bernard11]

The Kentucky Republican said that his panel has identified “six specific policy decisions” where Biden, 80, took actions that indicate he may have been “compromised,”

Outside of the fact that Comer said that, I see no facts whatsoever there.

"Might have been compromised?" Gee, pretty much all policy decisions help some people, or countries. Do they all indicate the person making the decision "may have been compromised?"

Comer is a sneering dishonest idiot. His tactics of baseless innuendo, which is exactly what this is, are revolting.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘America is feeling buyer’s remorse at the world it built’: https://www.ft.com/content/77faa249-0f88-4700-95d2-ecd7e9e745f9

Jake Sullivan (NSA to Biden, April 2023), in a speech entitled ‘Renewing American economic leadership’:

‘And this brings me to the second step in our strategy: working with our partners to ensure they are building capacity, resilience, and inclusiveness, too’.

[Quote as per the original source, not the FT: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/04/27/remarks-by-national-security-advisor-jake-sullivan-on-renewing-american-economic-leadership-at-the-brookings-institution/]

We, your allies, are going to ‘work[] with’ you, so that you, America, can ENSURE that we are building INCLUSIVENESS???

Have YOU demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, both your pan-cultural competency and proven success regarding inclusivity in your own country? By which metrics shall you ensure that this is achieved in our countries, let alone within America?

Why can’t America withhold the impulse to tell everyone else how to live for even three fucking seconds? Better still, why would tell your own allies, in the midst of this cold war, how to fucking live and structure their societies and potentially alienate them? Pathological, totalitarian fuckwits.

GREAT idea? Great leadership? More like catastrophic implosion. Stop misrepresenting yourselves as the 'leader' of the 'free' world. We didn't vote for you, freely choose you, and we sure as shit don't approve of what you do.

[David Nieporent]

What's this "we"? You don't speak for anyone except Vladimir Putin.

[Michael P]

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/04/22/summers-developing-world-feels-they-get-airports-from-china-lectures-from-us-and-were-not-fixing-that/

[Larry] Summers continued, “I remarked last week on your show about people in the developing world who felt they got lectures from us and airports from the Chinese, and even though they agreed with the lectures from us, the airports really weren’t the same as the lectures."

[Theendoftheleft]

I'm neither Russian nor pro-Russian, you fucking fascist American moron.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You don’t speak for anyone except Vladimir Putin."

I love when libertarians red bait.

[Sarcastr0]

Putin is a communist now?

[Theendoftheleft]

Well, some of these so-called ‘libertarians’ are showing their true 'progressive' colours now.

No real surprises there, as many Americans have been mislabeling their politics for over a century now in order to mystify their true politics and commitments. Case in point is ‘progressives’, who in more civilized countries self-identify as social democrats, democratic socialists,etc. ‘Liberals’ in America who aren’t actually liberal (and, indeed, are often anti-liberal, not merely illiberal). ‘Conservatives’ like Buckley who concocted a superficial ideology, rather than try to conserve basic norms like free speech. ‘Neocons’ who are just liberal imperialists. Et cetera.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Putin is a communist now?"

Well, yeah kinda, he was a KGB agent. Old dogs etc.

But its an idiom for discrediting a political opponent by accusing him of being an ally or fellow traveler of a bad person, often but not always a Red.

I realize you ignore other peoples idiomatic uses so no doubt you will here also.

[Sarcastr0]

...have you read Theendoftheleft's comments? I haven't read him in a while absent the occasional auto-logout, but he's substantively anti-Europe and US and pro-Russia. And does love him some RT narratives.

Not really a fellow traveler situation.

[Theendoftheleft]

I’m actually anti-Russia and China, thanks. Being critical of America’s misdeeds doesn’t make me pro-them (or anti-Europe).

Keep up your tankie work, though. You’re also just like a 1930s Soviet journalist. What was the point of your family’s moving to America just to repeat that kind of bullshit in the new world — unless your real aim is to help subvert the US and advance some ulterior agenda?

[Theendoftheleft]

As I said to David Nieporent, the best y’all can do is deflect and talk about Russia/the Russians, because what’s being pointed out is indefensible. (And your ideology prevents you from labeling people as Chinese agents or provocateurs because you’re afraid of being labelled as a racist.)

The irony in this, of course, is that these sorts of intentional mischaracterisations and delegitimization efforts, proffered to help distract from the merits, are part of American libertarians and conservatives' complaint regarding their treatment by liberal-progressive academics. It’s wrong when the latter do so, but not when you do so? We need viewpoint/ideological diversity, but only when it comes to OUR preferred views? Hypocrisy’s OK when it’s ‘our’ side which is being hypocritical, Tankie?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A future guest poster for Volokh? He would be more interesting than the professor who talks about polyamorous dating:

“The Oxford Handbook of American Election law is about to be published. It will have a chapter on ballot access laws, written by Law Professor Derek Muller.”

https://ballot-access.org/2023/06/28/June-2023-ballot-access-news-print-edition/

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nearly-half-country-doesnt-think-biden-got-81-million-votes-2020-election

Additionally, Rasmussen reinforced this lack of trust in the validity of elections with another survey that showed that 66% of the country is "concerned that the outcome of the 2024 presidential election will be affected by cheating, including 40% who are very concerned.”

These results included the majority of Democrat and Republican respondents. Also, the “majorities of every racial category” revealed that they are “at least somewhat concerned that the outcome of the 2024 presidential election will be affected by cheating.”

[Martinned]

Of course they are concerned, the GOP spent the last seven years passing state legislation making it easier for them to overrule unwelcome election results.

But otherwise I wouldn't worry too much about what Americans believe, given that 77% of them believed in Angels in this 2011 poll. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/

[Brett Bellmore]

Democrats used Covid as an excuse to deviate from statutory election processes generated by legislatures. Was it reasonable to think that legislatures would take that lying down?

[Sarcastr0]

Courts used their state constitutions to review executive actions to deal with the Covid epidemic.

Just insisting on ignorance even after all this time.

The partisan anti-democratic zealots in state government are not motivated by the court cases, just by not liking how it's legitimate for people who are not them to win elections.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are the legislatures expected to care what pretext the judiciary used to shit all over the rules they'd enacted?

[Sarcastr0]

"what pretext the judiciary used to shit all over the rules"

Coming out against judicial review so you can defend legislatures attempting to suborn the will of their people and replace it with their own.

Just...be a better loser. And a better American.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘Coming out against judicial review so you can defend legislatures attempting to suborn the will of their people and replace it with their own’.

So, you’re defending judicial review, which itself often just serves as a veneer for judicial oligarchy? (Is it for the defence of democracy when it advances your partisan preferences, but illegitimate when it doesn’t? Are your election laws ‘democracy-protecting’ when they advance your colour team, but not when otherwise? ‘Cause no civilized Western democracy is or would emulate the changes blue teamers and their partisans on the bench have implemented since 2020.)

You’re a full-blown tankie, Tankie. Odd, since your family seems to have fled Russia…

[Theendoftheleft]

Just curious if you think any other Western democracy believes your bullshit, let alone would ever, in a million years, emulate those American state court decisions (instead of deeming them to be banana republic-levels of nonsense)?

[Nige]

It's reasonable to think that with the Republicans denying the election result and having attempted to overturn the election result with violence and fake electors and frivolous lawsuits complete with promises thay would go all the way to a friendly Supreme Court, they're pretty much capable of anything. Inculding pretending that changing some rules because the election was occuring in the middle of a pandemic was some sort of horrible crime.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Of course they are concerned, the GOP spent the last seven years passing state legislation making it easier for them to overrule unwelcome election results."
Aligning them to be more like our European betters?

[Theendoftheleft]

How about the fact that no other Western democracy, mine included, would ever adopt your election laws concerning:
1. ballot harvesting
2. decreased ID and signature requirements.
3. late ballot counting
4. failure to clear state [regional] ballot rolls of dead and foreign state/regional citizens/residents.
5. Having various unconnected states/regions put a stop to ballot counting at the same time, for the same amount of time, without clearly and publicly explaining why this could possibly be necessary.

Well, American fascist?

[David Nieporent]

Russia isn't a democracy, let alone a Western one.

[Theendoftheleft]

Indeed. Neither is the USA: it’s a banana republic.

That’s why we, in more civilized Western democracies, don’t want to be like it and look down upon you.

The best you can do is deflect and talk about Russia/the Russians, because what’s being pointed out is indefensible. (And your ideology prevents you from labeling people Chinese agents or provocateurs because you're afraid of being labelled as a racist.)

Do your clients ever read this blog to figure out how stupid you are?

[Nelson]

"Additionally, Rasmussen reinforced this lack of trust in the validity of elections"

Rasmussen! LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

Why don't you just quote a third grader asking what everyone's favorite lunch is? It's about as accurate and scientifically valid.

Rasmussen is a joke.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Ballot access shenanigans are a greater threat to election integrity than any stuff alleged by the two duopoly parties.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I agree with you, I would love to read Prof. Muller on this subject here. Not least because I'm sure The Oxford Handbook of American Election Law is going to retail for $120 or so. College bookstore prices.

[apedad]

2023 Top 50 Companies For Diversity: https://www.fair360.com/top-50-list/2023/

Here’s a good starting place for our anti-Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) colleagues.

I notice they don’t have a list for ‘Top Companies for White, Anglo-Saxon, American Males.’

Why won’t anyone think of the poor, White, Anglo-Saxon, American Male!

We Shall Overcome, we shall overcome
We shall overcome someday.
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We shall overcome someday.

We are not afraid, we are not afraid,
We are not afraid today.
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We shall overcome someday.

Black and white together, Black and white together,
Black and white together someday.
Oh, deep in my hea . . . ooops may have to make some changes.

[DaveM]

I did some poking around my mutual fund manager's website, and they do, in fact, have an "anti-ESG" basket of funds you can invest in; well, "anti-" in the sense that they specifically only consider financial performance.

I say let the market work itself out. I understand that Disney has lost $900M on the last seven films it has released, for example. That can't go on forever. At some point people will decide they'd like to be successful for a change.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...in the sense that they specifically only consider financial performance."
Wow, what a novel idea.

[Nige]

'The market working itself out' seems to involve streaming services removing content to avoid paying the people who made them and shelving films without releasing them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's what happens when the content is so offensive to your primary customer base that just offering it as an option causes customers to leave you even though you still have content they like.

[Nige]

They’ve taken down and cancelled highly succesful and popular shows. These moves have nothing to do with popularity and everything to do with screwing the people who make them.

‘your primary customer base’

I wonder who you think that is. (Disney's current problems began when it lost the rights to broadcast cricket, just for context.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I think Disney's primary customer base is people who have children. For perfectly ordinary reasons, almost everybody who has children are heterosexuals, looking forward to eventual grandkids.

So, quite naturally they're not going to like having their kids propagandized in favor of anything that would get in the way of that, like homosexuality or transgenderism.

And it's not like you can't do children's films without that crap. Disney has just been going out of their way to inject it. Indeed, we have statements from people in Disney saying that it's a deliberate choice to push it.

[Martinned]

What world are you living in???

[Brett Bellmore]

This one.

[Sarcastr0]

Being heterosexual doesn't mean someone has the anti-gay or trans chip on their shoulder that you do.

'Only natural.' Really rational shit right here.

[Brett Bellmore]

It does mean you don't want people actively encouraging your kid to be something other than heterosexual.

Yeah, it's only natural that people who prefer to have sex with the opposite sex have most of the children. There's a biological basis for that, didn't they cover it when you were briefed on the birds and the bees?

[BrianL.]

Are you aware that homosexual behavior has been observed in animals? Animals are part of nature, so if animals do it, is it not, by definition, natural?

[Frank Drackman]

So is Cannibalism, which is not related to one of the funniest medical conditions,
"Ballism" which has nothing to do with Balls.

Frank

[Martinned]

Who cares. Humans do lots of things that aren't natural, like wear clothes and brush our teeth. The whole point of liberalism/libertarianism is that we should be free to do whatever unnatural things we like as long as we don't harm another.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you aware that, when animals do it, it doesn't result in offspring, so, yeah, almost all children are born to heterosexuals? My point has nothing to do with whether homosexuality, or muscular dystrophy, occurs in nature. It has to do with reproduction requiring sperm and ova to meet.

It's only the people who facilitate that meeting that end up reproducing, so if you're marketing something to children, it's not smart to pitch it to homosexuals.

[Nige]

Regardless of whether gay people reproduce (they do adopt, after all) they are constantly being born, and they have family and friends who do not hate gay people, which makes them part of a market, which makes them something a media company can target, that is, gay people and people who don't hate gay people.

[Sarcastr0]

when animals do it, it doesn’t result in offspring, so, yeah, almost all children are born to heterosexuals

Brett, you are talking from ignorance.

There is actually plenty of research on the group survival benefits of non-reproductive individuals, homosexual and otherwise. Going back like 50 years.

[jb]

Animals who engage in homosexual behavior also often breed (with other partners). That seems pretty analogous to what happens when a homosexual partnership decides to have a baby, since they have to get another human involved, at least for the purpose of providing genetic material.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There is actually plenty of research on the group survival benefits of non-reproductive individuals, homosexual and otherwise. Going back like 50 years."

And I am well aware of it. Having your sibling reproduce is worth 50% of reproducing yourself, and so forth. Doesn't change the fact that it's almost exclusively heterosexuals actually doing the reproducing, since not only are we primarily engaged in the acts that lead to reproduction, but we're most of the population to begin with. So, OF COURSE most children are born to heterosexuals, and ticking off heterosexuals is bad for business if you're marketing products for children.

How dedicated to denying reality do you have to be to want to avoid such a blindingly obvious conclusion?

[Sarcastr0]

most children are born to heterosexuals

Looks like that's somewhat in doubt? I'm not familiar with that particular line of research ('cept for lesbian seagulls). I cede that to the other commenters here.

My issue is the end of your causal chain - your equating 'saying you support homosexual rights/pride/etc' with 'ticking off heterosexuals'.

Naw, man, that's your priors. Most of us breeders don't get angry when we see a rainbow.

[Sarcastr0]

"actively encouraging your kid to be something other than heterosexual"

What kind of *encouragement* are you seeing?

[Nige]

Disney's primary customer base were Indian cricket fans, it turns out, but you're lying, because most people don't especially mind shows and films having lgtbq characters. Disney's woes seem entirely related to management, not content.

[Nelson]

"almost everybody who has children are heterosexuals, looking forward to eventual grandkids"

You've said this several times before and it's as fallacious now as it has been every other time.

You have two bad assumptions built into this version of your erroneous talking point. First, that heterosexual parents are cultural conservatives. That is just flat-out untrue. In this particular version, you also claim that homosexual parents either don't look forward to having grandkids or, more likely given your biases, that homosexuals can't have grandkids. That is also flat-out untrue.

"So, quite naturally they’re not going to like having their kids propagandized in favor of anything that would get in the way of that, like homosexuality or transgenderism."

Again, homosexuality and transgenderism don't prevent grandchildren. It's weird you think it does.

"Disney has just been going out of their way to inject it."

Oh, no! A company has a corporate value system that isn't culturally conservative! How will they ever survive? There are only thousands and thousands of examples of pro-LGBT companies succeeding.

If you don't like what Disney is doing, don't buy their stuff. That's the beauty of a feee market. You don't have to patronize any business you disagree with.

"Indeed, we have statements from people in Disney saying that it’s a deliberate choice to push it."

And Disney keeps being a successful company. It's almost like they have considered the advantages and disadvantages of various corporate positioning and concluded this one was best for them. And their earnings and profits support their assessment.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You have two bad assumptions built into this version of your erroneous talking point. First, that heterosexual parents are cultural conservatives. That is just flat-out untrue."

Differential fertility makes society more conservative on family values

"Fig. 1 shows how traditional-family conservatism varies with sibship size and fertility. Among adults ages 25 and above (Fig. 1A), opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage rises steadily with sibship size from one to 10-plus siblings, although it is slightly higher for individuals with no siblings than for individuals with few siblings. The gap from the trough to the peak is 24 to 25 percentage points, depending on the outcome. Opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage rises similarly with the number of children (Fig. 1B). Here, the gap between childless individuals and parents of seven children is 28 to 40 percentage points."

[Sarcastr0]

Nice correlation. Consider that causality could easily be reversed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably is going both ways, I certainly know I got a lot more conservative once I had a kid to worry about.

[Sarcastr0]

Probably is going both ways

Who knows? Certainly not that paper you linked! Which renders it nonresponsive to your thesis.

[Brett Bellmore]

It hardly matters which way the correlation runs, it still establishes that throwing leftwing views into products for children that are purchased by parents is bad marketing.

[Sarcastr0]

It makes it a crappy paper if it's pushing that thesis. But lets say the methodology is OK (I'm not gonna do a scrub; I'm bad at stat metho review anyway)

And conservatives being into having children doesn't mean market to parents like they hate liberal views.

I'm not into marketing, but surely you see why that's a bad way to treat the broader cohort, eh?

[Nige]

'throwing leftwing views'

There's such a massive admission of prejudice and hatred behind this statement.

[not guilty]

Having one or more children is not necessarily an indicator of heterosexuality. Plenty of gays and lesbians have children, through adoption, assisted reproduction, surrogacy or vaginal intercourse with the opposite sex. (What do you think that the downlow for those partnered with one of the opposite is about?)

[Brett Bellmore]

"Plenty" in the sense that you couldn't pack them all into a phone booth, sure. "Plenty" as a percentage of families with children? Not remotely.

[EscherEnigma]

Also, some people in heterosexual relationships are bisexual. People don't stop being bisexual just because they're currently dating/married-to someone of the opposite sex.

[EscherEnigma]

Dudes, let me assure you: you can't "propagandize" someone into a sexual orientation. If you could, straight parents† that only show their kids media that includes straight people would never have gay kids.

But as such parents for centuries can attest, gay kids happen anyway.
________
†Or at least, parents in a heterosexual relationship.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : " ....having their kids propagandized.... "

Three Points :

1. Propagandized is an actual word (I looked it up to be sure).

2. This "grooming" / "propagandized" nonsense reminds me of the satanic daycare craze of the late 80s. Then as now, you have a bunch of people desperate for any reason to abandon themselves to hysteria. They want that release - letting go to irrational fear. Common sense flies out the window.

3. But it's more than that. Today's Right feels cheated of its bigotry. After all, it used to be so simple: You could hate the blacks, loathe the Jews, despise the faggots and sneer at women. But today, what's left? Even their failsafe foil, homosexuals, are now commonly accepted across the culture.

You sensed their near-orgasmic relief when they latched on trans folk as target. Finally! A group they can aggressively hate with popular support! You see that in the plus-500 anti-trans bills proposed across the country. Jurisdictions vied with each to produce new and different ways to target and harass this tiny little group. It was like a competition or sport. But as the National Socialists found in the 1930s, a group everyone hates is a powerful political commodity.

With their "success" targeting transsexuals, today's Right seems to want a go at recovering the past - when gays were hated, shunned, forced to live in secret, blocked from living or working like everyone else, victimized by unscrupulous politicians or police, a cheap target for anyone looking for someone to hate.

With such a "glorious past" in sight, no wonder Brett peddles gibberish about propagandizing kids...

[shawn_dude]

Exactly how does Disney "propagandize" homosexuality and in what way does that prevent a heterosexual child from growing into a heterosexual adult who has children?!

Your take on this is bizarre... even when measured against your normal level of conspiracy craziness.

[Nelson]

"Well, that’s what happens when the content is so offensive to your primary customer base"

But it isn't. It's only "offensive" to cultural conservatives who make purchasing decisions based on politics. That is a very small portion of their clientele.

You vastly overestimate the financial influence of motivated cultural conservatives on most companies.

Cultural conservatives aren't the "primary customer base" of most companies. Even InBev, whose Bud Light brand of beer (one of about 500 they own) took a hit, probably hasn't seen a significant drop in revenue due to their rage at a one-time marketing placement.

[Brett Bellmore]

I recall reading a little while back a study of relative performance of ESG and 'anti-' ESG investments.

Anti-ESG companies were substantially more profitable, but ESG companies actually grew much faster on account of having considerable better access to investment capital.

[DaveM]

The classic investment bubble.

[Mr. Bumble]

Tulips anyone?

[bernard11]

You guys should start an investment company.

You're way smarter than Larry Fink, and it would be bigger than BlackRock in no time.

[bevis the lumberjack]

They’re not smarter than Fink, their motivation is just different. Gino it s now into using investors’ money to “change behaviors”. I’ve seen him say that in a video.

And it’s not really totally accurate to use BlackRock’s success as an indication of Fink being correct here. The strength of BlackRock was built king before ESG was even a concept.

[bernard11]

Who is Gino? Typo for Fink?

As I understand it Fink believes that pro-ESG policies make companies better long-run investments. He's not promoting an agenda because it makes him feel good. He thinks it's good business.

As for him being correct here, you're right that much of BlackRock was built earlier, but Fink and his staff apparently were remarkably good at evaluating investments all along. So maybe they still are.

Here is Fink's 2022 letter to CEO's

One excerpt:

Stakeholder capitalism is not about politics. It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not “woke.” It is capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employees, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to prosper. This is the power of capitalism.

In today’s globally interconnected world, a company must create value for and be valued by its full range of stakeholders in order to deliver long-term value for its shareholders. It is through effective stakeholder capitalism that capital is efficiently allocated, companies achieve durable profitability, and value is created and sustained over the long-term. Make no mistake, the fair pursuit of profit is still what animates markets; and long-term profitability is the measure by which markets will ultimately determine your company’s success.

Another:

It’s been two years since I wrote that climate risk is investment risk. And in that short period, we have seen a tectonic shift of capital.3 Sustainable investments have now reached $4 trillion.4 Actions and ambitions towards decarbonization have also increased. This is just the beginning – the tectonic shift towards sustainable investing is still accelerating.

Stop imagining shit about what people are doing, or that there is some secret conspiracy to help ESG companies.

[Nelson]

"Anti-ESG companies were substantially more profitable"

Was that a study conducted by Brett Bellmore on Brett Bellmore's priors? Because I can't find anything that even remotely resembles what you described. ESG seems to have no consistent effect on profitability. Like most investmesnt, it depends on the company. Profitability is mostly impacted by management efficiency and competence, regardless of the company and their ESG policies.

[Brett Bellmore]

" On the other hand, net profit margin (earnings/sales) is higher for lower ESG Performance."

Basically, having a good ESG score gives you much better access to capital, and you're less likely to be attacked by regulators, but it tends to hurt your net profit margin.

Overall, the increased cost of capital faced by low ESG score companies tends to predominate over the higher net profit margin. I take this to mean that the campaign by financial services to force adoption of ESG is sufficiently punitive that only companies that aren't highly leveraged can afford to refuse to comply. This doesn't mean that high ESG scores are economically efficient, just that the financial services sector will violate fiduciary interest to attack you if you don't knuckle under.

[Sarcastr0]

*High/favorable ISS ESG Corporate Rating performance is Generally Positively Related to Valuation and Profitability and Negatively Correlated with Volatility
*High/favorable ISS ESG Corporate Rating firms are Good Allocators of Capital
*High/favorable ISS ESG Corporate Rating Performance / High-EVA Margin Stocks tend to Outperform
*High/favorable ISS ESG Corporate Rating Firms Tend to be Less Cyclical and are More Likely to be in the Technology, Health Care, and Consumer Non-Durables Sectors
...
:
"Low-ESG companies are not as efficient using their assets to generate sales. On the other hand, net profit margin (earnings/sales) is higher for lower ESG Performance. Still, as shown earlier in figure 2, a better margin that considers capital charges (EVA Margin) indicates that good ESG companies have higher margins."

You are taking a single sentence out of a paper that literally says the opposite.

[bernard11]

Right. Because it's all a conspiracy to fund ESG companies and not fund others. The standard Bellmore excuse.

[bernard11]

I take this to mean that the campaign by financial services to force adoption of ESG is sufficiently punitive that only companies that aren’t highly leveraged can afford to refuse to comply. This doesn’t mean that high ESG scores are economically efficient, just that the financial services sector will violate fiduciary interest to attack you if you don’t knuckle under.

That's because you have no idea how financial service companies work. Guess what. They are among the least idealistic companies around, extremely profit-driven.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ideally, yes, they'd be such. More and more, no, they're not.

[Sarcastr0]

First, this is ridiculous. The culture of those who go into finance are not lets get big lib.

Second, you have cited a paper that disproves your priors.

Third, disagreeing with your priors doesn’t mean someone is wrong, knows it, and is lying about it.

Fourth, companies advertise to consumers about their ethical practices, so your idea that it’s not consumer driven is going to require a bigger liberal conspiracy than just all the venture capitalists.

[bernard11]

I said "are," not "should be."

You are talking about things you plainly have no grasp of.

To take one example, the sentence you - or whatever RW blog you copied it from - pulled out of a report that says the opposite of what you claim does not mean at all that,

"Anti-ESG companies were substantially more profitable,"

Did you understand anything in that paper? I doubt it.

[bernard11]

Did you read the next sentence:

Still, as shown earlier in figure 2, a better margin that considers capital charges (EVA Margin) indicates that good ESG companies have higher margins.

Do you even understand what the paper is talking about? Do you understand the importance of return on invested capital, which is way more important that net profit margins?

Or do you prefer to dream up stupid theories?

[Nelson]

"I understand that Disney has lost $900M on the last seven films it has released, for example. That can’t go on forever. At some point people will decide they’d like to be successful for a change."

Well, if investors only owned Disney movies, they might be disappointed. But since the stock is for all Disney holdings, they're very happy. A 13% increase in earnings (including a 20% increase in profits on theme parks) will do that.

Apparently you missed the point of investing, since your definition of "successful" is very narrow. If you said to an investor "right now their movies are losing money but their profits and earnings are growijg", a smart investor would recognize that a tough run in creative content that still produces growth is awesome. Once movie success regresses to the mean, profits will be insane.

I get that cultural.conservatives want to see Disney fail. But as an investor, they are a blue chip investment.

"I say let the market work itself out."

It has. Disney is still a great investment.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In the old days, corporations were accused of promoting conservative culture-war policies in order to divide the workers and keep their attention away from striking, or agitating for pro-worker legislation.

Now corporations are promoting progressive culture-war policies, but this time I'm sure their motives are pure.

[Nige]

Corporations are evil, I agree.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Not if properly regulated.

But by using culture-war posturing, they hope to lull the dimmer members of the progressive community into becoming corporate allies in order to pwn the right.

[Sarcastr0]

I learned the opposite - properly regulated corporations are evil - that's their fiduciary duty.

But I'm not sure that such a growth-for-growth's sake mentality is required, and others seem to agree.

If it's all pretext as you say, then the right sure is angry about pretext.
I do think it's largely pretext, but not all. And if you wear a mask for too long...

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So you went from "properly regulated" to "growth for growth's sake"?

[Sarcastr0]

So this is what I learned in school, not what I believe.

What the corporate mandate is - growth for growth's sake on behalf of the shareholders.
And the regulation on allowable growth is pretty low - don't do criminal stuff, don't do monopoly stuff, but other than that it's gotta be a truly dire externality for regulations to come in.

And there's the evil bit - be as self oriented as possible, and externalize all the costs you can while internalizing all the profits you can hoover up. That is the corporate purpose.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So you don't agree with that particular concept of what's "proper" regulation?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know what your concept of proper regulation is, but if you're regulating stuff like corporations shouldn't be work yeah that's improper.

But corporate culture also needn't be growth for growth’s sake on behalf of the shareholders. Corporations are people too, after all, and part of society as well. And consumers and corporations seem to be seeing that. So far it's largely pretext, but I have hope we'll have a return to corporate citizenship that the 80s killed.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I didn't want to give a detailed exposition of proper regulation (family-friendly policies, nondiscrimination, don't pour toxic sludge into streams, etc.), I wanted to counter nige's crack that I thought corporations were all evil.

The non-evil corporations should have nothing to fear from proper regulation.

[Nige]

'And consumers and corporations seem to be seeing that'

Consumers, yes, but they still have to live in the world corporations are allowed to make. Corporations are still burning the planet down. Luckily most people seperate the people who make shows and films from the coporations that produce them. Every now and then the corporations remind them they don't give a shit about the people who make stuff or the people who enjoy that stuff, just in case.

[Nige]

Is that the flip side of what they were doing when they were pretending to be more socially conservative? Funny, the conservatives still oppose regulation and the left still supports it. Guess the left aren’t the suckers here.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Funny, the conservatives still oppose regulation and the left still supports it."

I would like to see some contemporary examples. What regulations, specifically? Which parts of the left, and which parts of the right?

[Nige]

Wow, demands for specificity after all your strawmen lefties loving corporations? There was Trump’s whole one in two out deregulation policy. Biden, meanwhile, has done things like tighten assorted emissions rules. You do remember Trump endlessly boasting about deregulation, right?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It’s well known that sheer volume of regulatory output, without regard to content, leads magically to better working conditions.

Regulating the climate, assuming it’s a wonderful idea, isn’t inherently pro-*worker.*

Now, here’s the Pres’s Build Back Better plan, at least as he’s promoting it to the public:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/

I’ll believe it when I see it, but at least they put it on a Web site (not that I agree with everything on it).

Hmmm…I see that the Guardian is crediting Biden (with reservations) for economic stuff beyond the usual culture war items:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/27/bernie-sanders-biden-influence-progressives

The article credits the coronavirus with giving the needed impetus.

And if you'll pardon me looking a gift horse (donkey) in the mouth, it would be nice if the extra dollars Biden wants to put into people's pockets actually retain the value which dollars had at the beginning of his administration. Is he simply running to stay in place?

[Nige]

'Regulating the climate, assuming it’s a wonderful idea, isn’t inherently pro-*worker.*'

If you mean regulating the things industry puts into the atmosphere and affect the climate, it's pro-humanity, which includes workers and corporate hacks alike.

[EscherEnigma]

Now corporations are promoting progressive culture-war policies, but this time I’m sure their motives are pure.

See, this is what I'm talking about.

If you spent more time around queer media, you would know this is ridiculous. Queer folk are super suspicious of companies that "are promoting progressive culture-war policies". We are well-aware that corporations are --at best-- fair-weather friends who will drop us the moment we become a liability (see, for example, Target and Budweiser this year).

There isn't a single queer person I know who thinks corporations ever have "pure" motives.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“There isn’t a single queer person I know who thinks corporations ever have “pure” motives.”

Easy now, I never made the claim you’re refuting. Indeed, my reference to pure motives was a rhetorical device known as sarcasm.

You conceded my point – that corporations are promoting woke policies. And you also *reinforced* my point by suggesting that the putative beneficiaries of these woke policies are aware of what’s really going on.

And why should these insights be limited to “queer media”? Shouldn’t mainstream media outlets also warn their readers of the corporate shenanigans here?

[EscherEnigma]

I'm sorry, it seems I missed your point. I thought you were mocking "libtards" for thinking that corporations were their "friends".

That said, I would never make a claim about anyone having "woke" policies. Conservatives would need to agree amongst themselves what that means first.

And why should these insights be limited to “queer media”?

Why would you mistake a specific, topical example with a general limitation? Go read more. You need it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“I thought you were mocking “libtards” for thinking that corporations were their “friends”.”

Not all progressives (if you prefer “libtard” that’s up to you) think wokeporations are their friends, though it seems many regard the wokeporations as allies.

And plenty of progressives give wokeporations a break on, say, corporate speech if it’s in favor of wokeness, rather than their former stance that corporate speech should be heavily regulated.

And they are also on board when wokeporations engage in boycotts of entire states to get them to pass laws the corporations desire.

[Nige]

'though it seems many regard the wokeporations as allies.'

Yeah, nah.

'And they are also on board when wokeporations engage in boycotts of entire states to get them to pass laws the corporations desire.'

Presumably it's nice to have someone wield economic clout in favour of policies they support for a change, but they know it's down to protecting brands from toxic associations.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So if closed shops become unpopular, corporations can boycott states until they pass right to work laws? Don't want to damage the brand, you know.

[Nige]

They absolutely could. Kinda terrifying when you think about it, unaccountable corporate power.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Unaccountable corporate power is a bad thing.

[Nige]

That’s great, but is this ‘unaccountable power is bad but only when they’re claiming to be woke’ in the same way ‘the legal system is broken but only for Jan 6th defendants?’

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So glad you asked – unaccountable corporate power is a bad thing. Indeed, various people you dislike are awakening (not in the woke sense) to this very thing.

And various people you dislike were suggesting criminal justice reform before Jan. 6.

[Nige]

Yeah, thought so. Society is changing. Superficial corporate PR and the output of the creative people they pay to make stuff reflects that somewhat. The same people with nothing to offer but Trump, Qanon and laws against drag shows are mad about it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

How did we get to Q Anon (or however it's spelled)?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't think it's "superficial corporate PR" when the corporations get states to change their laws.

[Nige]

They've always been able to do that, getting states to carve out special deals for them, tax exemptions, regulation exemptions etc. Again - society has changed, is changing, corporations like to keep up with changes like that, always have, always will.

We got to Qanon because the complaint here is some films and TV programs have gay people in them, and the people who don't like that have nothing but toxicity, craziness and hate to offer as an alternative.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A generic “society” spontaneously changing – so that small business owners have to cater gay weddings despite a religious-freedom act. Because that’s what the would-be boycotters were complaining about in Indiana: the prospect of small businesses actually having rights.

Recall that they were threatening boycotts on account of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act similar to the one Bill Clinton signed.

"They’ve always been able to do that, getting states to carve out special deals for them, tax exemptions, regulation exemptions etc."

Making it harder than usual to tell where private business ends and government begins.

[Nige]

Yeah, societies change. Why you felt the need to add 'generic' to it, I dunno. As for the gay wedding case, well, both sides had an easier time of it than civil rights protesters in Alabama, so, progress!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I can't quite follow your stream of consciousness...from the evils of "unaccountable corporate power" to how the use of such power was simply evidence of social change, throwing in references to Q Anon (sp?) and "civil rights protesters in Alabama."

[bernard11]

The motives are the same in both cases: profitability.

[Sarcastr0]

Corporate citizenship does seem on the rise. It's still largely pretextual, but you don't take out large ad buys about how you're helping the environment if you don't think consumers care.

I do think a shift is happening, and I do think those yelling it's all a hoax or blaming the committed liberalism of the investor class are well behind the times and not really happy about it. Grasping at straws and being ridiculous.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's more than just pretending to help the environment.

They're also promoting wokeness all down the line, from race to sexual orientation, etc.

This has the benefit of dividing workers along cultural lines. Also, many of these woke ideas are in line with governing-class ideology. For instance, they have no interest in strong traditional families, their business model involves dissolving and fraying family ties in the interests of profits.

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure what wokeness means.
Not sure what promoting means.
Not sure making your workers not like one another is actually a good business model, nor am I sure companies are doing that work wokeness somehow.
Not sure what governing-class ideology is, and what it's contrasted with.
Not sure how you make money off of destroying the family.

This turned into some 'nuclear family is under attack by the elites' stuff. Vermeule senses tingling.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Not sure what wokeness means.”

Potter Stewart would recognize it.

“Not sure how you make money off of destroying the family.”

Depends on your business model. If you insist on an ill-paid, disposable workforce for the sake of profits, you’re being anti-family. I would think they could make profits by taking another course – promoting stable families, paying living wages, and all that fascist Vermeule stuff.

I guess progressives dropped the idea of bad corporate policies harming the family, leaving it to the postliberals to carry that banner.

[Sarcastr0]

If you insist on an ill-paid, disposable workforce for the sake of profits, you’re being anti-family.
No, those two things are not causally connected. It's like one of the most famous of reverse causality - well-off people tend to have the traditional families; it's not that having a traditional family makes you poorer!

Or are you saying that paying workers badly is a plan to break up the traditional family? This is just random.

fascist Vermeule stuff
Nah, just conspiratorially socially conservative.

I guess progressives dropped the idea of bad corporate policies harming the family, leaving it to the postliberals to carry that banner.
Oy. Postliberalism isn't going to catch on; no one knows what it means.
Anyhow, being crappy to your workforce is bad for tons of reasons. Making not enough people have relationships tailred like you like them to is not one of them.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“well-off people tend to have the traditional families”

Wet roads cause rain.

Though it helps if government and corporate policies gave a boost to the family, so people can form families in the first place.

"Making not enough people have relationships tail[o]red like you like them to"

So, parental leave is "making" people have children? That is the quality of your logic.

[Sarcastr0]

You're reversing the causality. Have you *any* evidence marriage causes wealth? Because the reverse seems more understandable.

Parental leave is a great example of flexibility. Used to be maternity leave. That additional flexibility allows nontraditional families to get support. By your philosophy, you should hate it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I thought I made clear the virtuous circle which involves supporting families and getting in return the benefits of stable families. Families should of course be supported for their own sake, not just for moneymaking reasons, but there’s a reason why fatherless families are poorer than intact families.

I don’t "hate" maternity leave, obviously. In this economy, many mothers – even if married to men – have to work, and their employers should accommodate them.

[Sarcastr0]

You've wandered away from 'strong traditional families' to just stable families.

My assumptions were based on past Margrave, from 2 hours ago. My mistake.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A (born male) husband ought to be able to support his family without his wife (who was born female) having to work *outside the home.*

But if the (born-female) wife is obliged to work outside the home, she should at least get maternal leave.

If an unmarried woman (i. e., no male husband) with children has to go to work, of course she should get maternal leave too.

[Nige]

'If you insist on an ill-paid, disposable workforce for the sake of profits, you’re being anti-family.'

The left have been telling you all along: join a union. It ain't the woke left working hard to dismantle employee protections.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I have my quarrels with Vermeule (his Sinophilia, monarchism and regulatory-statism), but he *does* support unions.

[apedad]

Thomas, Alito futures raise stakes for 2024 election

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4070483-thomas-alito-futures-raise-stakes-for-2024-election/

Let’s say Biden wins his re-election but the Senate flips, and Biden has an opportunity early (let’s say within the first six months of 2025), to nominate a SC Justice.

Does the Republican Senate pull a long-term “Thurmond Rule” and not even hold hearings the entire four years?

The Thurmond rule in U.S. politics posits that at some point in a U.S. presidential election year, the U.S. Senate will not confirm the president’s nominees to the federal judiciary except under certain circumstances. The basic premise is that the President and the Senate majority are of opposite political ideologies and as such the judiciary committee will not allow an appointee to receive a floor vote from the entire Senate during a presidential election year. (wiki)

Thomas, 75
Alito, 73
Sotomayor, 69
Roberts, 68
Kagan, 63
Kavanaugh, 58
Gorsuch, 55
Brown Jackson, 52
Coney Barrett, 51

[David Nieporent]

My guess is that it depends who creates the vacancy. If Sotomayor retires, they probably let Biden replace her in 2025. If Thomas retires, they will hold the seat open for as long as possible — years, decades, centuries — to keep a (D) from replacing him.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're not required to consent, no matter how long the vacancy, so it's not like it would be unconstitutional for them to say, "No, we're not replacing Thomas with Harris, try again." If he keeps sending up nominees they don't like, they can reject every one of them.

[Martinned]

Indeed. Let them play hardball.

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't politics by its very nature always hardball?

[Martinned]

No. Confirming a Supreme Court nominee from a President who is from the other party is not playing hardball.

Which does raise the question: Who is the last Supreme Court justice to be confirmed by a Senate controlled by "the other party"? A quick click through Wikipedia suggests that all current Justices were confirmed by the same party that nominated them. But obviously that wasn't always the case. Nomination votes used to be pretty sedate. E.g. when Ford nominated Stevens in 1975 he was confirmed by a Democratic-majority senate 98-0.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's actually been pretty unusual to confirm a SC nominee anywhere near an election if the President and Senate are of opposing parties. Stevens was an exception to the rule, and Republicans would say that, based on his subsequent jurisprudence, no wonder.

Democrats and Republicans have always had different opinions of the proper roll of Justices, but those opinions used to have some overlap in the middle, you could find candidates neither side might consider ideal, but both sides would think were acceptable enough. Each side might want a warrior for their own ideology, but would be content with a competent jurist.

At this point the Republican and Democratic conception of the proper role of SC justices is practically disjoint. What one side views as the minimum qualifications the other side views as disqualifying.

[Mr. Bumble]

Look up "Borked", a synonym for hardball.

[Martinned]

The whole reason why that word was invented was that a close vote on a Supreme Court nominee was extremely unusual back then.

[Brett Bellmore]

And a big part of Bork's loss was that Republicans didn't like him, either.

[bernard11]

A big part of Bork's loss was that he was an asshole who had really out-there opinions, especially about the First Amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

See, we can agree on Bork!

[bernard11]

Maybe you and I do, but to an awful lot of people on the right his rejection is a scandal and an example of Democrats treating a nominee wildly unfairly.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's actually a good way to tell principled conservatives from political hacks. Bork was drawing fire from the former, the latter just saw a guy who'd been nominated by somebody with an "R" after their name.

[not guilty]

"Who is the last Supreme Court justice to be confirmed by a Senate controlled by 'the other party'?"

Anthony Kennedy was nominated by Ronald Reagan and confirmed by a Democratic Senate in 1988. An election year, by the way.

[David Nieporent]

Souter and Thomas were both more recent than Kennedy. Both confirmed by a Democratically-controlled Senate.

[not guilty]

You are right.

[Jjh_Esq]

Exactly Brett. Silence is not consent. If the Senate is opposed to the President, they will just refuse to hold a vote on the President’s pick.

[Kazinski]

Interesting that Biden is 5 years older than the oldest current justice.

Statistically with 9 it's possible, but my money would be in the 80 year old going first.

[apedad]

So the VP takes over which doesn't change the scenario.

[Michael P]

It seems to me that there would be considerably less political blowback to the Senate sitting on a Supreme Court nominee of someone who succeeded to the presidency rather than got elected to it, on the basis that lifetime appointments should be made by someone who was at the top of their electoral ticket.

[EscherEnigma]

It seems to me that question was settled back in the 1700s, which is why the President and Vice President now run on the same ticket, rather then second-place getting to be Vice-President.

[Commenter_XY]

It is for that reason alone - the VP takes over - that I pray that POTUS Biden doesn't croak until he is defeated in an election.

[bernard11]

my money would be in the 80 year old going first.

I'd bet that one of the Justices will die before Biden.

Take a look at the birthday paradox

[DaveM]

There'd be no need to delay a vote if the Senate flips. If Biden wins the next election, half of the voters will be extremely unhappy. Voting to not confirm would be the politically safe choice.

We truly are at a crossroads. If we are saddled with another Biden/Trump match-up, we will be having exactly the same arguments and hitting exactly the same points for another four years.

After four more years of distractions, China will be more than ready to make its move. Global politics moves slowly, but only until it doesn't. Then it moves in a flash.

[Martinned]

Which China "move" did you have in mind? And are you somehow under the impression that the Biden Administration doesn't have a coherent China policy?

[Mr. Bumble]

Coherent and Biden (in any context) is the ultimate oxymoron.

[Martinned]

It amuses me that you felt the need to edit that comment.

[Mr. Bumble]

I added the “in any context” for completeness.
As I said in another comment: You are easily amused.
Take the rest of the day off and watch cricket.

[Martinned]

That reflects a misunderstanding about cricket. Test cricket is not something you "watch", it's something you have on in the background. Even the people in the stadium are mostly chatting with their friends and eating their sandwiches while the players are playing.

[Mr. Bumble]

So have a sandwich and a pint and chat.

[DaveM]

China desires to become the next superpower. Obviously. They're not ready yet, but give them four more years while we fiddle stupidly over the same old, same old, that should be enough.

[Martinned]

That's not a move, that's an objective.

[Mr. Bumble]

Aren't "moves" required to achieve an objective?

[DaveM]

"That's not a move, that's an objective".

Just so. Which is why they are waiting to make one -- which they will, if we continue to be so politically distracted.

[Martinned]

Back to my question: What kind of move did you have in mind?

[Kazinski]

Had a local hailstorm in Sierra Nevadas a few nights ago it was pretty impressive, even the next day 12 hours later with temps around 70 I found some hailstones about 3/4 inch in size, so there must have been a lot that were > 1".

Well I thought it was impressive but then I see this about baseball size hail completely wrecking a huge 5.2mw Nebraska solar farm.
https://twitter.com/WxWyDaryl/status/1673830414329454592?t=pLDNFae3nQTkvT6E5Avy9g&s=19

""Don Day, Cowboy State Daily meteorologist, said the hail would have reached terminal velocity during its descent, which is the maximum speed an object will reach when falling. The hail would have likely struck the panels going 100 to 150 mph. "

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cause for celebration?

[Nige]

'Haha the very conditions fossil fuels have created make it tougher to use alternatives!' is a bit of a colossal self-pwnage, but then again so is the entire crisis.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes hail storms never occurred until we began to use fossil fuels.
You are such an idiot.

[Martinned]

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

[Nige]

Oh no someone with strong opinions on climate change who doesn't know what it is.

[Martinned]

Not knowing what something is often helps with the strong opinions...

[Mr. Bumble]

That Nige is an idiot is a known known.

[Kazinski]

Nige, do you have any cite that warming causes more hail storms?

First of all Dr. Roy Spencer did a post on his blog the other week that shows very modest warming in the "Corn Belt" once 1977 of just 0.13c per decade.

Second while midwest hail storms aren't tracked as rigorously as other severe whether, there is another kind of severe weather that's tracked rigorously that is caused by many of the same conditions and in the same region as hail storms: Tornados.

You'll be surprised to learn that according to NOAA/NWS that the number of tornados F3 and above has dropped by more than 50% from 1970 to 2020.

https://climateataglance.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/violent-tornadoes-1954-2020-F3-1024x621.png

Claiming hail storms are either increasing or caused by modest warming is unscientific nonsense and there is no evidence to support it.

[Jmaie]

Sierra Nevadas? Where is that, I am not familiar with such a place ;<)

[not guilty]

Walt Nauta’s arraignment in Florida has been delayed for a second time because he is reportedly having trouble employing co-counsel licensed to practice in Florida. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/27/walt-nauta-trump-valet-arraignment-classified-documents It doesn’t appear that he is in any hurry to do so. The Guardian reports that Nauta’s team has been seeking defense lawyers who have not previously worked as prosecutors, and anyone Nauta retains would also need the blessing of Trump and his own defense team, who see no need to make a decision quickly.

Nauta’s defense is being financed by Trump’s Save America PAC. Florida’a Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.8(f) provides that A lawyer is prohibited from accepting compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6. If Team Trump is insisting on a Joint Defense Agreement, that is ethically dubious.

As Jesus observed in the Sermon on the Mount, no one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. (Matthew 6:24 NIV) Sun Tzu (and Vito Corleone) said “Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.” Walt Nauta is a potential enemy to Donald Trump.

[John F. Carr]

I would look for a lawyer who is good at negotiating cooperation agreements, with or without experience as a prosecutor.

This is the interesting sentence for me:

at least one Florida lawyer who had seriously considered representing Nauta decided several days ago that the reputational and legal risks of working with Trump’s co-defendant in the documents case were too great.

[not guilty]

A lawyer being paid by a Trump affiliated entity to represent Trump's codefendant has a huge potential for conflict of interest. As the saying goes, the man who pays the fiddler calls the tune. Trump is interested in the Nauta defense team staying on the reservation and going to trial. Nauta has a valuable bargaining chip if he were to seek a plea/cooperation agreement with DOJ.

Nauta has a Sixth Amendment right to retained counsel of his choosing. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 148 (2006). This right, however, “is circumscribed in several important respects.” Ibid., quoting Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988). Thus, while the right to select and be represented by one's preferred attorney is comprehended by the Sixth Amendment, the essential aim of the Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant, rather than to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers. Wheat, at 159.

A criminal defendant may offer to waive his right to conflict-free counsel. A district court, though, 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, at 163.

Here the trial court should insist that any waiver by Nauta is on the record and bulletproof. Otherwise Nauta could have a strong basis to collaterally attack any ensuing conviction based on conflicted defense counsel encouraging him to go to trial rather than negotiate a plea agreement which would cap his sentencing exposure.

[BillyG]

See Alan Derschowitz. Democrats are going after anyone who works with Trump.

Lawyer signs up to work with Trump or an associate?
Democrats pressure Lawyer's other clients to get a new lawyer.
Lawyer has option of dropping one client or going bankrupt.

[Nige]

I think the repuational risk comes from the way so many of his lawyers end up needing lawyers.

[bernard11]

"Going after?"

You mean not inviting them to Nantucket dinner parties?

[Martinned]

Some interesting (unscripted) comments by Lady Arden, who was a UK Law Lord (judge on the Supreme Court) between 2018 and 2022:

If judges have biases, it undermines the judicial role. And therefore I think it is very important that judges disclose conflicts of interest — and, where possible, that there are codes of ethics.

I think one of the saddest things can happen in recent years is that there have been allegations, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court, against two of their justices, that they have had significant interests and have had substantial friendships with political parties and their funders which would be relevant on any case that they sat which involve a partisan political issue.

I think it is extremely important that we recognise the authority of judges depends on their being without bias, that they judge cases without having some undisclosed bias.

If they have a conflict of interest and it’s disclosed and everyone accepts it, then that’s one thing. If they have any conflict of interest which is not disclosed, it seriously undermines the judicial role for the future for every other judge.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/supremely-impartial

[Mr. Bumble]

You are easily amused.

[DaveM]

If there are any specific ways either of these justices have violated the court's code of ethics, I'm sure we'd all be happy to hear them. I have had this conversation so many times before. I ask for specifics, but none are forthcoming.

It's not that I don't believe it is possible that justices are disobeying the court's rules, I just want to see precisely which parts of the code are claimed to have broken. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask.

[Martinned]

The whole point of Lady Arden's comments is that lawyering ethics codes is inherently misguided. The better approach is to disclose things whenever there is doubt, and take the conversation from there.

[DaveM]

"I think it is very important that judges disclose conflicts of interest — and, where possible, that there are codes of ethics."

Not sure how you get to "lawyering ethics codes are inherently misguided" from this.

[Michael P]

She also doesn't take it to the silly extreme of "whenever there is any [possibly manufactured or feigned] doubt".

[bernard11]

Well, if you control the ethics rules that you are supposed to follow it's pretty easy not to break them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"interesting (unscripted) comments by Lady Arden"

This Tuesday marks 247 years since we had to give a damn about what a English baroness thinks.

[apedad]

With all the chatter about aliens, could the US (and the world), handle verification of extra-terrestrials?

So the President comes out and says, "In 1972, US officials recovered non-human remains from an aircraft which was made from materials not found on Earth."

Putting aside the "Why didn't you (or the govt) tell us earlier?" or "Are there anymore?" questions, what's our response to this relevation of ETs?

Big ol' shrudge?
Renewed interest in space exploration?

[Mr. Bumble]

Why would aliens want anything to do with this dysfunctional place?

[apedad]

I dunno . . . want to enslave humans?

[Mr. Bumble]

They're Democrats?

[David Nieporent]

It's a cookbook!

[Mr. Bumble]

That was "How to Serve Humans" not how to enslave them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"enslave humans?"

Aliens who have the technology to make interstellar flight need slaves?

We have robots who can do most things, with our puny technology. But these aliens have no machines.

[Brett Bellmore]

Learning from our mistakes to avoid repeating them? Besides, we're still alive, so it's silly to think it's ALL mistakes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Any species that has reached the point where they have achieved interstellar travel has already overcome any mistakes we've made.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on, I think you're underestimating how diverse mistakes can be.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like someone forgot to turn off the stove before they left?

[Nige]

Alien, alien, fly away home
Your solar system's on fire your whole planet has blown.

[bernard11]

Yes. Interstellar travel opens up galaxies of possible mistakes.

[DaveM]

Easy. Give ’em the right to vote, but require photo ID … and not one of those fuzzy ones from a long-distance shaky cam!

[ducksalad]

"Big ol’ shrudge?
Renewed interest in space exploration?"

You're such an innocent.

Calls for massive investment in anti-spacecraft weaponry.
Accusations that your political opponents are working for the aliens.
Cargo cult religions praying to little green statues.
Elderly women claiming they slept with the alien.
Hucksters auctioning alien body parts on Ebay.
Kids refusing their science homework 'cause it's all BS.
Wave of IPOs for companies with vague plans about harnessing alien tech.

[bernard11]

Sounds right.

[EscherEnigma]

At this point?

Whatever government made such an announcement would need some damn-good verifiable proof that was corroborated by multiple other governments (preferably ones that were in conflict with each other) before most people would accept it as true.

Simply put, we've been hearing about "aliens" for decades now. The proof needs to be air-tight if you expect people to not be skeptical.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Also, "did the aliens do any follow-up to locate their crashed UFO and its passengers?"

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Hive minds do not concern themselves with disposable and easily replaceable individuals.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Comer says he’s got the goods and they can show atleast four policy decisions made by Biden that were paid for by the CCP.

[David Nieporent]

No. Comer says that he has identified several decisions that he doesn't think could be explained in any way other than bribery. But that just means he disagrees with those decisions.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Turns out ACT Blue has been a conduit for CCP dollars to Democrats for awhile now.

Not surprised since there isn't any daylight between a Chinese Communist and a Democrat one.

[Mr. Bumble]

Going back to at least the Clintons and Al Gore.

[not guilty]

"Turns out ACT Blue has been a conduit for CCP dollars to Democrats for awhile now."

Supporting facts?

[Brett Bellmore]

Rubio Demands Answers From FEC On Potential ActBlue Fraudulent Donations

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's legally proven at this point, but it's not totally imaginary, either. We've got testimony from people who are listed as having donated to ACTBlue, who say they never did, and their accounts don't show any money coming out of them, but somehow money went into ACTBlue accounts. It IS possible to pull that off, if you don't use CVV checks.

I recall there being a bit of a fuss back during Obama's campaigns when they shut off that card verification, and, yeah, it did turn out that he'd gotten quite a bit of foreign donations. His campaign claimed they hadn't known they were getting foreign donations, but that was because they'd gone out of their way to be unable to know it.

Had to pay some FEC fines over it. So it wouldn't be unprecedented for ACTBlue to be doing this.

[Nige]

'I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s legally proven at this point,'

Just cut and paste that for almost all current anti-Biden claims.

[not guilty]

Brett, not only is your link to a press release, the linked document says nothing whatsoever about any "CCP dollars" as BravoCharlieDelta alleged.

The fact that BCD asserted that is enough to doubt truthfulness.

[Sarcastr0]

A senatory demands answers on a potential thing.

If this is sufficient proof for you, you've got a lot of stuff with exactly this proof to get through.

You CAN withhold judgement until the facts come out, you know.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's sufficient proof that BCD isn't hallucinating it. It's not sufficient proof that it actually happened.

If ACTBlue turned off CVV checks on their card processing, (It defaults to on, you have to deliberately turn it off.) they enabled people to launder donations under fake identities. That's just a fact about how credit card processing works.

You'd then have to establish the source of funds, of course, and that can be difficult when you're deliberately NOT collecting the relevant data.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s sufficient proof that BCD isn’t hallucinating it No, it doesn’t even make that low bar. Hallucinating any kind of reality out of a political press release is still hallucinating.

If ACTBlue turned off CVV checks on their card processing, (It defaults to on, you have to deliberately turn it off.) they enabled people to launder donations under fake identities. That’s just a fact about how credit card processing works. Look at you, straining to find scandal outta nothing. As noted below, this is barely a roadblock to the issue of fake identities.

Dunno which is sadder, hallucinating, or trying to hallucinate and failing.

[Nige]

'It’s sufficient proof that BCD isn’t hallucinating it'

No, he's lying about it, and so are you.

[Voize]

A CVV check is intended to verify that the customer is in possession of the card during a "card not present" transaction (i.e. one where the magstripe doesn't get swiped), not to verify the nationality of the cardholder. The card issuer verifies the supplied name and address and CVV (if supplied) against the account information and will refuse to authorize if they don't match. Failing to provide the CVV increases the likelihood the issuer will deny the transaction, it doesn't make it possible to use a fictitious account.

[DaveM]

I believe you are technically correct, but using a fictitious account is not the scenario being described. What ActBLUE is being accused of is laundering foreign donations through existing credit card accounts without the card holder's knowledge. In that scenario, a CCV check would prove the launderer wasn't in possession of the card, so it would be important to not require that field in order for the fraud to be successfully completed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Exactly.

[Voize]

That doesn't make sense either.
One claim was "their accounts don’t show any money coming out of them, but somehow money went into ACTBlue accounts". If a foreign donor's money was funneled through a third party's account then that account would show a credit from the foreign source and a debit toward ACTBlue. Not providing a CVV would make it easier to pull off, but it would not erase the transaction records.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's been quite a while since I looked at the details, (And Google is now basically useless for finding them.) but there are ways of spoofing credit card transactions to disguise the origin of funds, once you have a valid card number on hand.

It's not a primary concern of the banking system, because it doesn't result in anybody losing money. And it's not the easiest thing in the world, but it is something state actors have no trouble pulling off.

[Voize]

In addition, the article Brett linked to did claim that the CVV worked to "prevent unlawful foreign transactions", and said (emphasis added)

In knowing that foreign actors use fake accounts to exploit donation systems that do not have robust verification processes and systems in place [...]

But omitting the CVV doesn't enable either scenario, not the use of fake accounts nor the unrecorded use of valid ones.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're talking about the exact same scenario that took place during the Obama campaign, and resulted in FEC fines for accepting foreign donations. So cut out the incredulity.

[Voize]

You are probably confusing two incidents.

Obama's 2008 campaign was fined for reporting errors and missed handling deadlines for late donations, but there was nothing there about foreign donors.

In the 2012 the Steve Bannon-founded Government Accountability Institute published a report accusing the Obama campaign of encouraging illegal foreign donations by, among other things, not requiring a CVV check. The report doesn't explain the connection any better than you do, but it is probably the origin of the meme Rubio repeats.

You would benefit from a little incredulity. Don't be afraid to check sources and ask yourself whether something you got from Breitbart actually makes sense.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, BCD. What fact support your assertion that ACT Blue has been a conduit for CCP dollars to Democrats?

If you are once again making shit up, man up and say so.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://rumble.com/v2wp1rk-bombshell-60-of-actblue-donations-are-coming-from-china-fec-lawsuit-pending.html

[not guilty]

A video clip of James O'Keefe blathering about "evidence" that will be included in a lawsuit to be filed months away? O'Keefe very conspicuously does not identify what that "evidence" will be.

Sorry, but that does not qualify as supporting facts. Your comment is nothing but one unreliable narrator linking to another unreliable narrator. Did you think I wouldn't click on the link?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why is there a network of government agencies filled with Democrats working with companies to censor Americans?

Why do they lay claim to "America's Cognitive Infrastructure" and by what powers do they have to censor what they claim is misinformation? The Democrat Government bQueen of Censorship even has her avatar on Twitter as some sort of American Super Hero.

[OtisAH]

Nobody knows what you’re talking about, idiot.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-report-reveals-cisa-tried-cover-censorship-practices

Gd you people are so ignorant. Does Soros or some other State Dept/Deep State ally have to tell you when to breathe?

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, on day 2 of the second Ashes test of 2023, Australia just went all out for 416, which is probably about as good a start of the day as England could have expected. Looking out the window it seems like the light is good (they're playing at Lords), so it's all still very much to play for. An exciting weekend ahead!

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2023/jun/29/the-ashes-2023-england-vs-australia-live-updates-second-test-cricket-eng-v-aus-latest-score-day-two-lords

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, we here in the colonies are all a twitter over this.

[Martinned]

ABC has extensive live coverage.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why wouldn't an Aussie network cover it?

[Martinned]

I don't know, you're the one who brought up the colonies.

[John F. Carr]

It's better than customer service policies of Welsh utilities.

[Martinned]

Indeed, although English utility policy has suddenly gotten a lot more exciting than anyone really wanted it to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/28/thames-water-in-crisis-talks-over-potential-10bn-black-hole-cost-possible-collapse

[Nige]

Go Feargal Sharkey.

[John F. Carr]

A water department in my area has a similar bill coming due, more dollars per capita but in a richer area so a similar financial burden. For decades the people in charge were afraid to raise water rates and afraid to ask water department employees to do their jobs. Most of the staff quit when a boss was installed who expected them to work.

[Martinned]

In this case the first in the firing line (the shareholders) are pension funds and sovereign wealth funds from Canada to Abu Dhabi to China. God only knows who own all the bonds.

[SRG]

Yes indeed! Good fightback earlier today. I don't agree with the criticism of Bazball after the first test. England didn't lose because of Bazball, they lost because they dropped catches.

[Martinned]

This is no fun. 185-1, this is going way too well for England.

[Martinned]

OK, Duckett going out just before his century is funny, in a schadenfreude kind of way.

[SRG]

Yup. Old line, you're in a good position if you can add two wickets and you're still in a good position. 221-3 isn't terrible even against 416, given how deep England bat.

For a while, the Willow cricket channel was free, but now it requires a subscription, so I listen to TMS on Youtube and watch highlights at. I find Isa Guha more than acceptable. 🙂

[SRG]

Posts that do not age well. Root, you idiot

[Martinned]

England all out for 325. That ended better than I'd expected this morning.

[SRG]

Bugger.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Apparently at the NSDA Tournament of Champions, a finalist lost a debate on US water policy because his opponent produced an unrelated tweet about free speech that the participant had made.

The judge gave the round to the people using the ad-hom, saying, "A debate space where racist or violent people are not allowed is preferable to one where they are..."

[DaveM]

I was a debate judge at the collegiate level once. Debate competitions teach gamesmanship, not rhetoric. Oxford apparently still does actual debates, I've seen some on social media. But not here. Here, it's all about pulling the right levers and dialing in the right combination to win.

[Martinned]

Yes, the Oxford Union still exists.

https://www.youtube.com/user/OxfordUnion

[DaveM]

Thanks! Well worth subscribing to.

[Martinned]

Here's a golden oldie: James Baldwin debating William F. Buckley in the Other Place (i.e. the Cambridge Union).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ

[SRG]

The Oxford Union has been the platform for the launch of many a political career, As indeed has the Union at what Martinned quite correctly calls The Other Place.

[Martinned]

Recently I saw Simon Schama in a documentary telling the story of how he served as one of the vote counters in that Baldwin v. Buckley debate. (Not a politician, but still very interesting.)

[Martinned]

The rules of competitive debate are just as arbitrary as the rules of American Football or whichever other sport. So what?

[Brett Bellmore]

There's a big difference between "where you place the goals" arbitrary, and "demonstrating that somebody is a big meanie so they have to lose" arbitrary.

[Martinned]

Not if the sport is debate, apparently.

[Sarcastr0]

Competitive debate has been a weird-ass place for a *while*. Stories pop up on my podcast feed semi-regularly about how it's more curiosity and networking than much else.

[Michael P]

Decent people at least act as though ad-hominem arguments are fallacious, rather than using them to decide formal debates.

[Martinned]

If the debate people decide that ad hominem arguments are an acceptable part of the rules, who are we to judge? It's their game, they get to make the rules.

[bevis the lumberjack]

True. But it changes a debate competition from an exchange of competing ideas to a couple of monkeys flinging shit at each other.

Not quite the same intellectual cache.

[Sarcastr0]

It shouldn't - debate is at this point rarified rhetoric targeted at a certain narrow group of judges. It takes skill, but it's not generalizable as on might think it would be from the word 'debate.'

But it still has plenty of professional cache as being intellectual capable, despite not really requiring much more than the ability to intensely focus any competitive endeavor requires.

But plenty of hiring elites are kinda dumb and credentialist.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. As Bevis points out, if they want to fling shit at each other that's they're business, but we're free to point out that they're not actually debating policy.

But they should probably change their name to the NSFA or something, for transparency. I mean, the poor guy on the receiving end could be forgiven for thinking that he was actually there to debate water policy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, if he had been prepared, he could have come up with a debate-wining zinger like

So you wanna read my tweets
Well I think that's pretty lame...
But the way I fuck your mother is a god--damn shame.

I mean, who know that competitive debate was just another cultural item that white people appropriated from black people?

[Martinned]

they’re not actually debating policy

Well no, I didn't realise that anyone was suggesting that they were.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's going on is that some of the debate judges have simply decided that they're not going to let people whose politics they dislike win debates, period. They've come right out and said as much. And it's horrifying the more traditional debate judges.

[Sarcastr0]

What’s going on is that some of the debate judges have simply decided that they’re not going to let people whose politics they dislike win debates, period.

Fucking telepathy again.

Yes, I think debate criteria are weird, and the judges similarly so. But that doesn't mean it's yet *another liberal conspiracy*

You have a problem.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Fucking telepathy again.

I know, right? I mean, how else could someone gain access to information like that. Unless it's by fucking reading the fucking links.

For example, one judge had in her paradigm:

Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. I have realized as a result of this, I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when i'm judging - as thats both impossible and opportunism. If you have had me as a judge before, this explicit decision of mine does not change how you understand I evaluate rounds, with one specific exception: I will no longer evaluate and thus ever vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments

There are other examples.

Fucking reading, Sarcastro. You should try it sometime.

[SRG]

This makes her unfit to be a judge.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0 calls any information he doesn't like "mind reading". He's simply categorically unwilling to acknowledge evidence that points in any direction he doesn't like, anymore.

[Sarcastr0]

You evidence is, as it ALWAYS is, that you disagree with the judge's opinions. That's it.

You go from 'Brett doesn't agree' to 'This is liberal bad faith - they all must agree with me and be lying about it.'

You never have any other evidence, but when called on that you just point at the opinion you don't like and say that's your evidence.

Every single time. It's rare to see such a total, and repeatable, cognitive failure.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I will no longer evaluate and thus ever vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments"

That doesn't mean what Brett and you seem to think it means.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, yeah, actually it does.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, it doesn't, and you're an idiot for thinking otherwise.

If the POSITION/ARGUMENT is based on "rightest capitalist-imperialist" values, then the judge won't listen.

It has nothing to do with whether the debater holds those viewpoints, as long as their argument doesn't use them.

Again, words have meanings. You're too partisan to think clearly, so you immediately see shit that isn't there.

[Sarcastr0]

Your outrage should probably be baselined about what competitive debate is like generally.

[Michael P]

What’s up with you guys and the fact-free whining today? You complain that other people’s claims don’t hold up, without pointing to a single error, but you just make assertions that float in the air, and support as little weight as one would expect.

Edited to add: Maybe "today" is unfair. This pattern is a longstanding milieux of yours.

[Sarcastr0]

My assertion is pointing out some unsupported assumptions in your comment. Demanding I bring the facts is not really responsive to my issue.

Though if you want an example of debate weirdness here's a recent one:
https://radiolab.org/podcast/debatable-2205

[bernard11]

Brett's claims often fail simple checks, like the one he made above about and ESG paper.

Where checking is impossible they generally amount to claims of vast and nefarious conspiracies against what he regards as right and good.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, let me know when the NFL changes the rules so that touchdowns scored by people with preferred political opinions count for 9 points.

[John F. Carr]

Good way to make Colin Kaepernick welcome again.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure. But at least with Kaepernick we're talking about his behavior during televised events. Nobody should have had a problem with him writing op-eds in the paper or something.

[Nige]

Everyone knows free speech ends when you're on television.

[Martinned]

Are you saying that the NFL is somehow logically constrained in its rules? The rules of American football don't have to make sense, as sufficiently demonstrated by the current rules of American football.

[bernard11]

The overwhelmingly important constraint on the rules of any game is that the game must be interesting.

When the existing rules allow tactics that reduce interest those tactics tend to get outlawed. Think of the various n-second rules in basketball, baseball's balk rules, and so on.

[Martinned]

That's the way American sports typically work, yes. But it's still just an articulation of the incentives of the people who set the rules, not some kind of logical or legal or principles-based constraint.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/11/20/shall-we-focus-on-saule-omarovas-actual-plans/?comments=true#comment-9222664

[Ed Grinberg]

re: the earlier article
If you advocate X (or even use language implying X), you are automatically disqualified!
compare:
plaintiffs: "We are suing the school district for letting boys/males compete against girls/females."
judge: "I will impartially judge your lawsuit. And by the way, if you call them 'boys/male' again, I'll hold you in contempt of court."
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/attorneys-for-connecticut-high-school-runners-ask-judge-to-recuse-after-he-forbids-them-from-describing-trans-athletes-as-male/

[VinniUSMC]

Sarcastr0 = Jacob Wilkus?

Lefty shits can't debate ideas so they resort to cries of -isms and -phobias. Stupid lefty shits.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems more like the right can't hang in national debate competitions so they resort to cries of wokeness.

[John F. Carr]

According to government's motion to move Trump's trial in Florida to December the case "involves straightforward theories of liability, and does not present novel questions of fact or law." I think the case has an important and novel question of fact or law: does a president who keeps classified documents past his term commit a crime as of 12:01 PM on January 20? I think no. The prosecutor thinks yes. If the answer is no Trump has committed a different crime than the one charged. In an ideal world this would be resolved before trial so the prosecutor can re-indict under the correct section of law if necessary.

The crime I think Trump committed is refusing to return national defense documents on demand. This is not a lesser included offense of the crime that was charged. It has the additional element that a demand for return be made. So it must be charged explicitly.

[apedad]

But after 12:01 PM on January 20, he is no longer the President and is just another citizen.

[John F. Carr]

If I go out drinking with Joe Biden and he says "Hey, John, take this home and look it over and let me know what you think" I think I get to take it home and look it over. I do not have to give it back on January 20, 2025. I have to give it back whenever an authorized representative of the government asks for it back, which could be earlier or later or never. That is the situation I consider Trump to be in.

In fact I don't know anybody with a security clearance who is as irresponsible as Trump. I can't imagine any of the people I have known letting me have classified documents. If Jack Teixeira handed me a packet of documents marked "top secret" I would think he does not have authority to do that.

(To be more precise, the people I have known who I believe to have security clearances are more responsible than Trump. They don't go around saying "I have a secret clearance.")

[shawn_dude]

Your last two paragraphs don't seem to follow from your first. If you know people have or had security clearances and you cannot imagine them doing what Trump did, why would you assume a president handing you information you are not legally allowed to posses at the time they hand it to you to be perfectly okay? If the US president doesn't first get you a clearance or declassify the document, you'd be okay being handed something marked Top Secret/Compartmentalized? I'd like to find that hard to believe.
"I have to give it back whenever an authorized representative of the government asks for it back..."
Yes. Yes you do. As do all citizens in possession of classified material even if they have clearance for them. Even if, the day prior, they were legally allowed to posses them. The day prior, they had a security clearance and the day after they do not.

[John F. Carr]

The president is in charge of national defense information, which is largely governed by executive order. He gets to make the rules even if they seem odd, stupid, or inconsistent. I know Jack Teixeira does not have authority to give me classified documents, but Joe Biden does and Donald Trump did.

Subsection 18 USC 793(d) applies to lawfully possessed classified documents (etc.) and subsection (e) to "unauthorized" possession.
The way the law is written, it is a strained reading to say initially authorized access can become unauthorized in the sense of 18 USC 793(e) when the document is continuously possessed. That would render the last part of 18 USC 793(d), about giving classified documents (etc.) back on demand redundant. If there is an alternative interpretation of a law that avoids "surplusage" judges should use it.

[not guilty]

No, that is not "an important and novel question." As has been pointed out many times on these threads, the classification status of the subject documents is not an element of any offense that Donald Trump is charged with. Trump's blather about classification vel non is pure obfuscation.

[John F. Carr]

I sometimes write classified as a shorthand for the long list of items covered by the statute, which in the normal course of business would be formally and conspicuously classified. I am not arguing that the documents described in the indictment were not national defense information covered by the statute. I assume they are although that has yet to be proved.

[DaveM]

"does a president who keeps classified documents past his term commit a crime as of 12:01 PM on January 20? I think no. The prosecutor thinks yes."

I agree this does, indeed, sound like a novel legal question. And I think the answer to it would also be "no" -- the process by which documents are kept by exiting officials seems much more cooperative and negotiated between the ex-official and the Archives than anything this cut and dried.

It does seem like the Feds are "piling on" Trump, but it also seems like Trump has been a complete jackass about these documents, so can we really blame them?

[John F. Carr]

The prosecutor strikes me as aggressive. There is a risk that being so aggressive will lose a winnable case. If Judge Cannon sees things my way and grant a motion for acquittal during trial, that is practically unreviewable. If I were the judge I would deny the motion during trial and grant it after the verdict comes in. Then if the 11th Circuit sides with the prosecutor the conviction stands. If Florida can provide a jury that will convict, which is another open question.

[Commenter_XY]

Interesting point = If Florida can provide a jury that will convict...

[Sarcastr0]

Just as I think DC jury's pool doesn't mean it's findings are all a priori illegitimate, a as-of-yet not impaneled Florida jury is also not something worth getting worried about at this point.

[John F. Carr]

I read a news article predicting difficulty finding an unbiased and honest jury pool.

The evidence for obstruction includes actions that are innocent on their own but are said to add up to crimes. A juror who thinks Trump is a decent and honest man could see nothing wrong with a man moving his boxes around his house. It's not inherently wrong. It's not presumptively wrong but subject to some affirmative defenses, like shooting a man on Fifth Avenue. It's usually legal but becomes illegal when there is a specific intent to hide the contents from federal investigators who have a right to look for them.

[Sarcastr0]

If that's an actual issue, I believe there's judicial ways to change venue. Though I never took whatever class discusses the specifics of that.

I would note that there was a MAGA-hat guy on the defamation trial and still found Trump guilty. There are fewer truly committed zealots than the Internet might make you think.

That being said, I could see a scenario where the jury, when empaneled looks awfully biased. Not like juries are a perfect process.

[John F. Carr]

Only the defendant may request a change of venue. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21.

[Sarcastr0]

I seem to recall judges doing so sua sponte in some federal mob cases.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I read a news article predicting difficulty finding an unbiased and honest jury pool."

Easier in FL than in DC.

[EscherEnigma]

So aggressive that they waited until August of 2022 to do something about it.

[David Nieporent]

And I think the answer to it would also be “no” — the process by which documents are kept by exiting officials seems much more cooperative and negotiated between the ex-official and the Archives than anything this cut and dried.

For ordinary documents, absolutely. Which is why Trump isn't being tried for stealing the thousands of other documents he took, which he also wasn't entitled to keep. It's only NDI that's at issue.

[David Nieporent]

I think the case has an important and novel question of fact or law: does a president who keeps classified documents past his term commit a crime as of 12:01 PM on January 20? I think no. The prosecutor thinks yes.

No. Trump was not charged merely for "keeping" classified documents past his term. He was charge for failing to return them.

[OtisAH]

Again, had Turnip returned the documents when asked — even 18 months later after being asked multiple times — there would have been no subpoena, no search, no investigation, and no charges. He brought the entire house down on his own stupid head by his own stupid choices.

[Michael P]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66038227

It's terrible that police shot a teen to death for refusing to stop at a checkpoint. But what is going on in France that they killed 13 people for that last year?

[ducksalad]

What's the ostensible purpose of the checkpoints? Might tell us something about the officers' mindset.

[Ed Grinberg]

(Let's say) it's terrible that George Floyd died. But he should've fucking complied with the officers' commands. Same here.

[ducksalad]

I don’t see that the command has much to do with it, unless it’s something along the lines of “drop the gun”. The only reason to kill someone without process is that it’s necessary to prevent them from killing someone else, and that is independent of whether they disobeyed a command.

Some fraction of people aren’t going to comply with LEO commands. It’s a crime but not a capital offense. A command to stop struggling (Floyd) or stop your car (this guy) or turn over some documents (Trump) can't be enforced with lethal force.

[bernard11]

What commands?

The police pointed a gun at the guy's head and threatened to shoot him for no reason, which they proceeded to do.

It was a fucking traffic stop.

[Martinned]

Of course, one difference with the George Floyd case is that in Nanterre the police officer was charged pretty quickly: https://www.lefigaro.fr/tag/nanterre

[Frank Drackman]

Don't see what the big deal about Senescent Joe's CPAP mask marks, lots of Parkinson's patients have Sleep Apnea, problem is Joe as Awake Apnea to.

[apedad]

(Jerry Seinfeld voice)
What’s up with the Nazis (old and new), that when they greet each other, they expose their armpits?

Nazi 1: Hey! (lifts arm)
Nazi 2: Hey to you! (lifts arm too)
Nazi 1: Hey to those guys over there too! (swings extended arm towards them)

They even have synchronized armpit exposure events – sometimes with 10s of thousands of folks (back in the day anyway).

Nazi leader: Everybody, on the count of three, do the thing.
One, two, three! (thousands of people expose their armpit simultaneously)

WHOA! Now I understand why they invaded France; they needed the perfume!

Random Nazi: Hey Adolf, bro, help us out and lay on couple of spritzes of Femme de Rochas or Tabu!

[Mr. Bumble]

Keep your day job.

[apedad]

Yeah, the script is a little dry.

You need the little gestures and "stinky face" to go with the routine to make it come alive.

[Brett Bellmore]

It does sound like something the Pythons might have done, back in the day.

[gVOR08]

Nah. They invaded France because France declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland. They invaded Poland because one morning they all woke up hungover and feeling mean.

[Frank Drackman]

Seinfeld references are always good,

Frank "Oh, you gotta mulch. You've got to."

[apedad]

(From a Fox News item yesterday)

"Podcast host Joe Rogan and standup comedian Duncan Trussell slammed Democrats for abandoning their anti-war beliefs, and praised former President Trump for advocating for peace in Ukraine as the threat of nuclear war looms."

Fox for some reason had to include a standup comedian's opinion?!?

[Mr. Bumble]

Wasn't the current president of Ukraine formerly a standup comedian?

[Martinned]

He was an actor, like Reagan.

[Mr. Bumble]

He was many things but none of them were "like" Reagan.

[Martinned]

True. Zelenskyy was actually a pretty decent actor. Also: not a racist, not struggling with Alzheimer's.

[Frank Drackman]

neither was Ronaldus Maximus when in Orifice.

[Ed Grinberg]

I haven't watched CNN for years. Last time I did, they had a stand-up comedian opining on the news for some reason.

[Martinned]

CNN International used to broadcast the weekly version of Jon Stewart.

[Frank Drackman]

That was Don Lemon, did "Ironic" Comedy.

[Nige]

Real anti-war people oppose the war *started by Putin.* Fake anti-war people want to help Putin win.

[Frank Drackman]

Did you leave your "Destroy this Village to save it" at home?

[Nige]

You brought your random word generator with you, though.

[Frank Drackman]

My sentence makes more sense than yours, you're "Anti-War" so give You-Crane Bullions and Bullions to fight Roosh-a?? If you want to support the You-Cranian War Effort just say so, or better yet, go fight there yourself.

[Nige]

edgebot none of your sentences make sense, they're keywords scraped from dank corners of the internet and thrown around until the spelling mistakes are funny to a five-year old.

[Mr. Bumble]

Finally, Harvard UNC decision released.

[Frank Drackman]

Let the Riots Begin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Darth Buckeye]

I can't wait to read the posts about the Supreme Court decision on racial preferences at Harvard.

[Sarcastr0]

The resentful excitement.

[Darth Buckeye]

I am not excited about this. I just want to be able to discuss it with some authority.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair enough then. I'm interested at that level as well.

Especially wanna check out how Roberts' treatment of precedent will contrast with Alito's in Dobbs.

[Frank Drackman]

It's simple, 14th amendment means what it says, learn it, live it, love it....

[Ed Grinberg]

One sometimes gets the feeling that defenders / supporters of Affirmative Action (like Sarcastro) do so more out of a desire to spite those harmed by it than anything else.

[Michael P]

One might say: The excited, delirious resentment.

[grb]

Ed Grinberg : “One sometimes gets the feeling that defenders / supporters of Affirmative Action (like Sarcastro) do so more out of a desire to spite those harmed by it than anything else.”

Don’t know about Sarcastro, but this supporter of Affirmative Action did so for the good of the country. It is in everyone’s interest, black & white together, to promote a prosperous black middle class after centuries of horrible oppression. You see other countries around the world riven by racial, nationalistic or tribal divisions and wonder why those people don’t try to put their house in order. I’m proud that we did so in the United States.

Oh, and your “desire to spite those harmed” is pure Right-Wing projection. I’m a white guy nearing retirement who has shifted jobs a slew of times (my Ex dragging me around the country as she changed jobs). For all my countless interviews for jobs won or lost, I never once experienced the oppression over being a white man that the Right fantasizes about. The very concept strikes me as hilarious. Affirmative Action isn’t a zero-sum game for me because I’m not a whiny Right-winger enraged one of THOSE people got a break. It’s easy to support Affirmative Action is you’re not consumed with petty resentment.

[swood1000]

After California banned racial preferences in admissions at public colleges, minority graduation rates increased. See The Effects of Proposition 209 on College Enrollment and Graduation Rates in California. The reason was that students were then admitted to colleges where their qualifications were the same as everyone else, instead of having people admitted to Berkeley with SAT scores 200 points lower than those admitted without affirmative action.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

But see, now you are having a legitimate discussion on the effectiveness of AA, instead of just assuming bad motives to the other side as Grinberg and Michael P always do.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm actually concerned for my Filipino/American son's college prospects. His grades are pretty good, but the anti-Asian bias at a lot of institutions probably would keep him out.

[Nige]

If these institutions are racist won't removing aa just allow them to be racist to black people too? If they're racist to Asian people, how is it black peoples' fault?

[Brett Bellmore]

'Won't prohibiting racial discrimination just mean they'll racially discriminate even more?'

I swear, you can't make this stuff up. Well, YOU can, obviously...

[Nige]

Oh so you were lying about anti-Asian bias?

[Ben_]

Big win for equality and single standards. Big loss for special rules to specifically benefit special people at the expense of, and to the exclusion of, everyone not deemed special.

[Frank Drackman]

(Andy Rooney Voice) "Didja ever notice that "Special People" are always buying Filet Mignon with their Food Stamps???

[Ed Grinberg]

As Sarcastro would say: Stop being resentful! Just accept your second-class status!

[Ben_]

What if we believe -- as Americans have historically believed -- that all men are created with equal status?

I'd like to treat people equally and not be coerced into participating in schemes to divide people and apportion benefits to some races and penalties to others.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Have Americans "historically believed" that? I'm not even convinced most Americans believe that now. Rather, like you, they tend to espouse such beliefs only when they perceive it is their own group being harmed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Big loss for special rules to specifically benefit special people at the expense of, and to the exclusion of, everyone not deemed special.

What is your view of the recent decisions expanding special privilege for people gullible enough to be afflicted by adult-onset superstition?

Carry on, clingers. Enjoy your last gasps as you await replacement. By your betters.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, not "Kind" or "Gentle" but what's EV gonna do? throw you in prison for 30 years? you're already there!
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx

[hoppy025]

Let me ask you something. Do you take PrEP regularly? It's the last you could do so that you don't infect your victims.

[Bored Lawyer]

I don't have time now to read it carefully, just skimmed. One thing that I noticed, perhaps I missed something, is that the opinion is couched in terms of Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. While the University of North Carolina is a state institution, Harvard is private. So why is that state action?

[Brett Bellmore]

Why did Hillsdale have to stop taking any students who had government scholarships or student loans? There's your answer. Harvard isn't disentangled enough from the Federal government to get away with violating the EPC, though they could be if they wanted.

[David Nieporent]

Wrong, as always. Harvard and Hillsdale are completely 'disentangled' from the federal government for the purpose of the 14th amendment.

It's just an (oddly for Roberts) badly written decision. There's a footnote that explains: based on longstanding precedent that nobody challenged (Gorsuch questioned it in a concurrence, but it wasn't an issue presented to the Court), Title VI is interpreted to mean the same thing as the 14th amendment. So Roberts was just using it as shorthand, because under that interpretation the two issues are analyzed the same way.

[Life of Brian]

So... if Roberts relied on longstanding precedent that wasn't at issue in this case, why exactly does that make the decision badly written?

[Sarcastr0]

I've not read any of the opinion myself yet, but if you need to go to "There’s a footnote that explains" a load-bearing part of the argument, seems that writing could be clearer.

[David Nieporent]

It's badly written in that it implies that what Harvard was doing violated the 14th amendment, when what it really holds and means is that what Harvard was doing would've violated the 14th amendment if it were a state actor, and therefore it actually violates Title VI.

(SFFA, of course, never argued that Harvard violated the 14th amendment.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Which was the same issue at Hillsdale, except for the fact that the ERA was never ratified, of course.

[swood1000]

It’s badly written in that it implies that what Harvard was doing violated the 14th amendment

Do you think it would have been an improvement if, throughout the opinion, he constantly mentioned that, with respect to Harvard, an Equal Protection violation also violates Title VI, instead of just mentioning that once at the beginning?

[SomeGuy 2]

I think the charts were shocking to those who haven't focused on this issue. Somebody lucky enough to be able to check the African American box in the 4th decile is more likely to get into Harvard than an Asian in the 1st decile (and only slightly less likely than a white in the 1st decile). Needless to say, a non-African American in the fourth decile has no hope of getting in. I'm a proponent of judicial constitutional modesty so if I was on the Court I likely would have ruled that the programs were Constitutional because the Constitution is silent on this topic. But the amount of racism Harvard and UNC were engaging in is staggering.

https://twitter.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/1674421758554931207

[Frank Drackman]

Shocking? if you've been in a cave for the last 40 years i.e. get your news from National Pubic Radio, Communist News Network, any of the big 3 Marxist Stream Media Networks,
Pre med advisor at Auburn put it this way, a white student with the same MCAT score as a Afro-Amurican who gets free-ride offers to Morehouse, Meharry, Howard, Johns Hopkins, etc, gets letters from the admissions committee asking why he's wasting their time.
There's a reason Barry Hussein's Harvard grades are bigger state secrets than Senescent Joes Brain Scans (like Yogi Berra, "Senescent J's Brain Scans show nothing!"

Frank

[Ed Grinberg]

the Constitution is silent on this topic.

UNC is a public entity. I’m pretty sure the Constitution is not silent on the topic of governmental racial discrimination.

[Bored Lawyer]

Your comment highlights something else. What would be the point of admitting someone in the 4th Decile to Harvard? Does anyone think they could do the work? It sounds like virtue signaling at the expense of the very people that are supposed to be helped.

[ducksalad]

Not arguing for their admission process; however, it’s entirely possible the 4th decile applicants could “do the work”. A huge number of people apply and most of them are well above average academically. If you met those 4th decile applicants you'd find them intelligent and well-spoken.

And on the other side, it’s not like Harvard classes are orders-of-magnitude tougher than other universities. Compare some sample teaching materials from Harvard to a decent but second-tier state school, and you’ll see that what is covered is comparable. On top of that they invest huge amounts of money in academic pampering support services, and that all kinds of administrators are looking at the grade distributions and retention rates and communicating their “concerns” to the professors. And finally, the grade distributions are now so inflated that “not doing well” amounts to a few C’s here and there.

No, I think those 4th decile admissions probably mostly graduate.

[bernard11]

I agree.

An awful lot of those who don't get admitted can do the work.

[Sarcastr0]

The amount of racism Harvard and UNC were engaging in is staggering.

Disparate impact is great, when it's not about minorities.

[Life of Brian]

You only reach disparate impact for policies that are nondiscriminatory on their face, so of course that doesn't apply in a situation where they're unabashedly treating different races differently.

[Sarcastr0]

So you are insisting that all discrimination based on race is racism? That's pretty non-originalist of you!

[Life of Brian]

Since the comment you sagely weighed in on was not about "all discrimination based on race" but rather the specific, intentional, candid racial discrimination at issue by the universities in this case, I'll pass on the attempted distraction.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, so if I concede the point (and I do) that it's disparate treatment not just disparate impact, is it still defendable to assume it must be all racism?

[Life of Brian]

Hard to say until you tell me the working definition of "racism" you're using today. After decades of massaging its scope to cover nearly any perceived slight or negative outcome by a racial minority, it's interesting that you're suddenly finding the need to snug it up so that deliberate discrimination based on race might somehow not be racism.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes. No actual thesis for you! You're just defending SomeGuy 2's statement, not gonna adopt the actual words he uses.

Tiresome.

[Life of Brian]

As usual, no -- I was simply pointing out that your cutesy little barb was ill-informed since there's no opportunity for disparate impact at play here. You conceded that point, if you can remember two posts back.

You then tried to pivot to a different angle of attack on OP that had nothing to do with my original comment, and which by its very construct presumed an unconventional definition of "racism" -- one which you of course won't provide.

As you say, it's getting tiresome.

[Sarcastr0]

"The amount of racism Harvard and UNC were engaging in is staggering."

[Life of Brian]

Impressive cut and paste job! I'm sure you'll explain yourself if you're so inclined, but won't hold my breath.

[Bob from Ohio]

"when it’s not about minorities"

Its Asians who will benefit from the end of AA, not whites

The race card you play is pretty frayed from extreme overuse.

[Sarcastr0]

It's both.

There seems inconsistency in what counts as racism for some around ere. A race-based inconsistency.

[Frank Drackman]

I think I'm turning Japanese

[Nige]

After all, white people still have access to the best form of AA - legacy, donors and special recommendations. Not poor white people, obviously, but now anyone who benefits from the latter won't feel it's been devalued by black people getting a leg up.

[David Nieporent]

Disparate impact is great, when it’s not about minorities.

This isn't disparate impact. This is disparate treatment. (Also, this is about minorities.)

[Martinned]

People are generally assumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of their actions. So the distinction between treatment and impact isn't as important as you seem to think.

[David Nieporent]

It is legally.

[Sarcastr0]

Initial take from admissions person – they’re almost happy; this is not as bad as they thought it could be. They were worried the opinion would ban all tracking of race and ethnicity entirely.

The sociological impact studies in a few years will be interesting, but no one I'm in with is expecting a seismic impact. They're all lower key than I was. Though to be fair, they were tracking this case more closely than I was as well.

[Bob from Ohio]

Happy about being able to be racist!

Nice friend.

[Sarcastr0]

Not a friend, a coworker.

If you want to hate on anyone who supports affirmative action, that does seem like your performative asshole style.
I'm sure you find those who tar all those who don't like AA as racists to be exactly the sort of people you want to emulate.

[RSM]

Great op-ed by Stewart Baker: https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-bidens-laptop-and-how-to-make-intelligence-less-partisan-hatch-act-fddb57ba?st=69n8j1250jb3ib8&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[Martinned]

Yes, we definitely need advice from Stewart Baker about how to be less partisan.

[Darth Buckeye]

Baker makes an excellent suggestion. Martinned's argument is a classic example of the tu quoque fallacy.

[Darth Buckeye]

Nope. I am wrong. I should look up terms before I use them.

"Tu quoque is a type of ad hominem argument in which one discredits a position by asserting that the proponent has acted contradictory to their stated position. Despite its surprising effectiveness as a persuasion tool, it is classically considered a logical fallacy."

So I withdraw my comment.

[Martinned]

Isn't that more or less what I was doing?

[Frank Drackman]

From Kagrungy-Jackson Brown's Dissent

"Imagine two college applicants from North Carolina,
John and James. Both trace their family’s North Carolina
roots to the year of UNC’s founding in 1789. Both love their
State and want great things for its people. Both want to
honor their family’s legacy by attending the State’s flagship
educational institution. John, however, would be the seventh generation to graduate from UNC. He is White.
James would be the first; he is Black. Does the race of these
applicants properly play a role in UNC’s holistic meritsbased admissions process?"

Ummm, Duh......
NO, just like Marty King Jr said 60 years ago

"John and James"???? be easier to follow if it was "Chandler and Dexter"

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently PBJ doesn't think her appointment to the SC was based on race and nothing else.
Still waiting for an Asian SC Justice.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male,
conservative blog
has operated for

SEVEN (7)

days without using a vile racial slur and
has published vile racial slurs in at least

SEVENTEEN (17)

different contexts (that is 17 different discussions,
not 17 racial slurs — many of the relevant exchanges
featured multiple racial slurs) during 2023 (so far).

(This assessment does not address the number
of homophobic, antisemitic, misogynistic,
xenophobic, and Islamophobic slurs, and other
incessant expressions of bigotry, that constitute
a signature element of the Volokh Conspiracy.)

The Volokh Conspiracy: This everyday display
of habitual conservative bigotry is brought
to you, in large part, by the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies.

[Frank Drackman]

Looks like the "Betters" took it in the Shorts today "Reverend", I mean "Coach"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The bigots don't win in America. Not over time. The bigots sometimes win battles but eventually better Americans stomp the bigots into irrelevance and shape our national progress against the bigots' wishes. That has been the American way for centuries.

Our current batch of bigots seems nothing special. The tide of American progress will continue to press toward inclusiveness (against bigotry), reason (against superstition), science (against silly dogma), education (against ignorance), etc.

Conservatives hardest hit.

[Martinned]

This amused me, though in a wry way:

The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, condemned Sweden on Thursday over the burning of a Qur’an in Stockholm as tensions between the two countries grow. In order to join Nato, Sweden needs the backing of Turkey which has been blocking its bid.

“We will teach the arrogant western people that it is not freedom of expression to insult the sacred values of Muslims,” Erdoğan told party members on the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha.

Erdoğan said Turkey would show the strongest possible reaction to what he called the vile protest.

Swedish police had granted permission for the anti-Qur’an protest to take place. But police charged the man who carried out the burning with agitation against an ethnic or national group.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think anyone should be free to burn as many Qur'ans as they like, as long as they are their own property.

[Martinned]

Sorry, source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jun/29/russia-ukraine-war-live-ukraine-makes-advances-in-south-and-east-top-general-says-putin-greets-crowds-in-rare-walkabout

[ducksalad]

Rochelle Walensky (6/27/2023)

"I fear the despair from the pandemic is fading too quickly from our memories."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/opinion/rochelle-walensky-cdc-pandemic-despair.html

[The Turtle Dove]

Referring to an SG or AG (or their minions) as "General" is just plain odd. Longstanding social and diplomatic practice has been to address an AG as "Mr./Madam Attorney," which is also the usage in the UK system.

I mean, you wouldn't call a county sheriff "County."

(OED: earliest in sense ‘chief public prosecutor’, short for procureur general ; beginning of the 15th cent. denoting a high-ranking public officer in charge of finances and tax collection.)

Mr. D.

[Dan Schiavetta]

This was first done in the GW Bush administration during the "War on Terror", when Bush, Cheney and all those other "chicken hawks" liked to put on solider uniforms and look brave. For a time John Ashcroft was called "General" instead of "Attorney General".

[Mr. Bumble]

What uniforms? Flight jackets?

[The Turtle Dove]

Actually, it antedates that bit of the zeitgeist by a ways. I thought the same when listening to some tapes of Vietnam-era arguments, as there seemed to be a bit of an edge to it--might be interesting to track down when it first began.

Mr. D.

[Darth Buckeye]

If Trump goes to trial in the Espionage Act case or the matter under investigation in Georgia, it will just give Trump more media exposure and will fuel the argument that there are two levels of justice in the US. One way to cut that off would be for Biden to grant Trump pardons in these matters.

[OtisAH]

What would Turnip getting “more media exposure” look like to you?

While you’re working that out, keep working the problem because Biden will not be pardoning Big Baby.

[EscherEnigma]

Hrm...

Here's the thing. If Trump had left office mid January 2020 when he was about to be impeached (a second time), I could have seen a Biden pardon, similar to Nixon-Ford.

But this case? Doesn't stem from actoins in office, but actions after he left office. For Biden to pardon him now would be a huge blow to the DOJ. And it's not like it would appease Trump or Republicans any, they would just say it's Biden cutting his losses because he doens't think the DOJ can win the case! They would use it as more evidence that it was political.

Now, if Trump gets convicted? At that point I could see Biden commuting his sentence or pardoning him. But not before. Even if he has no intention of letting Trump spend one minute in a jail cell, he's going to let the court case play out, and let all of America hear the details of Trump's crimes.

[David Nieporent]

Also, if they hold an election in November 2024, and Trump loses, it will just allow Trump to claim that another election was stolen. So Biden should just force out Kamala Harris, appoint Trump as her replacement, and then resign!
​
​
By the way, the matter under investigation in Georgia is a state case, so like Alvin Bragg's prosecution of Trump, it cannot be ended with a Biden pardon.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump will get media exposure whatever no matter what happens. Let the case be adjudicated before any talk of clemency or pardons.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

To those who say the Volokh Conspiracy's collection of half-educated bigots and disaffected culture war casualties is a lost cause, an example indicates there may be hope for even the most racist, gay-bashing, immigrant-hating, misogynistic, Islamophobic, antisemitic, backwater Republican.

(Most are and always will be stains and drains on modern America, of course, but . . . there is a chance!)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So he repented and will be spared the wrath to come?

Also, I’m glad he also recovered from Islamophobia and misogyny and immigrant hating and antisemitism, too. The article doesn’t mention that, but I suppose it’s implied.

"Nash only responded to one comment he saw online: one that said he would have to show more work to win forgiveness. Nash agreed."

Oops.

[Frank Drackman]

""As the snow flies
On a cold and gray Chicago mornin'
A poor little baby child is born
In the ghetto
(In the ghetto)
And his mama cries
'Cause if there's one thing that she don't need
It is another hungry mouth to feed
In the ghetto
(In the ghetto)
People, don't you understand
The child needs a helping hand
Or he'll grow to be an angry young man some day
Take a look at you and me
Are we too blind to see?
Do we simply turn our heads
And look the other way???""

[Frank Drackman]

I've changed my mind on AA, if "The King" was for it, it's good enough for me.

Frank, "Thank you, Thank you very much"

[Anon]

It would be so helpful if the news media would say up front that news events are not obligated to make narrative sense.

[Michael P]

Apparently this guy has the right skin color to get away with lethal self-defense on a NYC subway: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/charges-dropped-jordan-williams-nyc-man-accused-fatal-subway-stabbing-rcna91780

[EscherEnigma]

Did he continue to stab the guy for several minutes after he stopped moving?

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're disgusting.

I'm not sure why you think his race was why the grand jury declined to indict him.

Can you spot the difference?

1. Ouedraogo punched Williams' girlfriend. He continued to threaten Williams and others.

2. Neely was shouting and begging for money. At least the info so far, he didn't commit violence against anyone.

Given maybe you're obtuse, a grand jury might see a difference between actual violence and thinking maybe a person acting erratically will be violent. And, whether that's the right line, it's certainly a logically valid one. And it doesn't involve the race of the alleged victim or alleged perpetrator in any way.

But Michael P immediately jumps to the race of the accused as the difference. Michael P, if you are trying to look like a racist, you've done a great job. I'd have thought you didn't embrace that label though. In which case, be better.

[Michael P]

No, you're disgusting. Neely was not just shouting randomly, as you imply. He was screaming threats and behaving menacingly. And Penny didn't just pull out a knife and stab somebody in retaliation.

Stop with the blatantly racist double standards.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Michael P, that wasn’t my description, it was that of the news report you cited.

But more to the point, it doesn’t matter what Neely was yelling. The difference remains that he committed no violence (as far as news reports so far) and Ourdraogo had committed violence.

One was a potential threat to become violent. One was violent.

Yet, you now are bizarrely accusing me of using a racial double standard. LOL. You’re a joke.

(I haven’t even said what I think should happen in either case. Mostly, because I only have limited information on both at this point and, unlike you, I don’t jump immediately to certainty based on the race of the individuals involved.)

(You’re implying there is more to the Williams/Ouedaogo story, but I only read the link you posted. It didn’t say anything about retaliation and, obviously, the grand jury who saw/heard facts you haven’t didn’t see it that way. If you want to stick by the retaliation angle, then state the facts that have convinced you that it was retaliation rather than self-defense. Otherwise, I call bullshit. Racist bullshit.)

[Michael P]

You didn’t link to a news report, but you’re still at fault for passing along a biased description.

Before he was acquitted, did you insist so much that Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been charged, or do you have another excuse ready at hand for your racism there?

The legal standard for deadly force is never your bullshit about who already committed a violent attack. You must suck as a lawyer.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"You didn’t link to a news report, but you’re still at fault for passing along a biased description."

Jeezus. You linked to the story. How dumb are you?

"Before he was acquitted, did you insist so much that Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been charged, or do you have another excuse ready at hand for your racism there?"

You know you're full of shit, so you're trying to start a new argument that you think you can win. You can't.

"The legal standard for deadly force is never your bullshit about who already committed a violent attack. You must suck as a lawyer."

It's harder to prevail on self-defense if you or someone close to you hasn't already been attacked. If there has already been the illegal use of force, the question is whether you used force you reasonably believed was necessary to defend yourself or others. If there hasn't already been illegal use of force, there is an additional question of whether you reasonably believed there was going to be an imminent illegal use of force. The distinction matters.

And, unsurprisingly, that's just one important way the Ouedraogo case differs from the Neely case. One way, among several, that don't involve race.

But keep trying to find new arguments to win. Because we both know you lost the initial point by indignantly proclaiming race must be the differentiating factor. Then doubling down for another loss by claiming I had a double standard even though you still don't know what I think about the potential guilt or innocence of either Williams or Penny.

But what we've learned about you, Michael P, is that you start dumb arguments that you are destined to lose. And then, rather than admit your initial foray was a bit rash, you just try to start new dumb arguments. Neither classy, nor smart.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And just to be clear, here’s the relevant quote from the news story you linked:

In the May 1 incident, Neely was alleged to have been shouting and begging for money when Penny pinned him to the floor of the moving subway car with the help of two other passengers and held him in a chokehold for more than three minutes. Neely lost consciousness during the incident and was pronounced dead at a hospital.

Got it “shouting and begging for money.”

Maybe go after me for not citing according to the AP style manual. Claim I plagiarized NBC News. Those are arguments you maybe can win. But how dumb do you feel claiming I passed along a biased description when I merely quoted the news story to which you linked, Michael P. You passed the description to me. If there’s fault, it’s yours. LOL.

You are a master of the self-own.

(You should focus less on trying to win arguments and more on trying to make sense.)

[Michael P]

So, long story short, yes -- you are blatantly racist and didn't have the honesty to admit that Kyle Rittenhouse was legally innocent. You're just super salty that I pointed out the racism inherent in the system.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Michael P, I don't know who you think you're kidding, but you don't know my opinion on any of the cases (Williams, Penny, Rittenhouse). Please identify the statement I made that is "blatantly racist."

But you make assumptions so that you can "win" and then, quite stupidly, call me racist.

You're clearly upset. But it stems directly from you jumping to race as the determinative factor in the different treatment of Penny/Williams, though there are obviously a number of other, more pertinent, differentiating factors that likely explain the grand jury's decision.

Michael P, you are a race huckster. You came in hot with a white grievance take on a single incident. You then began accusing the person who pointed out your stupid, illogically race-based stance a racist for no reason other than to deflect from your stupidity. You are what I am sure you pretend to hate: a race huckster.

No amount of made up accusations against me change that.

(And, for the record, I said at the time Rittenhouse was stupid, created a dangerous situation with the decision he made, but was legally innocent of murder given the first dead dude quite clearly came after him, and so Rittenhouse was rightfully acquitted. How many times can you be wrong in one thread? Are you trying to set a record?)

[David Nieporent]

He was screaming threats and behaving menacingly.

Are you sure about that? Here's what the far left wing NY Post says:

“He starts to make a speech,” freelance journalist Juan Alberto Vazquez said in Spanish during an interview Tuesday, referring to the disturbed man.

“He started screaming in an aggressive manner,” Vazquez told The Post. “He said he had no food, he had no drink, that he was tired and doesn’t care if he goes to jail. He started screaming all these things, took off his jacket, a black jacket that he had, and threw it on the ground.”

That’s when he said the straphanger came up behind Neely and took him to the ground in a chokehold — keeping him there for some 15 minutes, Vazquez said.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/02/shocking-video-shows-vagrant-being-choked-to-death-on-nyc-subway/

The video doesn't start until after the choking (at which point Neely wasn't yelling anything), and while people have described him yelling before that, I don't recall anybody except Perry seeming to have heard actual threats, as opposed to just yelling erratically.

[Michael P]

Yes, I'm sure: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/03/jordan-neely-death-new-york-city-subway

"According to police officials and video, Neely had been harassing passengers on the subway and making threats when he was placed in a minutes-long headlock by a 24-year-old former US marine."

"Juan Alberto Vazquez, the reporter who captured the incident, told the New York Post that Neely was screaming “in an aggressive manner” and complained of hunger and thirst but had not physically attacked anyone."

More specifics at https://nypost.com/2023/05/12/jordan-neely-chokehold-death-witness-praying-for-daniel-penny/

"He said, ‘I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet, I’ll go to jail’ because he would kill people on the train,” the woman said of Neely. “He said, ‘I would kill a motherf—er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.’"

[David Nieporent]

“According to police officials and video, Neely had been harassing passengers on the subway and making threats when he was placed in a minutes-long headlock by a 24-year-old former US marine.”

Well, police officials weren't there, so "according to police officials" is doing no work there. And the only video discussed in the article is the one I was referring to, which doesn't start until after the choking has begun, and therefore does not show anything at all about what the victim had been doing.

“Juan Alberto Vazquez, the reporter who captured the incident, told the New York Post that Neely was screaming “in an aggressive manner” and complained of hunger and thirst but had not physically attacked anyone.”

And this is consistent with the quote that I provided from this guy, also via the NYPost. It does not say he had threatened (let alone attacked) anyone. It says he was yelling aggressively.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Michael P, so at least you admit that he had not actually physically attacked anyone, unlike Ouedroago? He also didn’t, according to these reports, threaten any particular individual and had no weapon, making it less likely that he would actually carry out the very generalized aggressive statements he was making (which makes it less reasonable to believe anyone was in imminent danger). While you, or anyone else, may not find that determinative, it does make the case significantly different from the Williams case and a grand jury could have found there was probable cause to believe his self-defense defense was invalid while applying precisely the same standard to both cases.

Further, there is the question of whether the chokehold (not headlock) for at least three minutes, and maybe longer was reasonable, particularly after he had stopped moving.

So many differences, and yet race huckster Michael P came in certain and, despite these being pointed out, remains certain that Penny is going to trial because he is white and Williams was arrested but not indicted by the grand jury because he is Black.

Michael P is a race huckster with a specialty in white grievance.

Keep digging, Michael, so we all see and remember who you are.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Awkward: Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action With Affirmative Action Hire Sitting Right There

lol@babylonbee

[not guilty]

There are no less than three affirmative action hires sitting on the Supreme Court. Joe Biden said before being elected that he would nominate a black female, so that was at least baked into the electoral cake. George H. W. Bush needed a black toady to succeed Thurgood Marshall, so he nominated someone unfit to carry Marshall's briefcase, who never would have been considered if he had been white. Similarly, Donald Trump needed to nominate a female to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so he turned to Amy Coney Bear It, whose resume was remarkably thin.