Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

The Washington Post makes a fool out of themselves trying to make racial grievance story out of a white male country music artist doing a cover of a 35 year old rock hit:

“Although many are thrilled to see ‘Fast Car’ back in the spotlight and a new generation discovering Chapman’s work, it’s clouded by the fact that, as a Black queer woman, Chapman, 59, would have almost zero chance of that achievement herself in country music,”

Kind of ignores the fact that Chapman was very successful with that song when she put it out in 1988: “She was nominated for three Grammy Awards for the track, including Record of the Year and Song of the Year. And won Best Female Pop Vocal Performance and Best New Artist.”

And her album sold 13 million copies, probably mostly vinyl and cassette. Why not have someone put a cover out in out post-cd world.

Not too mention that Chapman herself is on the country charts as the #1 songwriter right now, and is getting an estimated 500k in royalties from the cover. Its no secret that songwriters love for other artists to cover their songs, there is real money in royalties when someone makes a hit out of one of their songs. Ask Dolly Parton how she felt when Whitney Houston made a mega hit out of ‘I will always have You’ or Dylan when Hendrix covered ‘All Along the Watchtower’.

But I predict next the WaPo is going to turn on Chapman herself for her lyrics suggesting that getting a job and working is the key to a better life, even if its just as a checkout girl at 1988 minimum wages.

I been working at the convenience store Managed to save just a little bit of money Won’t have to drive too far Just across the border and into the city You and I can both get jobs Finally see what it means to be living

You still ain’t got a job So I work in a market as a checkout girl I know things will get better You’ll find work and I’ll get promoted We’ll move out of the shelter Buy a bigger house, live in the suburbs

https://www.outkick.com/washington-post-mad-people-white-man-luke-combs-cover-black-queer-tracy-chapmans-fast-car/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The fascists are hard at work trying to destroy that Small Town song.

[SimonP]

You better go show your support for the singer by buying his album, then! This is totally not a manufactured grift to part stupid MAGA asshats from their money!

[Sarcastr0]

Seems a silly story from 7 days ago, yeah. The cover is being complimented all over the place otherwise.

Minor annoyance - No links to the actual story in your link - only to a FoxNews editorial that itself had no link. I had to Google to find the story quoted I’m both pieces.

[Krayt]

I recall some talking head trying to wedge a conflict between Sally Ride and a male astronomer back when she was going to be the first American woman in space. The astronomer had said orbit was going into Earth’s backyard.

The woman interviewer said to Ride, “I don’t know if you agree with that backyard description”, presumptively thinking he was sexistly lowballing the accomplishment, but, she replied, “Well, yes, I do…”

Because it was an old saw of astronautics and astronomy.

"You send me the pictures; I'll provide the war."

[Sarcastr0]

Clickbait has been a thing for centuries. The clickbait on clickbait may be new.

I try not to spend neurons on it. Don't always succeed.

[David Nieporent]

The cover is being complimented all over the place otherwise.

Meh. You're younger, so maybe you don't remember the original from when it was on the charts, but the cover is clearly inferior. It's not terrible, certainly, but I can't see a single thing to recommend it over the original; it doesn't add anything new or interesting.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It’s not terrible"

In fact it is, IMHO. Story about a young woman in love with an exciting man with a fast car who turns out to be a bum like her dad needs to be sung by a woman.

I turn the station immediately if it comes on.

[Nige]

Hahahaha

[Kazinski]

Yeah, the original is definitely better, but that's one of the best parts of a cover 35 years later, a new audience can rediscover the original.

Chapman might make more money from more airplay and purchases of the original than royalties on the cover.

[Sarcastr0]

the cover is clearly inferior

No contest, I agree. Just from the emotion in the voice along, Tracy Chapman wins walking away.

But I don't think that makes it an unworthy cover. Especially with the genre crossing.

My favorite Chapman is Remember the Tin Man.

[Kazinski]

WaPo is paywalled, so no link.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I didn't know it was sung by a Black lesbian -- and wouldn't have cared if I had. It was a haunting song about rural poverty.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why get upset about this? Why not wait for a drawling country bumpkin to write a song about the "good old days" of backwater justice, then film a music video at the site of a prominent lynching?

The Rolling Stones have demonstrated that it isn't the form of music that's the problem . . . it's the people who make and consume most country music.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

More of what country music could be in the right hands.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It apparently isn't that difficult to make a better class of country music.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How are the Stones not in the country music hall of fame?

[Frank Drackman]

Duhhhhhh......because they're not a country group.
I think you really may be Coach Jerry Sandusky

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Rolling Stones produced the best country album of our time . . . split across a dozen or so albums.

Don't miss "That's where you play, Doug," about three minutes in.

[not guilty]

Uh, no. The Stones are a great band, but the clip you link to is dreck. It takes more than a pedal steel, a Telecaster and a fiddle solo to qualify as great country music.

I'll take Junior Brown and "My Baby Don't Dance to Nothing but Ernest Tubb" any day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE3rhk2iSfU

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you don't like Dead Flowers, Far Away Eyes, Torn and Frayed, Wild Horses, Sweet Virginia, Country Honk, Through the Lonely Nights, Dear Doctor, We're Wasting Time, Do You Really Think I Care, or Spare Parts, you don't like country music.

[not guilty]

What have the Rolling Stones contributed to country music?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How long do you have?

Stack the drawling, twanging, backwater wannabes as high as you like, but the Stones win again.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There isn't a hillbilly or hayseed from Nashville to West Texas fit to string Mick Taylor's guitar or fetch Mick Jagger's microphone.

[Davedave]

It's pretty much a truism that there is no good country music from the country that claims to have invented it.

https://youtu.be/4O18xj2oViU

And one for the hypocritical bible thumpers round here...

https://youtu.be/rcWDZPxpZ-w

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That second link took me to a Chick-fil-A commercial . . . and the bigot Jesus chicken just seemed . . . right.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, that's my problem, I thought Ron Wood was better than anyone.
And yes I liked Van Halen better with Sammy Hagar than DLR. (well "Panama" was pretty good, as was The Cradle will Rock (Have you seen Junior's Grades???) but the Diamond Dave thing was unbearable.
And ABBA was better than either

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Like Jimmuh Cartuh? you stupid fuck?
Ooops sorry, not kind or gentle

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Tracy Chapman was a chick??

[Voize]

This does seem to be a case of a WaPo writer scrambling to create a topic where none exists, but ...

The author doesn't contend that Chapman couldn't succeed. She was (and is) very successful as a folk rock artist. The argument is that she couldn't have succeeded in country music.

It's true that k. d. lang's air time on country stations took a pretty big hit when she came out in the early 90s, but Chapman has always been much more private with her private life so I'm not convinced. But you know, writers have to eat too and they don't get paid if they don't publish something.

[AmosArch]

Hey, just a question. Not trying to be a dick or rock the boat here. I’m just genuinely curious.

Can I use the common abbreviation of ‘transgender’ that is mostly the same but ends with a ‘y’ that was common and not really all that offensive just a little while ago without being banned? Typing out the word ‘transgender’ all the time is annoying and sounds stupid and ‘trans’ sounds stupid as well and is imprecise because it can mean a ton of different things.

I’ll continue to refrain from it if it is indeed part of the rules since I want to be a good citizen here. But on a forum that is largely concerned with free speech do we really have to cater to the idiot social media zeitgeist that decrees random words forbidden and others mandatory?

[Kazinski]

I hope you aren't thinking of using 'tranwreck', its not even easier to type. Although I suppose it would be ok if you are quoting someone and wanted to be precise.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Does that "ends with a ‘y’"?

No.

[PeteRR]

T.R.A.

Trans rights activist(s). Sounds like trey.

[Commenter_XY]

AA...Is 'tranny' the word you had in mind (that shall not be spoken), much like Audrey Hale's manifesto?

Is crazy an acceptable alternative?

[AmosArch]

Yeah, I see a lot of other people here saying ruder things and not getting the axe. (not that they should if its just rude and not something truly disruptive like spam or threats) Just wanted to be sure.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Tranny" will get you put into Farcebook jail -- unless you just simply eliminate your account, which is what I did.

[John F. Carr]

Can you use it on Musk's Twitter? Does context matter? I remember a moderation team that decided to ban the identically spelled word for a car's transmission to keep the rules simple.

[Krayt]

It's perfectly fine when paying on OF. So I am told.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

AA…Is ‘tranny’ the word you had in mind (that shall not be spoken), much like Audrey Hale’s manifesto? Is crazy an acceptable alternative?

If crazy is an acceptable alternative in the transgender context, Commenter_XY, what is a good term for an ostensible adult who claims to believe (or, worse, actually believes) that silly childish fairy tales are true? Some of these credulous losers even claim they must be bigots because of what some imaginary man in the sky tells them. What should we use to describe those kooks?

Carry on, clingers. Better Americans will let you know just how far you are permitted to go, of course.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, they (transgendered, trannies, crazies, human beings...pick your label) need psychological help and support. I don't think that is a question at all.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do people who believe fairy tales are true need help? (Believers under 12, especially if afflicted by childhood indoctrination involving substandard parents, are exempt from this point. I am focusing on adult-onset superstition.)

[Life of Brian]

At the risk of feeding the troll, belief in things that can't be known for certain to be true is a fundamentally different ballgame than belief in things that can be known for certain not to be true.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which is which -- (1) the idea that someone's wiring might not match their apparent circumstance, or (2) the idea that there is an invisible man in the sky who wants people to refrain from eating cheeseburgers (or is it meat on Friday, or pork chops, or shrimp cocktail, or something else); who wants people to be bigoted toward gays; who wants his most devout followers to wear particular silly hats; who arranges for his special people to take vows of poverty and live in multi-million-dollar mansions; and who presides over the Catholic Church's depraved conduct, televangelists' depraved conduct, and faith healers' depraved conduct?

[Life of Brian]

Hopefully you finally got it out of your system with that stream of bilge -- probably not given past history, but hope springs eternal.

On the merits (cough), "apparent circumstance" is too cute by half -- that's of course the part that actually can be known but is being denied by the dysphoric. But I'll give you a polite golf clap for at least going down swinging.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Gay and transgender acceptance is increasing in America. Religion is sinking like a rock.

Clingers hardest hit . . . But who cares?

[Jerry B.]

I always thought that a tranny was the gearbox in a hot rod.

[Davedave]

Tranny is a longstanding term for trans_vestites_. It was widely used as a slur for so long that you - as in you personally, given that you're asking this question - shouldn't use it unless you intend to offend people. People using it for transgender people are almost all being deliberately offensive. It isn't quite n-bomb levels of likely-to-get-you-punched-in-the-face, but it's pretty close.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I prefer "sexually deviant and mentally ill."

What's next -- liposuction for anorexia?

[David Nieporent]

I prefer “sexually deviant and mentally ill.”

Someone who masturbates to the thought of mass murder probably shouldn't throw stones.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Then don't throw them...

[AmosArch]

So who makes these rules and why should we listen to them and not some other ‘authority’? Queer was originally used ‘pejoratively’ but its now celebrated and the other term isn’t. Why? Because some hivemind/influencers says so? If the hivemind said you should jump off a cliff would you?

[Sarcastr0]

Who makes the rules about how not to be a dick is a common question dicks ask.

[hoppy025]

You clearly think the leftist establishment should make those rules, and apply them inconsistently.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's common for actual dicks to think that other people are dicks for not doing as they're told without complaint.

[Sarcastr0]

Courtesy is not generally considered 'doing as you're told without complaint.'

This isn't a righteous battle. You just want to pick a fight.
I don't think anyone is going to fight you; they will just decide you're a dick and move on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And yet it is perfectly acceptable for young Black men to call each other "Nigger" as a sign of affection?

Bullshyte....

[Nige]

Hey, Trump supporters sometimes still call themselves 'deplorables' too! Shocking.

[Mr. Bumble]

You really are a stupid $!#%!

[Nige]

How deplorable of you.

[David Nieporent]

First, they don't use the hard 'r' version. Second, acceptable to whom, in what context?

[BadLib]

They certainly did when I was in college - as in "Who do you think I am, your nigger?" when one Black student in the dorm was complaining to another Black student about them leaving their unwashed dishes in the sink of the (minimal) communal "kitchen".

Has that changed?

[David Nieporent]

I do not think that anecdote as described falls under Dr. Ed's question about blacks calling each other the n-word "as a sign of affection."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am confident Prof. Volokh is grateful for these vile racial slurs.

This enables him to devote more time to scouring the internet for drag queen, lesbian, transgender, Muslim, white grievance, and gay content, without worrying so much about finding opportunities to publish vile racial slurs with plausible deniability

Carry on, clingers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, lefties have been declaring just giving up and doing what lefties tell you to do to be "common courtesy" for so long it's become something of a trope. "Don't you know only jerks say they see four fingers when somebody hides their thumb? Dick!"

[Sarcastr0]

Courtesy isn't a partisan thing, that's ridiculous.

Individuals of all strips have all sorts of things they want to be called and don't want to be called. That's just navigating interpersonal interaction and we do it every day.

If you find the hand of the left suddenly present in this, well we can add human interaction to: The schools, Hollywood, the media, sports, every US government agency, the GOP, big business, etc. etc. as another area you can't enjoy anymore because you discovered they're leftist plots.
Seems a real problem you have.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, courtesy isn't a partisan thing, but pretending that complying with partisan demands is courtesy? Yeah, that's a partisan thing.

[Sarcastr0]

They are personal requests first and foremost.

Your choice to contextualize them within national politics is your choice.

No, you don't need to abide by every personal request. But running them through a partisan filter seems a bad strategy.

[Nige]

You're the guys who decided to make bigotry your political cause.

[Nige]

Only righties demand that they be allowed to refer to people using slurs without people telling them they're referring to people using slurs.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy attracts an unusual concentration of roundly bigoted, antisocial, disaffected, grievance-consumed, downscale right-wing culture war casualties.

This puzzles some poorly educated conservatives and delights the others.

[Frank Drackman]

Says the Dick

[Davedave]

Does the 'how does language work?' question matter? I thought you were concerned about not being needlessly/deliberately offensive.

[AmosArch]

No I was asking whether I could use it and to a lesser degree why logically it should be perceived as offensive. I don’t really care about whether is perceived as ‘offensive’ by today’s standards since thats largely up to whatever side of the bed the Twitter mob gets up on. Although I’m not trying to be offensive.

[myself]

Terms become offensive when people use them in a derogatory manner to refer to members of a group.

That's how the n-word, and to a lesser extent the t-word being discussed here became derogatory.

That's also why members of the group themselves can start not only use the term, but may enjoy using it among themselves as a sort of defiance. It's a signal that you're explicitly a member of that group and you're not ashamed of it.

For comparison, in High School if one of the popular kids called you a nerd they probably meant to cause offense. But, if among your friends you called each other nerd you probably meant it to reassure each other that you were part of a group.

[Randal]

So who makes these rules...

Hm I thought this was obvious but y'all are dumdums, I keep forgetting.

Words become slurs when they're used that way. This very blog loves to badmouth "trannies." Eventually the word picks up a negative connotation. Just look how quickly you turned "woke" into an insult.

So the answer to you question is, the bigots decide.

Queer was originally used ‘pejoratively’ but its now celebrated and the other term isn’t. Why?

That's called "reclaiming" or "reappropriation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation

You can do it too! Just start referring to yourselves and each other as "movement morons," and eventually people won't be able to slur you as moronic anymore.

[Krayt]

Who makes the rules now? Tracking down those who heave things down into the various echo chambers, and their real motivations, is a fascinating area of ongoing research. As it has been for centuries under different names.

Who's not in charge? The whining bitches who feel put upon, who just two decades ago, lamented they could no longer throw gay people into jail.

The larger trends are encouraging.

[AmosArch]

Can you provide a link to a mainstream strand of the US conservative movement who had as part of their established platform that gay people should be put in jail in 2000?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Most conservative bigots were smart enough to recognize that by 2000 they had lost that battle, so they had stopped taking that position in public.

That should not be a point of pride for Republicans.

[AmosArch]

So if words become slurs because their used primarily pejoratively. And slurs are unacceptable. Can we cancel people who use such pejorative terms for rightwing/conservative groups or does it just work one way?

[Randal]

You can cancel whoever you want.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Can we cancel people who use such pejorative terms for rightwing/conservative groups

Ask Eugene Volokh. Place "Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland" in the subject line of your message to Prof. Volokh.

Carry on, clingers.

[David Nieporent]

So who makes these rules and why should we listen to them and not some other ‘authority’? Queer was originally used ‘pejoratively’ but its now celebrated and the other term isn’t. Why? Because some hivemind/influencers says so? If the hivemind said you should jump off a cliff would you?

Are you unfamiliar with how language works?

[Frank Drackman]

I remember when somebody talked about a “Tranny” it was a Borg-Warner, Muncie, or Ford Top Loader, the device that converts torque from the crankshaft into turning the wheels. Now it’s some fruitcake Nuke-ular “Expert” who steals woman’s luggage.

Frank “Just blew my Tranny!”

[DonP]

And a term used even longer by "Gear heads" as an abbreviation for Transmission. Not that in context anyone would be confused when I described my project last month of; "Changing my stock Tranny out for a rebuilt 4-speed with a Laycock de Normanville overdrive on the top 3 gears".

[SimonP]

No word will get you banned from VC.

The problem with using the word “tranny” to refer to transgendered people isn’t that it’s “offensive,” but that it’s just semantically wrong. That’s not what the word means. “Trannies” are transvestites, who are typically cisgender men who get off on dressing as women.

Now – I realize that anti-trans people are fond of insisting that trans women are just men in dresses, and so shape their language accordingly. But even allowing for this, “tranny” is inapplicable, because trannies generally don’t believe themselves to be the gender they dress as, and derive sexual stimulation from the act of dressing in this transgressive manner (which transgendered folks generally do not).

Use the word, for all I care. It’s just the wrong word to use for transgendered people, whatever you might personally believe about the legitimacy of their status.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Now – I realize that anti-trans people are fond of insisting that trans women are just men in dresses, and so shape their language accordingly."

Technically they're just men in dresses who surgically mutilate themselves, but, yeah.

You'd prefer "transies"? That's your complaint, the lack of an "s"?

[SimonP]

"Transies" isn't a word.

I do not, personally, obsess over other people the way you and so many conservatives do, over trans people. It's so bizarre. I could insert into every discussion about religious freedom that we're talking about fairy tales believed by adult children, but I don't. I could harp on the bizarrely high proportion of retirement-aged white men who seem to populate these comment threads, as a bunch of sociopaths that the rest of us are just waiting to die off or diminish into irrelevance with their apparently creeping dementia, but I don't. I could point out that your obsession with transgendered women is corrupting your relationship with your son, but I don't.

There are things that you can believe, and just not need to make every discussion about it. What is so wrong with your manhood, that you feel the need to obsess over transwomen's dicks?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Transy" isn't a word in exactly the same way "tranny" isn't a word, both are abbreviations of words.

Since "tranny" refers to the 'trans" in "transvestite", but there's also a "trans" in "transsexual", I really don't see any basis for your complaint. It's not even successfully pendantic!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I suggest that Mr. Bellmore direct his antisocial, doomed, autistic, bigoted talents toward resuming the search for Barack Obama's Kenyan socialist Muslim communist birth certificate. That's about the only use modern American has for guys like Mr. Bellmore.

[SimonP]

No, "tranny" is a word, because people know what it means and have been using it for decades. It is sufficiently a word that people can disagree over its use and offensiveness.

"Transy" is not a word any person would recognize. That's just a word you've made up to refer to the transgendered community without using a label they would deem inoffensive.

Do you understand what that is? It's called "virtue signaling" (or "vice signaling," perhaps, in your case). It's exactly the same kind of nonsense we're engaging in when people expect us to use neo-pronouns.

[Reallynotbob]

When you say "mutilate" I assume you mean bottom surgery.

Many transexual women do not have bottom surgery.

Do you include top surgery in "mutilate"? If so, do genetic female who insert synthetic bags of goo into their chests also "mutilate" themselves? Asking for those interested in consistency.

[Frank Drackman]

So many transexual women (i.e. "Men") have Dicks??
thanks for clearing that up.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, they just refer to them as oversized clitorises.

[Reallynotbob]

Avoiding the question, I see.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Technically they’re just men in dresses who surgically mutilate themselves, but, yeah.

Unless you are ready to prohibit circumcision (whether motivated by childish superstition or another dumb idea), that argument doesn't accomplish much for clingers.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ Unless you are ready to prohibit circumcision (whether motivated by childish superstition or another dumb idea), that argument doesn’t accomplish much for clingers.”

This is akin to arguing that people who support abortion rights have no business objecting to exterminating the Jews.

[jb]

In my experience, almost everyone that leads off by saying "not trying to be a dick" is, in fact, trying to be a dick. This exchange certainly supports the proposition.

[Longtobefree]

Like "with all due respect"?

(The amount due approaches zero)

[santamonica811]

[fair point]

[David Nieporent]

Can I use the common abbreviation of ‘transgender’ that is mostly the same but ends with a ‘y’ that was common and not really all that offensive just a little while ago without being banned? Typing out the word ‘transgender’ all the time is annoying and sounds stupid and ‘trans’ sounds stupid as well and is imprecise because it can mean a ton of different things.

I can't imagine it would get you the axe here, but it's clearly a slur. The only people who consciously use it are the same people who use the f-word for gay people. I am not overly sympathetic to the trans agenda or ideology, but I have even less sympathy for people who gratuitously use slurs. (I'm no SJW, obviously; I can cut older people used to saying the word in a different era some slack. But if one is aware enough to ask — as you clearly are — then one is aware enough to know one shouldn't do it.)

(In My Cousin Vinny, Marisa Tomei testifies as to her automotive expertise by describing her work history, including "rebuilding trannies." She was talking about something very different.)

[Ridgeway]

I'd argue that "tranny" was not more of a slur than the underlying word, "transvestite," it just has fewer syllables, and was thus easier to say. cf Freaky Deaky, which has more syllables but split into two rhyming words.

When one commented on the local bible-thumper being caught with a tranny hooker, it would not have been viewed as more polite (to the thumper or the hooker) to refer to his getting caught with a transvestite or transsexual hooker.

[Randal]

You probably don't even understand how misogynistic this is.

[David Nieporent]

I’d argue that “tranny” was not more of a slur than the underlying word,

I'm not sure that's true, but the key word in what you wrote is "was." That's why I said that I cut older people some slack. It is a slur now.

[OtisAH]

David, transgenders are not an ideology. They just exist same as they always have. And their only “agenda” is to be able to live life in peace without being assaulted and discriminated against. So maybe a little sympathy is warranted if for no other reason than there are so many people who wish to deny them their “agenda.”

[Estragon]

Sixteen people charged in Michigan fake electors scheme. Most counts relate to forgery. Here is the affidavit in support:

https://www.michigan.gov/ag/-/media/Project/Websites/AG/releases/2023/July/Final-Affidavit-July-18-2023.pdf?rev=5e42061bf6604628a1b214bee1777755&hash=DAC4826FBD6FE538FF5AB7F64491A97B

[Brett Bellmore]

I noticed, looking into it, that they all actually were elector candidates, which makes the situation VERY similar to the 1960 case. That helps them, anyway.

[Estragon]

They signed certificates stating they were “duly elected and qualified electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America for the State of Michigan.” That was false.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, but it isn't any more false than what the electors did in 1960, is the thing.

[Sarcastr0]

How does that help anyone?

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember the long jail terms the 1960 electors got? No, neither do I.

[Sarcastr0]

Whatever this 1960 deep cut you're just now bringing up, it’s not going to have much to say about a state-level case over 60 years later.

Unless you’re looking for an excuse.

This was an attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Don’t defend it.

[hoppy025]

Given that the 2020 election results were procured with fraud and self-dealing, it seems reasonable to try to overturn them.

[Krychek_2]

The fact that stupid and gullible people have been convinced that the election results were procured by fraud does not make it so.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Remember that the Volokh Conspiracy -- like John Eastman. or Regent, Liberty, Ave Maria, and ASSLaw -- is the best America's conservative legal academia can produce, and enjoy the predictable trajectory of the culture war in an America improving against the wishes and efforts of Republicans, right-wingers, Federalist Society members, and our vestigial bigots.

[Krychek_2]

Poor Brett. Since the conduct of the phony Michigan electors is completely indefensible, he’s reduced trying to change the subject to what abouting. And what abouting is the first sign that one has a bad case.

Here’s a suggestion: Why not simply recognize that Trump is a grifter who managed to hit the big time by getting himself elected president, and who simply continued his grifting once in office? With election to the presidency comes added scrutiny, but that added scrutiny doesn’t change the fact that he really was grifting, and in this case enlisted the help of others, who are now being prosecuted. And if he hadn’t actually be grifting, none of his troubles would have happened.

Oh, and even without being familiar with the 1960 case, I would bet a week's pay that the two situations are completely different. Brett typically can't even find on-point stuff to what about.

[hoppy025]

It's completely indefensible to have a system where a pig like Stacy Abrams can go door to door to black neighborhoods and say "Need a new sail phone? Then vote for Biden!"

[Krychek_2]

Do you have any evidence that she actually did that?

[hoppy025]

That's exactly what she did.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators.

And the reason your employers -- the legitimate ones, at least -- regret hiring you and wish you would depart.

[Nelson]

"Yeah, but it isn’t any more false than what the electors did in 1960, is the thing."

Yes, it is. The race was never called for Trump and multiple recounts and audits confirmed Biden won. There was never any question that Trump lost.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It isn't false if they genuinely thought that they had been duly elected, i.e. that Trump had won.

[Estragon]

“Remember, Jerry: it’s not a lie if you really believe it.”

-George Costanza

Dr. Ed you’ve cracked the case! Without even reading the affidavit! I can’t believe the Michigan AG didn’t bother to include any evidence that these people knew the certifications were false. What an oversight! You should contact counsel for these individuals ASAP

[SimonP]

The votes were counted, the results announced and certified. On what basis could any false elector say, "I genuinely believe that I've been duly elected?" based on those facts? If they were to say that, why should we believe they're being truthful about their beliefs?

[Brett Bellmore]

The votes were counted, the results were announced and certified, in Hawaii in 1960, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Michigan in 2023 is not Hawaiis in 1960. not guilty points out how the facts are different. But even if they were not, one does not bind the other in any way shape or form. This is pathetic.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, yeah, "That we got away with it doesn't imply that YOU should, you idiot!" is so persuasive.

I'm not saying they've got a winning argument, I kind of doubt it. I'm saying they've GOT an argument, whereas if they'd just been some randos who hadn't been elector candidates they wouldn't have any argument.

[Sarcastr0]

A difference in charging choice 60 years in a different state is not 'we are getting away with it'. Your persecution complex is making for some pretty bad arguments.

[SimonP]

I'm sure there were some Black lynchings that happened in 1960, too, that were never properly punished. What is your point?

[nonluddite]

Interestingly, according to law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html , there were no lynchings in 1960. And only 5 since.

[SimonP]

Thanks. It did occur to me that there might not have been any recorded lynchings in 1960, and I poked around noncommittally to confirm, but an offhand pseudonymous comment on the VC did not seem to me to merit a full scrub.

I hope you didn't waste too much time correcting a factual assertion not actually central to the point I was making.

[Nelson]

"The votes were counted, the results were announced and certified"

No, in 1960 the votes were counted and a result was announced. It was not certified.

A recount (and, I believe, a second recount) showed that Kennedy, not Nixon, had won. That was the result that was certified.

It is completely different than 1960, since Trump was never even considered the possible winner, let alone announced as the winner.

[Krayt]

In which case there are still the ringleaders to go after.

[Commenter_XY]

Was that by design, Brett? Meaning, when they (the alternate electors) agreed to become 'electors', did their legal representation who advised them have that 1960 case in mind. The circumstances are similar, yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think probably they did have it in mind, yes.

[Sarcastr0]

I think probably they did have it in mind, yes.

Don’t make shit up.

It speaks quite badly of you that you are compelled to defend this behavior. You don't seem very into our democracy when your side loses.

[Davedave]

He isn't 'into democracy'. He's a fascist traitor.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who's making shit up? I'm quite confident that I think they probably did have it in mind, I'm aware of my own thoughts. 😉

Seriously, this was a sufficiently high level plan that OF COURSE it got ran past legal counsel.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, look, they actually got legal counsel on the topic before doing it.

Here Is Why Trump's 'Contingent' Electors Say They Did Nothing Illegal

"Republicans who participated in the scheme say they relied on legal advice grounded in historical precedent."

You were saying about "making shit up"?

[David Nieporent]

That they conspired with the Trump campaign is part of the reason Trump's going to be prosecuted for this, not a defense!

[not guilty]

Brett, the article you link refers to advice purportedly given to Georgia’s bogus electors, not to Michigan’s. Did you think no one would click on the link?

If any of the Michigan defendants in fact relied upon advice of counsel, that would be admissible at trial as relevant to whether that defendant had intent to defraud. As with all other elements of the charged offenses, it would be for a jury to determine whether the prosecution offered proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It will be exceedingly difficult for the defendants to credibly argue the absence of culpable intent in the face of demonstrably false certifications, inter alia, that they “convened and organized in the State Capitol, in the City of Lansing, Michigan, and at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the 14th day of December, 2020, performed the duties enjoined upon us”. https://www.michigan.gov/ag/-/media/Project/Websites/AG/releases/2023/July/Final-Affidavit-July-18-2023.pdf?rev=5e42061bf6604628a1b214bee1777755&hash=DAC4826FBD6FE538FF5AB7F64491A97B ¶22. Simply put, each defendant has manifested his/her willingness to lie when it serves a purpose. Why should the jurors believe their self-serving testimony?

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, why is that the case? = If any of the Michigan defendants in fact relied upon advice of counsel, that would be admissible at trial as relevant to whether that defendant had intent to defraud. Is that mitigating in some manner, if they relied on legal representation? Hypothetically speaking.

You know at some point, I will ask you: How do you get them off, if you were their defense attorney? 🙂

[David Nieporent]

I believe that service is more appropriately found on Tinder than at a lawyer's office.

[Commenter_XY]

Now, now David. You have a one track mind! 🙂

[not guilty]

The state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the charged offenses. Each of the statutes charged in the Michigan case includes that the accused acted with intent to defraud.

Under Mich.R.Evid. 402, all relevant evidence is generally admissible, while evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. “Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Mich.R.Evid. 401.

If a putative elector, at the time of making or publishing the document at issue, relied on advice of counsel that his/her conduct was lawful, it is less probable that the accused intended to defraud anyone. Whether that advice was in fact given, and whether the accused in fact relied upon it, are matters for a properly instructed jury to consider.

I would think that, in order to satisfy personal knowledge foundational requirements, that would require testimony from the accused and/or the lawyer(s) who gave the advice prior to the certification being executed. The cross-examination there would not be pretty.

[Nelson]

Does it have to be their lawyer? Or can it be any lawyer? And does the lawyer who gives the advice have to be licensed to practice in Michigan?

So, for example, if one (or all) of the electors was being advised as a client by a Michigan-licensed lawyer, that seems pretty clear.

But what if he/she/they were being advised by a third party's lawyer who was not a member of the Michigan bar? Would that make a difference?

[not guilty]

I said the lawyer who gave the advice, whether such lawyer did or did not represent the accused. Mich.R.Evid. 602 provides that a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. This would seem to limit testimony about what legal advice was communicated to the accused to the giver and the recipient of the advice.

Whether the adviser was or was not licensed in Michigan would likely go to the weight, rather than the admissibility, of the testimony.

[Commenter_XY]

I get it, not guilty. Thanks for the complete response. It really comes down to the state proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't it? I equally sure you could get them off.

[not guilty]

No, Brett, the situation in Hawaii in 1960 is not analogous. The results in Hawaii were genuinely in dispute, with a recount underway. The governor certified a slate of Republican electors. Senator Kennedy prevailed in the recount, and the new governor of Hawaii certified a freshly drafted slate of his electors. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/us/politics/fake-electors-explained-trump-jan-6.html

In Michigan there was no dispute as to which candidate won. The affidavit in support of complaint here recites at paragraph 19:

Notwithstanding the fact that the Democratic Party nominees had been certified by the Michigan Board of State Canvassers as having received the greatest number of votes for President and Vice-President, the 16 persons who signed the "Certificate of The Votes of the 2020 Electors from Michigan" falsely asserted that they were the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice-President from the State of Michigan. They falsely asserted that they met in the State Capital on December 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. . . .

George Washington could not tell a lie.
Donald Trump cannot tell the truth.
Brett Bellmore cannot tell the difference.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course the situation is analogous. In Hawaii the Republican electors were certified, but the Democratic electors filed the paperwork just as though they had been elected instead. At a time when they clearly weren't. Here, the reverse.

The offense in question isn't contingent on later events, the fraud took place at the time the paperwork was filed.

[not guilty]

How, pray tell, does that bear on the truth or falsity of what the Michigan bogus electors claimed? Cavilling "Somebody did something sixty years earlier in another state thousands of miles away" affords no defense.

[Brett Bellmore]

It doesn't. All I'm saying is that, at the moment they filed those papers, the 1960 Hawaii Democratic electors were situated the same as the 2020 Michigan Republican electors. Subsequent events changed their status, but the declaration was just as fraudulent both times at the time it was made.

So the fact that the 1960 electors got away with it, were treated as having done something legal, is quite relevant as a defense.

What should happen to 2020’s renegade presidential electors?

Note that this guy is a liberal Democrat who hates Trump's guts. But he tries not to let that overcome his legal reasoning. He thinks it's complicated, not open and shut.

And that's all I'm saying: The fact that they actually were elector candidates makes it far from open and shut.

[Nige]

Constantly looking for ways to help Trump and his enablers and co-conspirators to evade consequences for their actions.

[not guilty]

As Governor Al Smith observed, no matter how thin you slice it, it’s still baloney.

There was a genuine dispute, which was in the process of being resolved, as to which candidate received more votes in Hawaii in 1960. There was no such dispute in Michigan in 2020.

I don’t know what Hawaii’s statutes provided in 1960, but Michigan Penal Code 750.248(1) states:

A person who falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits a public record, or a certificate, return, or attestation of a clerk of a court, register of deeds, notary public, township clerk, or any other public officer, in relation to a matter in which the certificate, return, or attestation may be received as legal proof, or a charter, will, testament, bond, writing obligatory, letter of attorney, policy of insurance, bill of lading, bill of exchange, promissory note, or an order, acquittance of discharge for money or other property, or a waiver, release, claim or demand, or an acceptance of a bill of exchange, or indorsement, or assignment of a bill of exchange or promissory note for the payment of money, or an accountable receipt for money, goods, or other property with intent to injure or defraud another person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 14 years.

MCL 750.249(1) states:

A person who utters and publishes as true a false, forged, altered, or counterfeit record, instrument, or other writing listed in section 248 knowing it to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeit with intent to injure or defraud is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 14 years.

MCL 168.933 states:

Except as otherwise provided in this act, a person who does either of the following for any purpose under this act is guilty of forgery:

(a) Knowingly makes, files, or otherwise publishes a false document with the intent to defraud.
(b) Knowingly makes, files, or otherwise publishes a document that contains false signatures with the intent to defraud.

Each of the statutes at issue in the Michigan prosecution requires intent to defraud as an essential element. Neither the Democratic electors nor the Republican electors in Hawaii intended to defraud anyone.

[John F. Carr]

As a moral defense, it's worth whatever you want it to be worth.

As a legal defense, you would need to show an established custom of ignoring such crimes and then maybe you would have a starting point.

There is a way to anticipate a change in election results without lying. Two groups of fake electors cast votes that were explicitly contingent on a successful challenge to the state election. Five groups falsely claimed they had already been declared winners.

[bernard11]

As a moral defense it's worthless, B.L.

"Somebody did something similar sixty years ago and wasn't prosecuted, so it's OK for these people in Michigan to do it today."

That's ridiculous. Do you want to apply that standard broadly? Of course not.

This is just Brett blowing desperate smoke.

[VinniUSMC]

Leave it to bernard to paraphrase in the most obviously biased way possible.

How about "Somebody did something similar sixty years ago and wasn’t prosecuted, so these people in Michigan probably also shouldn't be prosecuted today."

Not partisan enough for you?

[Sarcastr0]

Haha did you read your rephrased argument?

“Somebody did something similar sixty years ago and wasn’t prosecuted, so these people in Michigan probably also shouldn’t be prosecuted today.”

LOL.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Does whatever happened in 1960 in another state make the Michigan people any more or less guilty? No?

They tried to fuck with an election. They deliberately committed a criminal act. They could have avoided exposure to an “unfair” punishment by behaving honorably, but they actively chose not to.

[VinniUSMC]

Does whatever happened in 1960 in another state make the Michigan people any more or less guilty? No?

No. Which is why your nakedly partisan political prosecutions are so obvious.

[Voize]

the fraud took place at the time the paperwork was filed

Maybe you mean at the time it was signed? By the time it was filed on Jan. 6 by the archivist the Governor of Hawaii had already certified that the Democrat electors were in fact duly elected, overriding the certification the acting governor had made more than a month before.

[jb]

Even if it's true that at the time they signed the declaration the statement was incorrect, it turns out that in the fullness of time they were the proper electors. So it makes it much less likely that a prosecutor to actually think the supposed crime was worth prosecuting.

I suspect if somewhere prior to Jan. 6th the fake Michigan electors had said "oh actually, we thought there might be some dispute that got resolved in our favor since there were a bunch of lawsuits, but since they didn't, we were wrong and withdraw our claims" they wouldn't have been indicted either.

[John F. Carr]

The real crime is not writing on a piece of paper but publishing that paper, and more specifically intending that the paper be counted in Washington. It is possible that some of the fake electors were misled. They thought they were signing a document that would be kept secret until it could legally be submitted. I see support for this in the offers of immunity to some but not all fake electors in Georgia.

[not guilty]

"The real crime is not writing on a piece of paper but publishing that paper, and more specifically intending that the paper be counted in Washington."

Uh, no. The Michigan defendants are charged with forgery (making, altering, forging or counterfeiting a public record) and are also charged with uttering and publishing the forged documents. These are separate and distinct offenses, prohibited by different statutes. https://www.michigan.gov/ag/-/media/Project/Websites/AG/releases/2023/July/Felony-Complaints-Redacted-combined.pdf Each requires intent to defraud.

[David Nieporent]

I suspect if somewhere prior to Jan. 6th the fake Michigan electors had said “oh actually, we thought there might be some dispute that got resolved in our favor since there were a bunch of lawsuits, but since they didn’t, we were wrong and withdraw our claims” they wouldn’t have been indicted either.

There were seven states with the fake elector scheme being orchestrated by the Trump campaign. In two of those states — PA and NM — someone had the common sense to realize the legal jeopardy the scheme posed for them, and had the electors sign a conditional certification, saying (paraphrased), "We're signing this just in case the election results are reversed." In the other five — MI, WI, AZ, NV, and GA — they just perjured themselves by claiming to be the real electors.

From what I read yesterday, the head of the MI GOP tried to tell the MI non-electors that they should also do the conditional thing in order to protect themselves legally, but the non-electors refused, probably because doing so would have required them to admit that Trump actually lost the state.

[Nelson]

"At a time when they clearly weren’t."

The original count showed Nixon winning. The recount began. The Republican electors were certified by the governor. The recount showed Kennedy won. The new governor took office. The new governor certified a new slate of electors for Kennedy, since the recount showed that the first slate was for the wrong candidate. Both slates had been certified by the sitting governor at the time that the result was announced. The argument could be made that they were both legitimate.

Trump was never the winner. Not in the original count, and not in any recount. The Trump "electors" were never eetufied. There was never any reason to certify them.

[Nelson]

"which makes the situation VERY similar to the 1960 case"

Not really. As I understand it, the 1960 race was first called for Nixon, then a recount changed that to Kennedy.

With Trump, the race in all those states was called for Biden. Then a recount went to Biden. As did the other re-re-re-re-(continue ad nauseum)-counts. There was never any result that said Trump won any of those states. In fact, every re-examination went for Biden.

It is nothing like the 1960 case. "It was originally called for me" is a somewhat reasonable argument to do a "just in case" slate if electors. "I don't believe it" isn't.

[hobie]

I think it all depends on whether signing false documents, placing the state's seal on them and sending them to Congress is deeply rooted in tradition and history. If not, then the seditionists are shit out of luck. Thomas will give them an out, though, based upon his interpretation of the Boston Tea Party, or of Tutankhamun's memoir.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've been reading Balkinization for a very long time now, used to comment there until Balkin got tired of being contradicted in the comments, and closed them down to all but blog members. (Who don't use them!)

Since 2016 they've been going off the rails, some of them. Here's a good example:

An Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular Constitutionalism

"We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most fundamental commitments, the Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations."

He justifies it in large part on the assumption that it's what Republicans would do anyway: "Notably, though, Republican presidents might well ignore federal courts regardless of what President Biden does. The GOP’s failure to hold President Trump accountable for inciting a violent coup is perhaps the clearest of many indications that party leaders and followers are no longer committed to democracy or the rule of law."

So, Republicans didn't join in Democrats' attempts to impeach Trump, so it's perfectly reasonable for Democrats to ignore court rulings.

[hoppy025]

The left is pushing as hard as they can, and then they're going to be, shocked, just SHOCKED, when they push conservatives too far and spark a war.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And it will be the Democrats who are the Confederates, again.

I fear for the future of the republic.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I don't. These people are evil demons and need some justice served to them.

[not guilty]

"And it will be the Democrats who are the Confederates, again."

Uh, the Confederates were the rebellious force in 1861-65. How on earth does that correspond to today’s Democrats?

[Armchair Lawyer]

The election of 1860 was between the Republicans and Democrats*

When the Democrats lost, a large chunk of them decided to leave the union and become Confederates instead.

[Sarcastr0]

The national divorce chuckleheads are on the right. So are those contemplating political violence if they lose the next election. So are those who love the Confederacy.

There will be no civil war 2 for plenty of structural reasons. Anyone talking about such things is just showing how out of it they are.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I believe the original post was about a number of legal scholars demanding if the SCOTUS issued a ruling the President didn't like, then the (Democratic) President should just ignore it and do what he thought was right.

“We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most fundamental commitments, the Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations.”

[Sarcastr0]

This thread wasn't about that. I note your backpedaling from defending the 'Dems will be the new Confederates in CW2' thesis.

For all your many faults, you haven't been into political violence. Good on ya.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That is my thesis, and it is based on the fact that it is the Dems who are rebelling, they are the ones engaged in the extra legal stuff.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is rebelling.
Closest in the past 150 years was Jan 06, but that was more badly attempted coup than rebellion.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslight0, you identify all of your Federal colleagues present on January 6th, and then all of their paid informants -- and if there is anyone left, then I might consider your claims.

What happened on Jan 6th was a Fed Fuckup -- they didn't realize that tossing lit matches into the dry underbrush can not only cause a fire but sometimes one big enough to be difficult to extinguish.

Explain just one other thing -- were were all the cops that day?

There usually are cops *everywhere* down there -- so many that they are bored enough to give this lost tourist directions to where I am trying to go. But none on that day -- when they had reason to suspect trouble?!? When they noticed the stuff that had happened the night before, and all the out-of-state plates on the Beltway as *they* drove to work?!?

Look at what we already know about the plot to kidnap the Michigan Governor -- they found a bunch of gullible losers and essentially held their hands. Where I would have told them to go bleep themselves (and reported them to the local police), these folk went along. It still was an FBI plot....

And I am convinced that -- circa 2120, we will know that this was a Fed Clusterfuck gone really bad. Coup my a**.

Now if they had planted explosives in the Capitol, as some leftist radicals did, or go up into the gallery and send live rounds down into the assembled Congress below, as some Puerto Rican Nationalists did, then I could *maybe* believe your pablum about an attempted coup. Maybe...

But this was a rowdy frat party conducted by middle-aged losers.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is rebelling.

Your fan fiction about J6 doesn't change that.

Yes, the right is filled with gullible losers down for some political violence. But the ones winding them up are not the feds.

[Commenter_XY]

That part - oh, just ignore the ruling you don't like and do what you want instead - sort of historically rhymes with, 'John Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it'. It has to be an irony of our history.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah I’m not for nullification. Seems a bad plan.

But this thread is all in reply to Ed. And Ed is talking about violence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ed is saying violence is going to happen, he is NOT advocating it.

Now as to impeaching Biden....

[Sarcastr0]

Ed, you may not realize what your seeing inevitable political violence
as a result of every little story around here means about what you want, but everyone else here can.

[Commenter_XY]

It is a bad plan = nullification

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslight0 -- if Ed wanted to see violence, Ed would be explicitly saying so.

Have you ever known me to be subtle?

I also have been known to say that New England is historically overdue for a destructive hurricane (last one was the Carol/Edna combination in the 1950s) and/or Winter Nor'Easter (last two were in 1978). I've been known to take a postcard of Rockport (MA) harbor and point out that the Motif #1 washed away in 1978 (it's been replaced) and hence all the newly-built, uber-expensive homes at the same level will wash away as well the next time.

Doesn't mean I want it to happen, merely that I am saying it will.

And how about CalTrans and all the other folk in California who are working on surviving a major earthquake? Do you think they *want* an earthquake? Or that they are rational enough to know that there eventually will be one?

Or would an earthquake never happen if they stopped talking about it?

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : “Doesn’t mean I want it to happen, merely that I am saying it will”

Let me help with the distinction, Ed :

1. You’ve predicted politician violence several dozens times
2. Every prediction is completely batshit crazy
3. This suggests an underlying personal motivation behind this obsessive tic.

See?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This goober isn't the only chucklehead around here who talks about violence aimed at better Americans. Not nearly.

[Davedave]

There has already been a civil war. It lasted about three hours, and now the perps (though not the leaders) are in jail. Stop pretending that's not what happened on Jan 6. It was a coup. It failed, pathetically, but it had to be defeated with force; hence, a very small, very one-sided civil war.

It was basically the civil war equivalent of the Anglo-Zanzibar war, except even more one-sided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War

[Krayt]

I agree it was wrong, but hyperbole is stupid. Please stop.

It was popcorn on TV. In the worst case scenario, there would have been no coup. The rest of the nation would have seen some hostage situation of a few jackasses in control of a part of a building, not thrown up their hands and said, "I guess we're a dictatorship now!"

It's fun to disasterbate, especially when politically motivated.

[Davedave]

What's the point denying the obvious, well-established facts? Trump attempted to stage a coup. It was as incompetent as everything else he does, and failed to gain any traction at all, but that doesn't change what it was.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Davedave -- if you have plenty of cash and don't care about legal nicities, how difficult would it to come up with 1000 AR-15 rifles and 10,000 loaded (30 round) clips? Or even heavier stuff -- look at the stolen National Guard stuff that the IRA was getting in the '80s, and that had to go through customs as it came ashore.

Look at what was done on September 11th with box cutters -- and it's widely believed that the US Capitol was a target.

That's why I argue that January 6th was a frat party and not a coup attempt -- a coup attempt would have been a whole lot more bloody.

[bernard11]

Here it is again - "an ineptly staged failed coup was not a coup at all."

If I shoot at you and miss, I should have nothing to worry about legally.

[Brett Bellmore]

Dr. Ed, the Proud Boys actually HAD guns. They left them in Virginia, so as to avoid violating DC law.

Apparently they had brought them, not for attacking the Capitol, but in case Antifa attacked the Republican rally and DC cops refused to defend them. Which was widely expected, it's the reason I didn't go.

[Nige]

Wow, you believed your own bullshit.

[Nige]

'In the worst case scenario, there would have been no coup.'

Hey nominate him again, give him another go.

[Michael P]

When the Democrats lost, a large chunk of them decided to leave the union and become Confederates instead.

Now, Democrats only make empty promises to leave the country when they lose elections -- they don't actually carry through.

[Brett Bellmore]

They've already lost the Supreme court and the House; All it would take is losing the White house and Senate in 2024, and they'd be in a position to be the Confederacy.

Notice that the beef with abortion is NOT that they're not being permitted to have it be legal in the states they control. Dobbs didn't outlaw it, the ruling just said that it was a matter for states to decide! It's that they're insisting that the federal government force it to be legal in the states they don't control. (Similarly with transgender treatments for minors.)

The parallel to slavery leading into the Civil war is pretty obvious; The Confederacy wasn't, after all, complaining that THEY couldn't have slavery. They were complaining that it wasn't legal in OTHER states. They could see a future coming where slavery was unpopular in enough states that we might have gotten the 13th amendment without a war.

Similarly, the left insists that they have to prevail nation-wide, because if states are allowed to opt out of things like sex change surgery for minors, or 3rd term elective abortion, they might just face a future where the nation decisively rejects them.

Of course, history rhymes, it doesn't repeat, and the situation on the ground is much less orderly in terms of the possibilities for secession than it was in the 1860's. Even the 'reddest' states have 'blue' cities, even the 'bluest' states have 'red' countrysides.

And with that, an aside: It's really annoying how we were forced by the media to call Republican states "red" and Democratic states "blue", just because they'd gotten tired of red/commie jokes.

[Sarcastr0]

Truly whenever one party wins the House, Senate, Presidency and has a friendly Court it is Civil War.

The right has a whole genre of novels about righteous political violence, and yet keep insisting it’s the other side that will make the first move and they are keeping their powder dry.

Been like this for decades. Y’all wish for it, but it’s never going to happen. Maybe stop wishing for political violence as a solution to your political problems. Some learned after Jan 06. Seems a lot didn’t,

[Brett Bellmore]

"Truly whenever one party wins the House, Senate, Presidency and has a friendly Court it is Civil War."

Sure, if you elide all the similarities, there aren't any similarities. That's kind of trivially obvious.

"The right has a whole genre of novels about righteous political violence, and yet keep insisting it’s the other side that will make the first move and they are keeping their powder dry."

The left just sets cities on fire when they're unhappy, and calls it "fiery but mostly peaceful protest".

"Been like this for decades. Y’all wish for it, but it’s never going to happen. Maybe stop wishing for political violence as a solution to your political problems. Some learned after Jan 06. Seems a lot didn’t,"

I don't wish for it, if we have a civil war again, this country will be ruined for generations, and will never be the same again. I do fear sometimes that it's inevitable.

Part of what made January 6th so shocking is that it wasn't the left rioting, it was the right. If Trump had won the EC, and the left had pulled off January 6th? People would hardly have blinked. Democrats pull crap like that all the time.

[Krayt]

I submit it was the BLM stuff the previous year that made whoever feel they could get away with the lawlessness here.

Doesn’t justify it, but if raging around en mass makes politicians’ coward gene activate, well…

[Sarcastr0]

Tushnet is a main proponent of the idea that judicial review should be strongly limited and that the Constitution should be returned "to the people." In 2020, he published a book extending his previous writing about judicial overreach concerning the process of judicial review, which he originally started discussing in his 1999 book on this subject.

This long predates BLM.

Not everything you hate is connected, actually.

[Krayt]

Huh? You have me pegged as someone else.

[Sarcastr0]

That's the dude the OP was on about. I thought that was your 'they.' I guess you meant the J6 people.

I read badly. But if J6 thought those riots were political in object or accomplishment, that is entierly on them.

[Sarcastr0]

You yourself elide similarities to say history rhymes. This is not 1860.

You're indulging in violent fantasies. But the real fantasy for you is the *other* side being violent and giving your side an excuse.

I suppose that's part and parcel with your excuse making about MAGA's many attempts to fuck with our democracy.

If there were a secession crisis on the right, we all know which side you'd be on.

[Frank Drackman]

The Right one

[Ed Grinberg]

And with that, an aside: It’s really annoying how we were forced by the media to call Republican states “red” and Democratic states “blue”, just because they’d gotten tired of red/commie jokes.

From Wikipedia article "red states and blue states" (under the heading "color representation swap from original meaning"):

The modern association of colors in American politics lies contrary to the long-standing conventions of political color in most other countries whereby red symbols (such as the red flag or red star) are associated with left-wing politics and right-wing movements often choose blue as a contrasting color. Indeed, until the 1980s, Democrats were often represented by red and Republicans by blue. ... [NBC] journalist Tim Russert coined these terms [i.e., referred to Democrat states as "blue" and Republican states as "red"] during his televised coverage of the 2000 presidential election. That was not the first election during which the news media used colored maps to depict voter preferences in the various states, but it was the first time a standard color scheme took hold; the colors were often reversed or different colors used before the 1996 election.

Compare (from 2014 NPR story “The Color Of Politics: How Did Red And Blue States Come To Be?”):

It got started on TV, the original electronic visual, when NBC, the first all-color network, unveiled an illuminated map — snazzy for its time — in 1976. John Chancellor was the NBC election night anchor who explained how states were going to be blue if they voted for incumbent Republican Gerald Ford, red if they voted for Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter.
That arrangement was consistent with the habit of many texts and reference books, which tended to use blue for Republicans in part because blue was the color of the Union in the Civil War. Blue is also typically associated with the more conservative parties in Europe and elsewhere.
As the other TV operations went to full color, they too added vivid maps to their election night extravaganzas. But they didn't agree on a color scheme, so viewers switching between channels might see Ronald Reagan's landslide turning the landscape blue on NBC and CBS but red on ABC.
The confusion persisted until 2000, when the coloring of states for one party of the other dragged on well past election night. As people were more interested in the red-blue maps than ever, the need for consistency across media outlets became paramount. And as the conversation about the disputed election continued, referring to states that voted for George W. Bush as "red states" rather than "Republican states" (and those voting for Democrat Al Gore as "blue states") seemed increasingly natural.
And it never went away. Instead, it became a staple of political discourse, not just in the media but in academic circles and popular conversation as well.
By the next presidential election, the red-blue language was so common...

Two obvious questions come to mind:
1. Why did Mr. Russert reverse the traditional / customary labels? Why was it important to him not to (accurately!) associate Democrats with “left-wing politics”?
2. Why is it important to NPR to obfuscate Mr. Russert’s (successful) obfuscation?

[Randal]

I think Russet and NBC decided that America isn't Europe. No need to import its symbolism.

For America, fear (and its byproduct, hate) is better represented by firey red, and hope by tranquil blue.

[Davedave]

The whole thing is drivel. The Nazis were 'red' in that iconography. The Nazi German flag was predominantly red. Ditto Japan.

The British Empire was also red, which is why during the 50s panics the Communists were described in US pejoratives as 'reds'.

[VinniUSMC]

As opposed to the non-red flags of the USSR or China?

[Davedave]

Yes, that was the point. A few too many concussions in marine training affecting your cognitive abilities, huh?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “…. 3rd term elective abortion …..”

Brett just can’t live without this lie. He knows it’s false. He knows it’s meaningless. He knows it’s contradicted by every fact.

But he also knows the Right isn’t within shouting distance of popular support on abortion except with this one papier-mache fantasy issue.

So on&on&on&on about third-term abortions – because that’s our Brett:

A man addicted to lying…..

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, you joker: I have repeatedly linked to a clinic in DC that offers 3rd term abortions, and quite explicitly says that they don't care why you want it. So lay off this bullshit about nobody wanting 3rd term elective abortions, if you ever hope to one day win back your credibility.

Pro-aborts routinely lie about this topic. For instance, here's a convenient site to look up abortion laws:

State-by-State Guide

See all those states that say "X is enforcing a total ban on abortion"? Spoiler: Not one state in the entire country has a total ban on abortion. They're casually lying about it.

So, what states have elective abortion in the 3rd term? Alaska, for instance. Colorado. D.C. I'm not going to bother checking all the states, 3 examples should be good enough.

[Randal]

the left insists [on] 3rd term elective abortion

That's the lie. Barely any blue states have 3rd-term elective abortion. It wasn't part of Roe / Casey. It's not something Democrats are pushing for.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Pro-aborts routinely lie about this topic"

According to the CDC, 91 percent of all abortions are performed in the first trimester and 98.7 percent of abortions are performed during the first 20 weeks. Using state data, it’s possible to roughly estimate the percentage of abortions performed in weeks 21-30, but the numbers are so tiny that they register as 0.00 percent.

So want to salvage your sleazy talking point? Please find us examples of politicians calling for fully elective abortion in the third trimester. Give us the bills passed by Democrats that allow fully elective abortions in the third trimester. Show us where the Democratic Party had a plank or position calling for fully elective abortions in the third trimester. Give us major Democrat who discuss fully elective abortions in the third trimester.

I've heard Virginia described as a state where laws were nefariously changed to permit very late abortions. So what does that mean?

In Virginia since 2000, state records show an abortion after 28 weeks performed only in three years -- 2001, 2004 and 2015. In Minnesota, data for 2021 and 2020 show five abortions occurred after 23 weeks of gestation in each year, with one in week 28 in 2021 and one in week 35 in 2020. And I bet all those abortions carry such tragic stories that even a lying ghoul like you can't exploit them, Brett.

So let's tally this up:

1. You pretend late abortions aren't extremely rare - a lie.
2. You pretend Democrats campaign for elective late abortions - a lie.
3. You exploit the tiny number of women who face horrible choices late in pregnancies - a disgrace.

And all that just to claim a popular abortion "issue", even knowing it's a total fraud.

[bernard11]

See all those states that say “X is enforcing a total ban on abortion”? Spoiler: Not one state in the entire country has a total ban on abortion. They’re casually lying about it.

Fuck you, Brett. You know who's lying? The people who claim there is no total ban anywhere. Many of the alleged "exemptions" are vague BS, so much so that no sensible M.D. is going to rely on them to stay out of jail, especially with RW nutcase DA's running around.

And if the bans are so extreme that no one is willing to perform an abortion then they are effectively banned, despite all the sanctimonious crap people like you throw around.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let’s go to their entry on Alabama.

“Alabama is enforcing a total ban on abortion”

Then we follow the link.

“Abortion is completely banned in Alabama with very limited exceptions because of a Alabama law that went into effect June 24, 2022.

If you’re in Alabama, you’ll need to travel out of Alabama to get an abortion unless you qualify for an exception. Exceptions are very limited and include:

To save the pregnant person’s life To prevent serious risk to the pregnant person’s physical health If the fetus is not expected to survive the pregnancy.”

I guess we’re supposed to assume the people writing this simply don’t understand what the word “total” means?

What they mean by “total ban” is that it’s not available legally as an elective procedure. But that's not what "total ban" actually means, and they know it.

They're just lying, because they know a total ban would actually be very unpopular, so they want to characterize anything short of abortion for any reason whatsoever as a "total" ban, even though it isn't true.

Or Texas. They say "total ban", but Texas actually has a 'heartbeat law', prior to that heartbeat being detected, abortion is available electively for any reason.

[Sarcastr0]

prior to that heartbeat being detected, abortion is available electively for any reason.
So what's the timeline there, eh? And how soon does someone know their pregnant??

Implementation matters, Brett. You need to bring your interpretations to the real world.

[OtisAH]

There’s no real point in explaining to Brett that an abortion law with a top limit of 6 weeks, a time when many women do not know they are preganant, is effectively a total abortion ban. And I see no point in mentioning that a “heartbeat bill” that triggers before a heart has developed is also effectively a total ban on abortion. So I won’t waste my time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, except for the not being total part.

"Words have meanings, except when we find that inconvenient!"

[Randal]

Brett, lawmakers pass laws for their effects, not for you to argue semantics. Would you agree that if the rate of abortions in a state is zero, then it's a total ban?

[Brett Bellmore]

What, you genuinely think that no abortions are medically necessary? So that, if you ban elective abortion, you've banned it "totally"?

Wow, I'm pretty pro-life, and you'd never catch me claiming THAT.

Now, if you do a google search, you could easily get the impression that abortion just stopped, period, in Alabama, after the Dobbs ruling. What with all the links claiming it was banned, and all. I had to go to DuckDuckGo to find this:

Report: Fewer than 10 abortions performed monthly in Alabama after Roe overturn

Now, admittedly you're hardly going to keep the flaming maw of Baal fed at that rate, but ten ain't zero.

[Randal]

Yeah I wouldn't call that a total ban.

[Sarcastr0]

Once again Brett ignores actual evidence of implementation because he prefers the reading of the text he made up, where his side aren’t monstrous zealots.

Just like with the anti CRT censorship bills.

[not guilty]

Tennessee enacted a total ban on abortion in 2022. The legislature in 2023 added some narrow exceptions.

[hoppy025]

I hope so. I hope this time though there is no reconstruction, just mass extermination.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NO, NO, NO!!!!

Even if "we are better than that" isn't enough, look at the history of the French Revolution. Or read Machiavelli.

[Nige]

Aw, Ed, are the people you sympathetically claim are being driven to civil war being a bit too bloodthirsty and genocidal for your taste?

[hoppy025]

You know what TJ said about the tree of liberty.

[Frank Drackman]

Sic Semper Tyranis!!!
Oh wait, that was John Wilkes Booth.

[Randal]

I hope this time though there is no reconstruction, just mass extermination.

Don’t worry, there will be. Didn’t you know, all the anti-vaxx misinformation was actually a liberal conspiracy to convince conservatives not to get vaccinated. Fauci’s on his way to Wuhan to fetch a sample of the deadly master virus. We will then crush the rebellion with one swift stroke.

[OtisAH]

“used to comment there until Balkin got tired of being contradicted in the comments”

I bet he makes fun of your hat, too.

But all kidding aside, I want to thank you. I wasn’t having a bad day, per se, but I could’ve used a laugh. And you came through. Thanks again for brightening up my day.

[Brett Bellmore]

He better not make fun of my hat, I have good taste in hats.

[SimonP]

So here's the question. Suppose that the Supreme Court were to seriously overstep its jurisdictional authority - perhaps by taking up a case that doesn't present a true "case or controversy," perhaps by purporting to direct the executive or legislative branches to do something it has no valid authority to direct them to do, perhaps by asserting jurisdiction over pure questions of state law. What, then, is the constitutional remedy? What is the constitutional "check" on Supreme Court over-reach?

Impeachment is not the answer, because the removal of a justice doesn't reverse or invalidate an unconstitutional holding.

Prior to Trump, the answer was always that the "check" came in two ways: Congress can render a Supreme Court opinion on statutory matters by amending statutes, and can also exercise authority over the Court's appellate jurisdiction. Meanwhile the President is charged with "enforcing" the Court's decisions, so it has some inherent authority to ignore judicial over-reach.

It's only now, now that the Court is asserting extraordinary power over hypothetical questions, executive policymaking pursuant to legislative enactments, and state law, all to serve conservative policy goals, that conservatives are purporting to care about the "rule of law." You don't want the "rule of law." You want the "rule of conservative law."

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/2016/05/07/did-john-roberts-pro-obamacare-ruling-en/
John Roberts' Obamacare decision gave us Trump. The Biden administration following Prof. Tushnet's advice will indeed give us civil war. They're playing with fire.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, look at the actual open letter: It's complaining about Dobbs! About the Court literally saying, "This isn't any of our business, this one's up to the states." The exact opposite of the Court unreasonably seizing power.

And the recent affirmative action ruling is cited as outrageous, and Tushnet advocates minimizing/ignoring it in the name of "popular constitutionalism". But affirmative action is wildly unpopular! Even in California it loses when put to the voters. It survives only by dint of courts and politicians not caring about the popular will! Thwarting that ruling is the exact opposite of 'popular' constitutionalism, it's elite constitutionalism.

Tushnet just wants to make not controlling the Court stop mattering, that's all. And he's rationalizing doing it on a basis that doesn't really fit.

[Nelson]

"It’s complaining about Dobbs! About the Court literally saying, “This isn’t any of our business, this one’s up to the states.”"

It isn't the states' business, either. Post-Dobbs, the government has unrestrained power over abortion.

Roe protected citizens from the state. Dobbs granted repressive power to the government and stripped protection from the people. The fact that the repressive government is a state doesn't make it good.

So yes, the Court seized power from the people and gave it to the state. And the state has used that power to force a fringe moral belief system on those who never chose it.

I thought Dobbs was the worst decision this court would make regarding government forcing moral and religious beliefs on innocent citizens. Then 303 Creative showed that was a foolish thing to believe.

"And the recent affirmative action ruling is cited as outrageous"

I disagree with that opinion. Affirmative action was absolutely necessary in the 60s. Back then the law was written, intentionally, as a weapon against minorities. I don't see as much need today. Racism will never be eliminated, and making that a requirement before eliminating AA is completely unreasonable.

"Tushnet advocates minimizing/ignoring it in the name of “popular constitutionalism”"

Oh, I see. Common Good Constitutionalism is just an egghead theory by a bunch of unknown professors (even though DeSantis is 100% on-board), but this is a problem?

Here's a hint: both are bad. Very, very bad.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you under the impression I'm a fan of 'common good constitutionalism'? It's nothing but a right-wing version of living constitutionalism, screw it.

[SimonP]

I appreciate that you'd prefer to debate the question where you think you have the better argument, but that wasn't the point I'd put to you.

Do you want to try again, or should I interpret your choice of response as a signal you're not actually capable of thinking about this issue without huffing partisan fumes?

[bernard11]

until Balkin got tired of being contradicted in the comments, and closed them down to all but blog members.

You have a very strange memory. I used to comment there also.

They were closed because every thread led to a ludicrous food fight usually started when you or Bart DePalma posted some irrelevant RW bullshit.

You also got barred by Mark Kleiman for tendentiousness and dishonesty, IIRC.

"When someone tells you you're a donkey, ignore it. When fifty people tell you, buy yourself a saddle."

[OtisAH]

Now *that’s* funny.

[bernard11]

I can't take credit.

It's an old Yiddish saying, sometimes attributed to Sholem Aleichem.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That is exactly what happened, and Balkinization is the better for it. Although I have to agree with Brett on the last two posts he has referenced from them, Mark Tushnet's and David Super's. A bit unhinged.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sounds like Jack Balkin has lost the bigoted, autistic, disaffected, backwater audience.

[Michael P]

A pro-crime Democrat official has blood on their hands again.

https://thepostmillennial.com/portlands-suspected-serial-killer-is-a-convicted-felon-released-early-by-former-oregon-governor-police

And it's increasingly obvious what the future of depolicing holds.

https://apnews.com/article/haiti-violence-gangs-human-rights-544e238e5ae808707f19d43e28f6f4ff

[Sarcastr0]

End crime. Jail everyone.

[Davedave]

Stop being soft on crime. Execute them all.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm perversely curious: How did you get "jail everyone" from "don't release convicted habitual felons early"?

[Michael P]

Because stupidly false dichotomies are just how he rolls?

Or maybe he really has forgotten that we exercised a "try to enforce the laws consistently" approach as recently as a decade ago.

[Davedave]

He was ridiculing you, Brett. I don't know why he bothered, though, since you do such a good job of it yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

2020 hindsight for harsher criminal sentences to avoid a single anecdote is bad enough logic to yell at our government for not being harsh enough well beyond that policy.

There is no limit to it. Because it is just another anecdote.

If you have stats about when it's worthwhile to keep people in jail, out with it. If you're just going to Willie Horton again and again you're not really into anything other than partisan wankery.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

William “Willie” Horton was an actual person who actually committed horrible crimes while on *furlough* from a life sentence for murder.

It was a legitimate issue, although it wasn’t Michael Dukakis’ fault Horton was furloughed. True, Dukakis *was* a fan of the furlough program until abuses like the Horton situation persuaded him to change his mind, but it was others who created the program and furloughed the murderer.

The media could have said “it was a horrible program, that’s why Dukakis abolished it, why are they bringing it up now”? But the line they went with was “the only reason to object to Horton’s crimes and the furlough program is that you’re a racisty racist.”

(This thing from Wikipedia is interesting: “the Lawrence [Mass.] Eagle-Tribune had run 175 stories about the furlough program and won a Pulitzer Prize.” Maybe the Pulitzer prize people are racists, too.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Horton had been given a weekend furlough -- and never returned to the Concord prison. And there were a lot of others, many White, who did the same thing.

The issue with Horton is that his initial crime was particularly heinous -- murdering a gas station attendant *after* having been given the money in a robbery -- and his crimes in Maryland were also particularly heinous. He was an exceptionally dangerous person.

[David Nieporent]

Why are you trying to show off your imagined superior knowledge by saying "No" but then saying the same thing that Margrave said?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The Willie Horton ads were framed and used by Lee Atwater and the Bush campaign in an obviously racist way. Some media pointed that out at the time, and afterwards. I recall no articles claiming that only racists would criticize Horton's crimes and the furlough program in general. But I'm sure some nut somewhere wrote that, and you would cite that if I asked you for a cite.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I bet if Horton were a white biker with swastika tattoos, who committed the same crimes in the same circumstances, Bush would never have exploited the situation for political advantage!

/sarc

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Is that meant to be an argument that the ads which were actually run weren't racist?

[Frank Drackman]

AlGore used the ish-hew first in the 88" primaries, in typical AlGore fashion, it went about as well as his marriage.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Harsher" sentences? How about "leaving the sentence the way it was"? He got released early, did you not pick up on that?

[Michael P]

To be fair, I misread the timeline, and thought these murders were committed before his nominal release date.

But this guy has been a career criminal, and Oregon kept writing down the charges against him. It was pretty clear that he was going to recede yet again.

[Estragon]

“It was pretty clear that he was going to recede yet again.”

Aside from this inconvenient fact, I’m totally right!

[Michael P]

If you think an indictment of the whole leftist criminal-justice "reform" project is better than an indictment of one Democrat, maybe that's a reasonable take.

[Voize]

The admittedly uncommon verb you want is "recidivate".

[ThePublius]

"There is no limit to it. Because it is just another anecdote.

If you have stats about when it’s worthwhile to keep people in jail, out with it."

Some things are so obvious, as obvious as the nose on your face, that it doesn't require a statistical study to justify or validate. Now is a particularly interesting time. How is "no cash bail" and "bail reform" working out for cities?

I guess it bears repeating pointing out that criminals who are in jail are not out there committing crimes, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Humans are really good at overgeneralizing. That's why I like numbers.

There are social costs to harsh sentencing. Generally borne by those without much political voice. Anecdotes and appeals to 'it's obvious' let people ignore that.

It's a flavor of populism that's been popular for a long time.

I guess it bears repeating pointing out that criminals who are in jail are not out there committing crimes, too.
Add in the 3 felonies a day book y'all like so much and we are back to 'jail everyone to end crime.'

[hoppy025]

There are also severe social costs to believing the delusion that the races are equal.

[David Nieporent]

How is “no cash bail” and “bail reform” working out for cities?

Well.

[Frank Drackman]

Or as William F. Buckley once said, at least they're committing crimes (he specified Rape) in prison against other criminals.

[VinniUSMC]

I’m perversely curious: How did you get “jail everyone” from “don’t release convicted habitual felons early”?

By being Sarcastr0

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry, the law & order crowd are dumb and bad.

I don't know whether the policy here is right or not. But this bloody shirt bullshit isn't how you prove anything.

[Brett Bellmore]

The law and order crowd are dumb and bad. That seems to be a strange conclusion to draw from releasing a felon early and having him go on a murder spree.

I mean, you CAN think somebody's, on the whole, wrong, and still concede that the evidence in the instant case is favorable to them.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm drawing the conclusion from the reaction to an anecdote being what it is.

Anecdotes are not evidence! They are emotionally resonant. And that is how you get bad laws.

The only thing anecdotes are good for is counterexamples.

[Frank Drackman]

Riffing on Moe-hammad Ali's "No Viet Cong ever called me Nigger" quote (is it OK to say "Nigger" if I'm quoting "The Greatest")
No executed criminal ever killed anyone (or called anyone "Nigger")

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because one always overcorrects.

[bernard11]

Guy is sentenced to twenty years for some violent crime.

Serves the full twenty and is released. Promptly reoffends.

Brett:

"Damn soft Democrats. It should have been a 25-year sentence."

Here's a clue, Brett: Prison sentences are arbitrary, not a law of nature. Unless you want to give every violent criminal LWOP, or the death sentence, you are going to release people who then commit another crime.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except that he didn't serve his whole term. The fact that you had to falsify a key detail in what happened is telling.

[Randal]

That detail is irrelevant.

[bernard11]

I did not falsify it.

My example was hypothetical, intended to point out that raising hell because he was released a year early is sort of silly.

Most people, upon learning that Calhoun's sentence was 50 months, not 20 years, and reading with just a bit of intelligence, would have realized that.

[VinniUSMC]

bernard can't read.

Calhoun was released from prison in 2021, twelve months early, after being granted clemency at the direction of former Democrat Gov. Kate Brown

[bernard11]

You can't think.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Calhoun was released from prison in 2021, twelve months early"

Sounds like having him serve out his term would simply have postponed the serial killings by a year.

[Estragon]

Actually probably not, if you read the article, the first killing was after the original release date for this person.

I also can’t overstate how bad the fires of 2020 were in Oregon, and how close to some very populated areas. This individual and others were released early on the basis of their efforts to fight those fires, a decision I personally find at least somewhat defensible.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, it might have taken him a bit of time to get situated before he could get down to killing people. So, yeah, I think it would have delayed things at least a little.

It's fair enough to say that they deserved some consideration in return for those efforts. Said consideration didn't have to come in the form of releasing them early, could have had the privilege of ordering from GrubHub once a week, or something like that.

[Estragon]

“You know, it might have taken him a bit of time to get situated before he could get down to killing people.”

That is just self-serving speculation. The OP said the former governor had “blood on her hands.” If it was this guy— he would have been out already.

“ordering from GrubHub once a week”

If you had any idea of or experience fighting a wildfire you would realize how ridiculous this sounds. It is a terrifying, exhausting and extremely dangerous undertaking. It’s unsurprising coming from you. I suppose you are opposed to early release for good behavior as well?

There’s an awful lot of handwaving going on here about what exactly should have happened other than releasing people on their release date.

[Frank Drackman]

If I'm ever scheduled to be cereal killed I'd certainly like to postpone it, for any length of time.

[Reallynotbob]

Lordy. Can you at least make a modest effort to convey context here? Any effort at all?

According to the article:
1. Calhoun was a career criminal for theft, meth, and gun/ammunition possession (which makes him a VC hero, but probably was illegal based on previous convictions)
2. Calhoun was not convicted of any murders before this.
3. He was released after serving most of his term, and several previous convictions.
4. He was one of 1000 or so convicts who had their sentences commuted.
5. The commutations were part of criminal reforms in Oregon, but also spurred by concerns about Covid-19 in the prisons at a time when Covid was much more lethal.

If you want to argue that meth-heads should die in prison, go ahead. But the "pro-crime" "bloody hands" label is puerile.

[Frank Drackman]

No, the Meth-dealers should be summarily executed, and then the problem of Meth-heads will work itself out.
Oh, and I include Quacks who prescribe Amphetamines to children to be Meth-dealers.

Frank

[not guilty]

Think so, Frank? It already is not uncommon for drug dealers to be summarily executed, albeit by other drug dealers. That hasn't curbed demand.

[OtisAH]

Yeah…

https://news.yahoo.com/ponzi-schemer-pardoned-trump-faces-053554411.html

[OtisAH]

Yeah…

https://nypost.com/2023/07/19/donald-trump-was-former-client-of-gilgo-beach-suspect-rex-heuermann/

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"California Governor Signs Bill Setting Deadline for Parties to Notify Secretary of State of Nominees"

As the article notes, this kind of deadline tends to be ignored for major parties while applied strictly to minor parties.

https://ballot-access.org/2023/07/19/california-governor-signs-bill-setting-deadline-for-parties-to-notify-secretary-of-state-of-nominees/

[Don Nico]

That is how CA works.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And Texas, if I recall correctly.

If I remember the articles from the time, one of the duopoly parties missed a deadline, but Texas authorities let it slide.

[shawn_dude]

Wonder if it has anything to do with the size of the state population that receives printed ballot information in the mail? It might be nothing more than an attempt to satisfy logistical realities.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Maybe, but as he pointed out, they were willing to make last minute additions for the major party candidates.

[Michael P]

In all the coverage of Meta's new Instagram-linked Threads messaging app, I have not seen stories that mention that Instagram had a Threads messaging app before, and killed it.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22787783/instagram-threads-shutting-down-meta-messaging
https://www.cnet.com/tech/instagram-to-shut-down-standalone-threads-app-at-end-of-year/

[Dr. Ed 2]

We've had an all-volunteer military for 50 years now -- it sagged under Nobama and there was talk of the draft returning in 2017 -- but Trump happened. If BiteMe is re-elected, watch for the draft to return after the 2026 elections because 2026 is when the children not born in 2008 won't be turning 18.

My uncle used to say that he voted for a Democrat once -- FDR in 1940 -- and all it got him "was four years in the G*d Damn Army."

[bernard11]

Then your uncle was an idiot. Runs in the family, I guess.

[Davedave]

Not just an idiot - apparently a Holocaust denier and/or Nazi sympathiser. Runs in the family...

[Reallynotbob]

I wonder if economic trends have anything to do with military recruitment? (For example, Obama's first term saw increases in total active duty--i.e. the 2008 financial crisis). Do you wonder those things too? Or is "President's Party" the primary cause of all trends in the United States?

[David Nieporent]

it sagged under Nobama and there was talk of the draft returning in 2017

It did not, and there was not.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear — because autistic Brett also has this problem — I'm sure someone somewhere talked about reinstating the draft. Someone somewhere always talks about reinstating the draft. There was no meaningful or serious talk about it.

[Davedave]

The draft has never gone away. It's how American sports work. It's what comes through cracks under doors, too, because Americans can't spell draught.

It's nothing to do with the military, though, who don't have any desire for more unskilled bodies to be dumped on them.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, there's not much open talk about reinstating the draft. OTOH,

Ordering the Selected Reserve and Certain Members of the Individual Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces to Active Duty

That's pretty draft adjacent, if you ask me.

[David Nieporent]

I guess there's good reason nobody asked you, then.

[not guilty]

The target letter received by Donald Trump reportedly refers to three federal statutes: conspiracy to defraud the United States, tampering with a witness, victim or an informant, and deprivation of rights under color of law. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-target-letter-federal-laws-special-counsel-jack-smith/ Application of the first two to Trump is straightforward, but the third is puzzling.

Conspiracy to defraud the United States is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 371. The title of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 is "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant," while the body of the statute is broader, prohibiting attempt to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding at subsection (c)(2) and conspiracy to commit any offense under the statute at subsection (k).

The text of 18 U.S.C. § 242 states:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Conviction under this act requires an intent to deprive a person of a right which has been made specific either by the express terms of the Constitution or laws of the United States or by decisions interpreting them. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 104 (1945). I wonder what right(s) the prosecutors have in mind here.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, as the persons having the greatest number of votes as President and Vice-President, respectively, had the right under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. § 15 to be elected to office. Donald Trump specifically intended to deprive them of that right. Perhaps that is the prosecution theory.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who cares, it's all theater.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I care. I liked both Cats and Phantom of the Opera, (Saw them both in the Pantages theater in Detroit.)

Doubt I'd have liked Hamilton, though.

Even if it's all theater, the details matter.

[SimonP]

I'm amazed, though not exactly surprised, that you can manage to be wrong even about trivial things, like musical theater.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not exactly sure how I'm supposed to be capable, even theoretically, of being wrong about my own taste in theater.

[SimonP]

I'm saying you have bad taste, Brett. Was that somehow not clear?

[Davedave]

It's noteworthy that Brett admitted to having such appalling taste that even here on this blog there was stunned silence for at least 12 hours after he wrote that he liked Cats.

[Stephen Lathrop]

"Attempt to kidnap," looks interesting, especially with regard to Pence, but also with regard to all the members of Congress—assuming the prosecution has evidence to link Trump to that purpose. If so, that would make it a higher-stakes trial than most folks have been expecting. Injuries and deaths resulted.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have assumed all along that, if the feds actually had any evidence to link Trump to the riot in any legally relevant sense, we'd have heard of it long ago.

If they actually have such evidence, and were just getting their ducks in a row, that does make a big difference. That's the sort of thing that would ruin Trump politically.

[Dr. Ed 2]

At this point, I doubt it would be believed.
*I* wouldn't believe it.

If Ted Cruz said he did it, then I'd believe it.
But not the corrupt schmucks at DoJ.

[SRG]

If they actually have such evidence, and were just getting their ducks in a row, that does make a big difference. That’s the sort of thing that would ruin Trump politically.

I doubt it. Trump supporters really don't care - we've been in "5th Avenue Shooting" territory for some time. AFAIC the reason that many Trump supporters deny that 1/6 was anything other than generally peaceful is not that they really think it was, but that they don't want to admit that they approved of the violence. Given that, why would they disapprove of Trump's involvement?

[Sarcastr0]

They are corrupt because they keep targeting Trump unfairly.
You can tell it's unfair because they're corrupt.

Easy-peasy!

[Brett Bellmore]

"I doubt it. Trump supporters really don’t care – we’ve been in “5th Avenue Shooting” territory for some time. "

Without the dead body or Trump's fingerprints on the gun. We've been in "Trump said he could get away with shooting somebody on 5th avenue, and somebody got shot on 5th avenue, must have been Trump!" territory. NOT "Trump is seen shooting somebody on 5th avenue" territory.

Produce the fingerprints on the gun, and it makes a difference. Sure, it won't move everybody, nothing ever moves everybody, but it will convince enough people to make a difference. Remember how people said, "It wouldn't make any difference if Obama released the birth certificate!", but then he did, and birtherism mostly evaporated? Same thing here.

Democrats, Trump haters in general, tend to exaggerate how immune to evidence Trump's supporters are, because they're letting their own hatred of Trump substitute for/inflate the evidence, and can see no other explanation for why people who don't start out hating Trump haven't jumped to the conclusion that he's guilty at the slightest hint he could be.

[Nige]

'Produce the fingerprints on the gun,'

His rejection of the election result, a conspiracy of officials to install him in power, a mob trying to overturn the election, and it's still not enough to make you think, hmm, this guy is dodgy.

[VinniUSMC]

Pfftt, how many people don't think Trump is dodgy?

Trump is dodgy =/= Trump killed someone on 5th Ave.

You just keep proving Brett's point.

[Nige]

In fact 'Trump is dodgy =/= Trump killed someone on 5th Ave' was entirely my point, well spotted, five stars, since it shouldn't take Trump killing someone on 5th Avenue to make him a less than desireable presidential candidate, given the things he *has* done.

[OtisAH]

25-35% of the general US population do not believe Turnip is dodgy. Here at the VC it’s around 80% of the commenters.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I think he's dodgy, alright. That doesn't really distinguish him much from your average politician, though.

[Nige]

Wash that responsibility right off your hands, Pontius.

[bernard11]

Democrats, Trump haters in general, tend to exaggerate how immune to evidence Trump’s supporters are, because they’re letting their own hatred of Trump substitute for/inflate the evidence,

No, Brett. It comes from reading comments from people like you and the other cultists here, who are willfully blind to any misconduct of any sort by Trump.

[VinniUSMC]

It comes from reading comments

Assumes facts not in evidence. There is no indication whatsoever that bernard is capable of reading to a sufficient level and then using anything approaching critical thought to analyze what's been said.

[John F. Carr]

The kidnapping language is unlikely to be applied to Trump. The statute sets a series of penalties depending on how violent the violation of rights was: one year (misdemeanor) for ordinary civil rights violations up to death for murder in the course of a civil rights violation. Trump did not intend to kidnap, rape, or kill anybody. He only wanted to win.

Once again I feel like statutory maximum penalties are determined by throwing darts. If pressuring Congress to throw out electoral votes is charged as a civil rights violation it's a misdemeanor, but if it's charged as obstruction it is a 20 year felony.

[santamonica811]

To be fair; he *did* intend to rape. Many/several times in the past.

Just not on that particular day.

[John F. Carr]

According to some press coverage ballot box stuffing has been prosecuted under the civil rights law. I understood voters rather than candidates to be the victims.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Perhaps that is the prosecution theory."

Smith must want another 9-0 whipping like Governor McConnell's case.

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports that the civil rights statute referenced in the target letter is 18 U.S.C. § 241. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/us/politics/trump-charges-civil-rights-law-voting-fraud.html That makes more sense than § 242.

Section 241 states:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Section 241 prohibits conspiracy, but does not require that the object of the conspiracy be accomplished. Section 242 requires a completed deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. (Section 241 does not include a color of state law requirement.) There is no generally applicable attempt statute in the federal criminal code.

The right to have one's vote fairly counted is protected by federal law. SCOTUS opined in Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 227 (1974):

Every voter in a federal primary election, whether he votes for a candidate with little chance of winning or for one with little chance of losing, has a right under the Constitution to have his vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes. And, whatever their motive, those who conspire to cast false votes in an election for federal office conspire to injure that right within the meaning of § 241.

As I said upthread, I was puzzled by the CBS News story's reference to 18 U.S.C. § 242. Charging Trump and his confederates (John Eastman, et al.) with conspiracy under § 241 makes a boatload more sense.

[John F. Carr]

There is a specific intent requirement in 18 USC 241. A jury would have to conclude that Trump had the requisite mental state. The model jury instructions I found (not from the D.C. Circuit) were not especially illuminating.

Example:

Suppose the judge determines as a matter of law that Pence throwing out electoral votes would have violated the rights of members of the Electoral College. Is Trump guilty for conspiring to ask Pence to do so (whether or not he thought it was wrong), is he guilty if he recklessly disregarded the possibility that it was illegal, or is he only guilty if he subjectively believed the law was against him?

[not guilty]

In United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 753-754 (1966). the Supreme Court opined that since the gravamen of the offense under § 241 is conspiracy, the prosecution must show that the offender acted with a specific intent to interfere with the federal rights in question. Accord: Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 223 (1974). The Anderson Court opined:

A single conspiracy may have several purposes but if one of them — whether primary or secondary — be the violation of federal law, the conspiracy is unlawful under federal law. It has long been settled that § 241 embraces a conspiracy to stuff the ballot box at an election for federal officers, and thereby to dilute the value of votes of qualified voters . . . .
The specific intent required under § 241 is not the intent to change the outcome of a federal election, but rather the intent to have false votes cast and thereby injure the right of all voters in a federal election to express their choice of a candidate and to have their expressions of choice given full value and effect, without being diluted or distorted by the casting of fraudulent ballots.

417 U.S., at 226 [citations omitted.]

The Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, has opined:

that the specific intent required to violate section 241 is the purpose of the conspirators to commit acts which deprive a citizen of interests in fact protected by clearly defined constitutional rights. If that purpose was present, there is no "good faith" defense, . . . because of lack of awareness of the conspirators at the time they commit the proscribed acts that they are violating constitutional rights. There is no requirement under section 241 that a defendant recognize the unlawfulness of his acts.

United States v. Ehrlichman, 546 F.2d 910, 922 (D.C. Cir. 1976). "[T]he court first concludes that the specific intent needed for a conviction under section 241 does not require recognition by the defendant of the unlawfulness of his acts, but only an intent to commit actions which in fact deprive a citizen of constitutional rights which are firmly established and plainly applicable." Id., at 912.

The Court in Ehrlichman reiterated that "'specific intent' under section 241 does not require an actual awareness on the part of the conspirators that they are violating constitutional rights. It is enough that they engage in activity which interferes with rights which as a matter of law are clearly and specifically protected by the Constitution." Id., at 928.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The braintenders and opinion-makers are hard at work ginning up hatred over MTG showing Hunters sex pictures.

Do you think the Democrats are getting so angry because it was straight porn and not shown to 6 year olds?

[Michael P]

No, they're angry because they want to hire that kind of "paralegal" but know the FBI and IRS would come down on them like a ton of bricks if they did a fifth of what Hunter Biden did -- and because they have to shut up, grin, and act like that blatant double standard is normal. They take out that frustration on the people who aren't politically required to lie about this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Loose cannons like MTG are valuable.
And a woman doing this is priceless...

[Nige]

Is the loose cannon a Jewish space laser?

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-Bot fears Jewish Space Lasers.

[Nige]

edgebot getting dumber

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was reported that the laptop contained images of Hunter having sex with minors, i.e. "kiddie porn."

If (a) it did and (b) Greene had included such images in the pictures she displayed at the hearing yesterday, would she be protected by the "speech & debate" clause of the Constitution or would she be criminally liable?

[Longtobefree]

How can she be liable unless the creator of the content is also liable?
(Unless there is a double standard of justice)

[not guilty]

If the photos included pornographic images of actual minors, the creator of the content would be liable.

Longtobefree's comment takes whataboutism to a new level.

[not guilty]

Who has reported that the photographs included minors?

[OtisAH]

MAGA added that detail the moment they heard about the laptop. It gets repeated here by the usual group of toe-pickers and mouth-breathers almost every week since then.

[bernard11]

Dr. Ed.

He's fond of the passive voice to cover up his lies.

[not guilty]

Per United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 512 (1972), "[A] Member of Congress may be prosecuted under a criminal statute provided that the Government's case does not rely on legislative acts or the motivation for legislative acts. A legislative act has consistently been defined as an act generally done in Congress in relation to the business before it. In sum, the Speech or Debate Clause prohibits inquiry only into those things generally said or done in the House or the Senate in the performance of official duties and into the motivation for those acts."

As to Dr. Ed 2's hypothetical, I would be very surprised if the display of pornographic images depicting actual minors is generally said or done in the House or the Senate in the performance of official duties.

[Kazinski]

That's what you consider legal analysis?

If MTG had shown pictures of child porn found on the laptop or any other source she couldn't be questioned in any other place but the House.

And they would likely expel her.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's the holding from a settled case directly on-point to the issue here. How the fuck is that NOT legal analysis?

Your conclusion goes against the ruling, so....I think it's safe to say you're entirely wrong.

[Kazinski]

Now how can a bribery charge be directly on point?
"Since, in this case, prosecution of the bribery charges does not necessitate inquiry into legislative acts or motivation, the District Court erred in holding that the Speech or Debate Clause required dismissal of the indictment."

No matter how inappropriate a speech or debate is the courts will not let a congressman be questioned over it.

But if you take a bribe to introduce or promote legislation, taking the money is the crime, and making a speech promoting the legislation is evidence.

So no the case wasn't even remotely on point let alone directly.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I could just re-post the paragraph you evidently refused to read or comprehend that not guilty posted, but why?

They can indeed be questioned for their actions in the House or Senate, depending entirely on whether their actions were official in duty and whether their motivation was legitimately related to legislative purpose or not.

Why don't you try reading the Brewster paragraph and pay attention this time? Your claim that the courts won't ever allow a congress member to be questioned is directly contradicted by the decision.

[Kazinski]

You got a cite for a non-bribery case?

Because bribery cases aren't about legislative acts,

[not guilty]

You don't think that having accepted a bribe goes to the motivation for the legislator's vote? As Senator Simon Cameron observed, an honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.

"While the Speech or Debate Clause recognizes speech, voting, and other legislative acts as exempt from liability that might otherwise attach, it does not privilege either Senator or aide to violate an otherwise valid criminal law in preparing for or implementing legislative acts." Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 626 (1972).

Dr. Ed 2’s hypothetical posited Rep. Greene displaying images at the hearing of Hunter Biden having sex with minors. He asked if she could be criminally prosecuted. If that were the case -- and I have seen no indication that any images of minors were in fact involved -- she could indeed be prosecuted for having come into possession of child pornography to begin with.

[Frank Drackman]

Hunter's laptop images have to be pretty vile to top Senescent Joe's fellating a frightened childs neck the other day.
Maybe it's a good thing he DOESN'T recognize Hunter's Bastard (don't blame me, blame Funk & Wagners) child as a "Biden"

Frank

[David Nieporent]

It was reported

No, it wasn't.

[Nige]

A Republican publicly displays pornographic images, doesn't really seem to care what age of people see it, and you're still in denial.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot rending his robot garment over robot-porn

[Nige]

edgebot got rejected in botporn tryouts

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot known for giving robot-head

[Nige]

edgebot fantasies

[Randal]

Is this some sort of mating ritual?

[Nige]

Just letting it play out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well I still remember when the Boston Globe printed a clip from an actual porno movie on Page B-3 because some nutcase City Councilor claimed it was American abuse of Iraqi civilians and not a porno movie made in California.

But that's different because it would have made Bush 45 look bad...

[Nige]

That sounds bad (if true, it is you) good thing there weren't plenty of images of actual abuse of Iraqi prisoners to make Bush 45 look bad, meanwhile explicit images of a private citizen need to be publicised because the actual accusations against him aren't working out. Family values, protect the kids etc.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-Bot, now you're in Robby the Robot Territory, "DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!!"
Yeah, "accusations" (would you take a plea deal based on "Accusations"?? oh of course, you would, you have)
tend not to "Work Out" when the Accused is the son of the POTUS who appointed the AG who's in charge of deciding to charge the son.
Actually I prefer Hunter free at large, better chance of him ODing (with Senescent Joe's Luck?? amazing Hunter's still alive today) than if he actually had to serve some time for his crimes.

Frank "Hunter's Dead! made you look!"

[Nige]

edgebot vomits

[Brett Bellmore]

Geeze, Frank. Robby the Robot was from Forbidden Planet, an SF classic. He was so popular that he ended up with guest appearances in a lot of other, much lesser movies, and, yeah, even showed up in Lost in Space as an evil robot.

"Danger Will Robinson!" was the catch phrase of "the robot", which never had a name, from Lost in Space.

[Kazinski]

Well she did block out the parts that would have actually made it pornographic.

I'm hardly a fan of MTG, but she got one thing right: if they just made the allegations that Hunter was deducting hookers as a business expense it wouldn't have gotten near as much attention from the media as showing exactly what Hunter thought was deductible.

Which is a shame.

[Randal]

Who's mad?

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) tweeted that the photos revealed that “perhaps we should call Hunter Biden the ‘Big Guy,’”

Seems more like yet another opportunity to ridicule Marjorie and these silly committees.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a private movie that MTG chose to make public for right-wing frowning purposes. That's pretty fucked up.

But also does make Hunter look like he's living the failson good life.

[OtisAH]

“Was living.” Pretty sure the vids are from some several years ago. And I won’t say he’s not still living recklessly today, but I’d be fairly surprised if he is.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, and Jim Morrison had really turned over a new leaf when he went to Paris.
Not happy about it, no prior knowledge, but I'd bet Dollars to Donuts (priced Donuts recently) that Hunter will meet the same end as Chief Mojo Risin

Frank "So I get up before Dawn? I put my Boots on?? what does that prove???"

[OtisAH]

Jim Morrison’s father wasn’t the president of the United States when he went to Paris. He didn’t have an entire political party attacking him because they can find nothing on the president, either.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Move the FBI to Alabama? Sounds like a good idea.

Realistically, is there a good reason not to do this? The FBI already has a massive presence in Huntsville AL. They need a new headquarters. Salaries will be lower in AL, as will construction costs and land costs. And it will help to depoliticize the FBI.

The FBI needs a new headquarters. Alabama is a better place for that, than anywhere in the DC metro area.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think we should do what Hoover talked Truman into dong with the OSS -- abolish it, shut it down, and start over.

The OSS had been so penetrated by Soviet Intelligence that a whole new organization (CIA) was needed. So too here...

SHUT IT DOWN!

[Brett Bellmore]

Agreed: At this point the FBI is too corrupt for moving them to make any difference. Ideally the agency ought to be wound down, with a much smaller federal police agency created from scratch, nobody associated with the FBI permitted to work there. The current agency has gone past the tipping point of corruption, it's irredeemable.

[Armchair Lawyer]

As fun as that would be, it's unlikely to be enacted.

Moving the FBI HQ on the other hand, is a reasonable option that may have some mild benefits over time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree, very unlikely.

The key point about the corruption of the federal bureaucracy, not just the FBI, is that these agencies have been captured by the Democratic party, and act as unofficial agents of that party even when Republicans are nominally in control of the Executive branch. The lawlessness is only secondary to this.

That being the case, NO reform is remotely possible so long as the Democrats control the White House or one chamber of Congress. They're not going to give up that power.

They might agree to moving the FBI headquarters, but only because it wouldn't actually change anything.

[hoppy025]

Yes. Look at how many "civil servants" were doing the Democrats' dirty work while Trump was in office.

America's situation won't be fixed until we have gas chambers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NO.

We are better than they are.

[hoppy025]

We are, but we shouldn't be. You fight fire with fire.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9599-delusional-disorder

Get yourself evaluated, Brett.

[Krayt]

Trump was in charge. He could direct them, or investigate them. Clearly many agents are honest neutrals, who pride in that, or are hopelessly Republican partisans. No matter.

Did he? Nope. He just complained about it. And did nothing.

I submit it was because he knew it was BS. Like the complaints about election fraud, the few times his people were sworn in and asked, under oath, said, nah, we don't got squat.

That is fodder for the masses and the larger political game.

[Krayt]

Hehe, the President of the United States is a helpless victim of the FBI.

That should raise a serious red flag for a mild skeptic.

[bernard11]

Krayt, You don't get it.

If the FBI does something Brett and A.L. don't like, it must be because they're corrupt - been bribed by Soros or something.

It is, in their minds, impossible that the cases involve serious wrongdoing fully meriting investigation.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah, like Strzok getting FISA warrants for associates of Trump based on a work of fiction.

Or like Hoover planting listening devices near MLK.

Just a bunch of honest guys investigating real crimes. I’m shocked - shocked! - that anyone would believe that the organization has been a corrupt, dishonest organization since its founding.

[Sarcastr0]

bernard didn't say anything was fiction. He said this: "If the FBI does something Brett and A.L. don’t like, it must be because they’re corrupt."

[bevis the lumberjack]

Generally if the FBI does anything that touches on politics, it ends up that they were corrupt. There is far, far too much history of that to deny it.

[Randal]

The FBI is like, all Republicans. Always has been.

Go ahead, wind it down. Whatever replaces it could only be more liberal-leaning.

[David Nieporent]

is that these agencies have been captured by the Democratic party,

And by that Brett just means that they try to rely on facts and stuff when doing their work, rather than things in MAGA lunacy and Brett's delusions.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Facts like the Steele Dossier?

Facts like Carter Paige’s trip to Prague or wherever the hell it was.

They have communication between Strzok and a colleague he was fucking stating plainly that their purpose was to insure a Trump loss. The current FBI Director apologized before Congress for their behavior.

When did this use of facts begin?

[David Nieporent]

Facts like the Steele Dossier?

What do you think these agencies did about the Steele Dossier? They didn't write it; they investigated it.

They have communication between Strzok and a colleague he was fucking stating plainly that their purpose was to insure a Trump loss.

Lisa Page, and that is not, in fact, what he said (let alone "plainly.")

[TwelveInchPianist]

From NBC:

Page: "[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"

Strzok: "No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it."

Sounds pretty plain to me.

[Sarcastr0]

Solution without a problem. Those saying the FBI is political are all extreme right wing partisans with their evidence being they don’t like how Trump is facing consequences for doing tons of crimey stuff.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Problem. FBI needs a new headquarters.
Solution: Put it in Alabama.

[Sarcastr0]

Or just get a place near where you are, save on transition costs, take advantage of existing infrastructure.

Don't blow smoke up my ass - this is spite and we all know it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well, that's the thing. There isn't really any good cheap existing infrastructure nearby.

Meanwhile, the FBI already has a large presence in the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. Land is cheap there. Cost of living too. If you're talking about cost savings, it makes far more sense to put the new FBI headquarters THERE, then in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country.

[Michael P]

Sub-problem: Maryland and Virginia can't agree on which state is more worthy of it.
Related sub-problem: The racists in the Biden administration significantly increased the weighting of "equity" (equal outcome, not equal treatment) in that evaluation.
Related sub-sub-problem: While putting FBI HQ in PG County would put it closer to crime, the HQ people aren't front line crime fighters, and it's mostly crime that states should be prosecuting.

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0, if you really believe what you say here, then you are delusional, or just haven't been paying attention; maybe not broad enough a spectrum of news sources? Aren't you aware of the hearings going on now? The whistle blowers? The whole Steele dossier thing? Wow. The FBI has been a corrupt agency since its inception, and has been very effectively politicized and weaponized by the Democratic party and administrations. It should be shut down.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not that he really believes it, I suspect. He's that he approves of it, and we haven't moved yet from denial to "yeah, what of it?".

[Sarcastr0]

Trump and the J6 crew committed some pretty big and obvious crimes, and the FBI going after such crimes is them doing their job.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree there were some pretty big and obvious crimes, like breaking into the Capitol. Which you have yet to demonstrate that Trump is connected to in any legally relevant way.

A lot of what you think of as crimes are only crimes if you make certain assumptions that mostly seem obvious to you because you start out thinking Trump is guilty. For instance, he asks the Georgia SoS for access to election records so that he can find evidence he really won, and you interpret that as him asking for the Georgia SoS to fabricate evidence that he won. You think putting sneer quotes around 'find' proves your interpretation, apparently.

[Nige]

'because you start out thinking Trump is guilty.'

Objectivity as pathology. You can hardly deny that Trump rejects the election result, a mob tried to overturn the election on his behalf, and a bunch of people conspired to put him back in power. To what degree Trump broke any laws is certainly in question. But he's guilty as hell.

[Brett Bellmore]

"To what degree Trump broke any laws is certainly in question. But he’s guilty as hell."

Isn't the precise question whether he broke any laws, when you're proposing to prosecute him for breaking laws?

[Sarcastr0]

You call Hillary a felon based on less evidence than Trump has tweeted out.

[Nige]

I'm not prosecuting him for anything. I'm only talking about the things he's actually done.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot has bot-dreams that he went to bot-law-school

[Nige]

edgebot has dreams where it's able to read

[Randal]

But Brett, Trump hasn't been charged in connection with J6 or Georgia. So wtf are you talking about?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He just got sent a target letter from Smith for J6 you low information dunce.

[Randal]

You think a target letter is an indictment and you're calling me a dunce?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Ok in two days, you act surprised. Okay?

[ThePublius]

"Trump and the J6 crew committed some pretty big and obvious crimes, and the FBI going after such crimes is them doing their job."

No, they didn't! The BIG J6 crime was the Democrat-orchestrated Reichstag fire they call "the insurrection." It was nothing of the kind. People were ushered into the Capitol by Capitol police, who even held the doors for them and took selfies with them, and people were egged-on by Feds. It's a travesty.

What crime has Trump committed? And, if he technically has, as is so for just about everyone in the country regarding federal laws, does it rise the the level of prosecuting a former president, when he's the biggest adversary to the sitting president in the next election? This is banana republic stuff.

Why isn't the FBI diligently pursuing Biden and his family for their obvious, well documented and evidenced extortion, influence peddling, money laundering, and tax evasion???

Because they are corrupt, and an arm of the party in power. Biden's Stasi.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do you frequently write diatribes of lies and stupidity, or is today a special day?

[Sarcastr0]

As I said, Those saying the FBI is political are all extreme right wing partisans.

One way to tell is all the wild shit you believe happened that did not.

[David Nieporent]

As I said, Those saying the FBI is political are all extreme right wing partisans.

Publius probably is an extreme right wing partisan, but he actually seems more mentally ill than partisan here.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/half-us-republicans-believe-left-led-jan-6-violence-reutersipsos-2022-06-09/

I can't call it mental illness if half the GOP has it. It's just the long-term results of demagogic populism.

[bernard11]

OK. You really are insane.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

" It was nothing of the kind. People were ushered into the Capitol by Capitol police, who even held the doors for them and took selfies with them, and people were egged-on by Feds. It’s a travesty."

There are hundreds of hours of videos proving this released and 40,000 hours the Democrat FBI won't release. Yet these 3 idiot bootlickers never saw a single second.

[David Nieporent]

In contrast, BCD is just an extreme right wing partisan.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And very clearly gay.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I really appreciate how you call me gay as a way to insult me.

What is it about being gay to find so worthy of hurling it as an insult?

I mean, I know why I use it as an insult. I call it the 5S's of homosexuality. Sadness, Shame, Suicides, STDs, and the Shit-eating. Assigning those things to someone is pretty insulting!!

How about you?

[Randal]

Sadness, Shame, Suicides, STDs, and the Shit-eating.

You're more self-aware than I thought!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

There is nothing wrong with being gay. That you view it as an insult says everything anyone needs to know about your self-loathing and bigotry.

You're too obsessed with the topic to not be gay. You'd live a much less angry life if you just acknowledged that fact.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I like it! There you go again trying to insult me by calling me gay!

We're two peas in a pod. Also, I like your premise, that if I oppose some something, then I secretly am that something!

I oppose International Jewry, does that mean I'm secretly a Jew?

[Frank Drackman]

What he said! I mean What you said! Yes, Ashley Babbit assaulted Michael Bird's bullets with her body!!!! She got what she deserved!!!!!!!
And calling them the Stasi's not fair.
The Stasi had some style, and there was a pretty large organization, of the North Atlantic Treaty type, dedicated to bringing them down (and succeeded)

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hay, an extreme right wing partisan telling me it’s super clear their guy is innocent.

Yes, this is what I said would happen.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They keep themselves intentionally deluded to the horrible reality.

Sarcastr0, however is different. He is a Federal himself and his goal is to gaslight and manipulate others.

[David Nieporent]

maybe not broad enough a spectrum of news sources?

Publius's sources run the gamut from Fox News to Newsmax.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, of course Democrats aren't going to complain about the FBI being political in their favor.

[Nige]

I think the Republicans turning against the FBI because they voted a shady character into high office and the FBI refused to ignore his shadiness the way they were supposed to is one of the best things to have happened in ages.

[Brett Bellmore]

The FBI has been corrupt for decades, and I'll take whatever motivation gets their headquarters burned to the ground, and the ground salted.

[Nige]

Of course they have. But you guys liked them that way because they went after left-wing groups and minorities. Now that you elected the guy behind Trump University and it turns out he’s shady as fuck, the FBI must be abolished! The old quote was about burning down every law to GET the devil, not to protect him.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot still sad after watching "Milk" for the 400th time.

[Nige]

edgebot brain wanders

[ReaderY]

saarcastr0 – no, the solution has a problem. It’s a problem analogous to the one Wilsonian progressives and their predecessors solved by for example segregating the federal government. And the Wilmington coup before that.

Government really WAS corrupt back then. There were black people in it! That was the problem. Getting rid of the corruption MEANT getting rid of the black people. That was the solution.

The problem and solution here are similar. Government is corrupt . There are Democrats in it! “Democrats” here likely means anybody who is loyal to someone or something other than Trump, whose loyalty to Trump and willingness to do him a favor when he asks can’t be counted on. Georgia’s Secretary of State, for example. Or that corrupt Democrat mole who got kicked out of the Republican Party, Liz Cheney. There has been LOTS of corruption in the federal government on that score. The FBI in particular has been notoriously corrupt.

The good-government folks here want to get rid of corruption in a manner probably similar to the way Wilson got rid of corruption in the federal government, and/or the way the good-government folks in Wilmington got rid of corruption in Wilmington back in 1898.

Once we know what corruption and good government mean here, It’s pretty easy to see how the solution will help solve the problem. The corrupt folks will tend to have a problem living in Alabama and won’t want to move there. The good-government folks are more likely to want to go.

It’s interesting here to see just how closely today’s good—government rhetoric resembles the rhetoric of the anti-corruption, pro-good-government folks of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The good-government folks in North Carolina proclaimed they were going on a crusade to rid the Wilmington city government of corruption. And talked and wrote a lot about how horrible the corruption was before they acted to get rid of it in 1898.

[Sarcastr0]

This agrees with my take so I'm biased, but I found this a good walkthrough, well told.

I would note that at the federal level, civil service reforms were needed back in the day - the story of Lincoln dealing with the snaking line of patronage-seekers upon his election remains somewhat bracing to my modern self. And then the next wave with Teddy as one of the 3 commissioners is another story more fun that it should be given the subject matter.

[Michael P]

Yeah, you're biased, and it makes you dumb.

Is Kevin Clinesmith a Democrat? Peter Strzok? Lisa Page? We were famously told that Comey and McCabe were Republicans. Are concerns over interference in the Hunter Biden investigations driven only by loyalty to Donald Trump?

I look forward to ReaderY telling us that the FBI is A-OK because J. Edgar Hoover died 50 years ago.

[Sarcastr0]

Really unbiased take here. Just laying out an airtight case of rhetorical questions going far far afield and not having anything to do with Trump's current legal troubles or the FBI as an institution.

J. Edgar Hoover?! This isn't an argument for anything, it's you assuming people can go along with wildly pointing and yelling.
I guess I feel lucky it's words forming occasional syntactic sentences.

[Michael P]

Spectacularly stupid straw-man arguments do not deserve any more than rhetorical questions.

[Frank Drackman]

You're a Federale'???? I know, you can neither confirm nor deny, and your Secretary will disavow any knowledge... (I need a Secretary like that)
Remember when FBI Agents were Attorneys and CPA's wore Suits and Wingtips? , now they're "Criminal Justice" majors and wear Windbreakers with "FBI" on the back.

Frank

[bernard11]

Good comment.

[Moderation4ever]

The assumption here is that the FBI would then be staffed by people from Alabama with their values. What I have seen, limited though it is, is that Federal Departments in other states often are filled with people from out of state. In one NC facility I noticed that all the people I met at the facility where from out of state and the locals I met where in the hospitality industry, hotels and restaurants. Would this be the same with the FBI move to AL? Those out of state people would bring their values.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"The assumption here is that the FBI would then be staffed by people from Alabama "
Nope.

The assumption is that the people from the FBI will have to interact with people from Alabama on a more regular basis. And that those people are more representative of the United States than the people in DC.

DC is the most Liberal enclave in the entire united states, with the highest median income of any state or district. Trump got just 5% of the vote there. Just 5%. That's less San Francisco (which gave Trump 12%).

Alabama on the other hand, in Madison county (where Huntsville is) gave Trump 52% (and Biden 45%) of the vote. That's far more moderate than an extreme area like DC.

The problem with extreme areas, is there can often be echo chamber effects that rub off, that put organizations into an biased situation they may not even be aware of.

[Frank Drackman]

There's even the perfect town for an Alabama FBI HQ

http://www.hooveral.org/

[Longtobefree]

My first preference is to fire FBI officials, starting at the top and working down, until they are a size to fit into the existing building.

[Reallynotbob]

How would moving the FBI to Alabama, of all places, depoliticize it?

Can you think of any American constituencies that might see such a move as highly politicizing?

[David Nieporent]

Obviously, because Alabama is filled with Real Americans™ with Real American Values™, unlike coastal places where most Americans actually live.

[Moderation4ever]

Isn't Alabama a coastal place? I mean the Gulf of Mexico is filled with water.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"How would moving the FBI to Alabama, of all places, depoliticize it?"

The problem is specifically with the FBI headquarters. And the problem lies in the echo chamber effects from the FBI headquarters being in DC.

DC is an extreme outlier politically. Only 5% of the population voted for Trump in a 2 party election. That is very extreme. And it leads to echo-chamber like effects with bias forming that people aren't even aware of. Because "everyone else says the same thing".

Huntsville Alabama is moderate. It had 52% of the population vote for Trump. People there know people of both political parties. That has the effect of reducing the unconscious bias that can form, if one exists in a mono-culture.

[Randal]

How about Montgomery?

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man!!!! talk about Cruel & Unusual Punishment!!!

[Kazinski]

Yeah not a bad idea, Trump tried it with several departments, they dragged their feet and outlasted him. But by all means forbid them from building a new headquarters.

The 10% budget cut will be forever though, so they should keep doing that every budget until the FBI gets the message.

[Nige]

Defund the police!

[Armchair Lawyer]

They can just write it into law. If necessary, they can take the extreme measure of defining FBI buildings, and outlawing them within the District of Columbia, and within 20 miles of it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Smart, educated people do not want to live in Alabama.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How can you be convicted of having raped someone 30 years ago when the purported victim can't even specify what day it happened on?!?

"Me Too has become as bad as "Tailgunner Joe"....

[Moderation4ever]

The answer to that is simple, you hand the plaintiff the case on a platter. How to do that? Don't show up at the trial and send the message to the jury you don't care. Shoot off your mouth on the case, rather than get your lawyers advice on what to say. In your deposition say that you are a star and that stars can get away with sexual abuse.

This is a law blog and I would ask the lawyers reading this would you advise your clients to act this way in a case?

[Bored Lawyer]

Clients don't always listen to their lawyers' advice. Donald Trump notoriously so.

[Frank Drackman]

If I ever get raped don't think the first thing on my mind is what day it happened on, it'd be planning revenge (I sort of like what Mason Verger had in store for Dr. Lecter in "Hannibal")

Frank

[Longtobefree]

Well, 'ol Joe did in fact find communists - - - - - - - -

[Reallynotbob]

You should ask the jury that decided he was liable. Judge Kaplan.

P.S. he was not "convicted" of anything because it was not a criminal case.

PPS. What date did you take the SAT? Are you sure you really took it?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's lawyers are asking Judge Loose Cannon to schedule the Florida trial after next year's presidential election. According to the New York Times:

There was a final squabble over whether Mr. Trump could have a fair jury seated to hear his trial while he was running for office.

Mr. Kise noted that the publicity surrounding the case was inherently prejudicial to Mr. Trump and that the trial should be delayed until after the election when, as he put it, “the threat abates.”

That "abatement" theory makes no sense. Trump's criminal conduct is certain to be a major topic of discussion in the presidential election campaign. If it has any effect at all, it is more likely to exacerbate any difficulty seating impartial jurors.

Qualified jurors need not be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved.

"To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court."

Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799-800 (1975), quoting Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 (1961).

It is important to distinguish between mere familiarity with the accused or his past and an actual predisposition against him as to guilt or the absence of guilt. "To ignore these real differences in the potential for prejudice would not advance the cause of fundamental fairness, but only make impossible the timely prosecution of persons who are well known in the community, whether they be notorious or merely prominent." Murphy, at 800 n.4.

[Moderation4ever]

What amazed me reading about Judge Cannon's remarks is that she seems to be willing to drop this case right down in the middle of the election. Telling the prosecution December is too early but balking at delaying past the election.

[Bored Lawyer]

I predict she will do what many judges do: split the baby. Which will be even worse for The Donald.

[not guilty]

We don't have a ruling yet on the government's motion to continue. I expect an order will be entered today or tomorrow. If not, all pretrial motions are due by Monday, July 24. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.28.0_1.pdf

[John F. Carr]

Trump's lawyers say they can't file pretrial motions until they have reviewed discovery material.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Trump and his lawyers will say anything to try and delay the trial in hopes that he wins the Presidency and can take illegal actions which will make Nixon look like a Boy Scout.

If they were so concerned about the timeline, perhaps they should've applied for their preliminary security clearances when told to do so a month ago.

Any other judge would see right through this.

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought one of the reasons for Smith's request to delay the trial to Dec. 11 was because of the time required to approve security clearances for Trump's lawyers.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When the government does something it's for pure and good reasons.

When Trump does something, or anyone not a Democrat, it's for evil and vile reasons.

Get on board.

[SRG]

In BCD's view "Trump non potest peccare".

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Partially true. The interim clearance decision should be made within 48 hours of Trump and Nauta’s lawyers submitting the proper forms, which would enable them to view the vast majority of the classified documents relevant to this case.

The lawyers were told a month ago to submit those forms, and two of them failed to do so until very recently (within the last week or so).

The Government is not the party requesting an indefinite delay, and the Government is not the party dragging their heels in hopes that Trump escapes accountability.

Think, Bumble.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...which would enable them to view the vast majority of the classified documents relevant to this case."

Define "vast majority".
Do you think it is proper to go to trail without all of the information the government is required to disclose and without sufficient time to analyze it?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Perhaps you should read the motions instead of asking stupid questions that can be answered by the primary evidence you're unwilling to read.

That might mean you can't ask questions, and that's a consequence I'm willing to risk.

[OtisAH]

That was the reason.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, that was not "the" reason. It was one of multiple reasons.

Check your facts.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/34/united-states-v-trump/

[Mr. Bumble]

It was the only substantive reason.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

CIPA processes and ensuring Trump can get a fair trial by reviewing the evidence against him doesn’t seem substantive to you?

For the second time, THINK. Though I feel like I might as well be asking a horse to compose a Shakespearean play.

[Mr. Bumble]

“CIPA processes and ensuring Trump can get a fair trial by reviewing the evidence against him doesn’t seem substantive to you?” Which is dependent on getting the required security clearances.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The security clearance process would be done in 45-60 days. That does not get you to December. CIPA adds its own delays outside of security clearances.

It also does not explain why some of Trump's lawyers were slow-walking the process of obtaining the clearance they require.

It further does not explain why Trump's lawyers think the trial should be delayed until more than a year from now.

What does explain those delays? Trump's well-documented behavior of trying to delay any court proceeding against him as long as possible for frivolous reasons, and his belief that he can be elected a second time and commit his own Saturday Night Massacre and abuse his authority as President for a second term.

[not guilty]

Counsel for the government has estimated the case will take 21 days for the parties to try. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.3.0_12.pdf p. 45. That may be problematic for beginning the trial on December 11 as the prosecution is requesting, in that it may be a hardship for jurors to sit during the Christmas and New Year holidays.

This seems to be a case where a sequestered jury would be appropriate.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You'd think the court could afford a better scanner. Yikes.

[Reallynotbob]

Because they make all those profits?

[bernard11]

It may be that all they need is a bit of isopropyl alcohol to clean the thing.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How expensive do you think a scanner is these days?

[Mr. Bumble]

Summer interns doing the scan?

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like a case that the trial at least be delayed until after the new year not withstanding any other arguments.

I'd be inclined to agree that the jury should be sequestered.

[Kazinski]

Having a trial in the middle of the campaign would likely help Trump. Partisan feelings will run higher even with people who have real lives unlike us. No matter what evidence they turn out to have a few people will dig in their heels and force a mistrial, but the same dynamic will mean he can't get acquitted too.

But I can see one argument the defense could certainly make: if Trump gets reelected, is there anything he is being charged for here that wouldn't be perfectly legal after he is reelected? Especially if he's leading in the polls during the trial.

[bernard11]

I can see one argument the defense could certainly make: if Trump gets reelected, is there anything he is being charged for here that wouldn’t be perfectly legal after he is reelected?

That doesn't sound like much of a defense. Suppose I issue a pardon of some criminal. Illegal? Of course. But it would be perfectly legal if I get elected President.

[Don Nico]

Certainly, the charges related to documents are not erased by Trump being elected.

Also, I don't see any reason why discovery requires anyone without XX access reading the documents. All that needs to be seen is the covers on the documents. The judge or any number of third parties can testify that the markings on every page are the same as the cover. That is all that is necessary to confirm that these documents were not legally in the possession of Trump. Hence the clearance issue is only serving to delay this case needlessly

The question of whether any documents were misclassified is a red-herring.

[not guilty]

If I were a Republican primary voter, I would want to know whether Trump will be convicted or acquitted before casting my vote. If I were a delegate to the Republican National Convention, I would want to know prior to selecting a nominee. A trial beginning on January 2, 2024 would work nicely.

[Nige]

More likely he’d lose but claim he’d won and try for Jan 6th 2 election boogaloo.

[SimonP]

Having a trial in the middle of the campaign would likely help Trump.

Are you delusional? Ah, why am I asking.

Try not to think of this through a partisan lens. Think of it through a political strategist's lens. Trump doesn't need partisans to be incensed to get the nomination. But what he does need are swing voters and independents to feel good enough about him that they're going to come out and vote for him to be President.

A series of trials during the campaign, and news stories about those trials, is not a way to inspire much confidence. Trump lost in 2020 because voters were tired of his chaos, of Trump News eating up all the oxygen in the room. If he's on trial, it'll just underline the chaos, while simultaneously crowding out any coverage that he might have earned from one of his campaign rallies.

I can assure you that no one in Team Trump is eager to spend the next year and a half trying to spin a constant drumbeat of court developments and judicial orders. They've already got DeSantis beat. Youngkin will stay out if he knows what's best for him. If the economy doesn't crater, Trump is going to have a hell of a time getting people to focus on Biden's age, if there's a front page story every couple of weeks reminding people of why they didn't vote for Trump the last time.

[not guilty]

The trial has now been set to begin during the two-week trial period commencing on May 20, 2024. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.83.0_1.pdf

The Republican National Convention begins on July 15, 2024. If the current trial schedule holds, there should be a verdict by then. In the event of a guilty verdict, sentencing may or may not have occurred by then.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Capt Obvious.

[Mr. Bumble]

First up if nothing else happens:
Aug. 9, 2023: Deadline for Trump's attorneys to oppose the government's motion for a protective order over the classified documents at issue in the case. Cannon denied a request from the Justice Department to impose a protective order earlier this week, citing a "lack of meaningful conferral," after Trump's lawyers failed to respond to the request. The DOJ will now have until July 27, 2023, to renew its motion for a protective order over the classified materials.
From the Washington Examiner, schedule set by Judge Cannon:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/donald-trump-trial-key-court-dates-classified-documents-case

[not guilty]

Pretrial motions are due to be filed by November 3, 2023 and heard on December 11, 2023.

At page 3 of the scheduling order, the Court alluded to possible "challenges to the grand jury process that led to the indictment (including questions of attorney-client privilege)". I surmise that this anticipates relitigating the prior determination by Judge Beryl Howell, who then supervised grand jury proceedings in the District of Columbia, that the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege permitted inquiry as to Donald Trump's communications with his attorney Evan Corcoran.

As an aside, the defendants' response to the government's motion for continuance (Docket Entry 66) did not reference this as a potential pretrial motion. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.66.0.pdf It is therefore troubling that Judge Loose Cannon is here signaling the defense how to litigate.

I am unclear as to how Judge Howell's ruling is not the law of the case. The law of the case doctrine "is a rule of practice under which a rule of law enunciated by a federal court not only establishes a precedent for subsequent cases under the doctrine of stare decisis, but also establishes the law which other courts owing obedience to it must, and which it itself will, normally, apply to the same issues in subsequent proceedings in the same case." Wallis v. Justice Oaks II, Ltd., 898 F.2d 1544, 1549 n.3 (11th Cir. 1990).

[ReaderY]

A key difference between presidential and congressional elections is that any say ordinary citizens may have in them is determined solely by state law. Ordinary citizens have no right to vote in a presidential election under the constitution and laws of the United States.

Does this mean that interfering with the popular vote in a presidential election does not interfere with any right or privilege of citizens secured under the constitution or laws of the United States, hence is not a 18 USC Section 241 violation?

Can Section 241 be applied to the rights and priveleges of presidential electors as distinct from ordinary citizens? The Jan 6 insurrection didn’t interfere with anything they actually did, but perhaps their right to have their vote counted is a privelege of theirs in the way it is of citizens in elections where ordinary citizens do have a right to vote. Members of Congress? Joseph Biden?

[Brett Bellmore]

Ordinary citizens have no constitutional right to vote in a Presidential election. A statutory right would suffice here, and they do have that.

[ReaderY]

Laws providing for having a popular election as the method to appoint presidential electors are state statutes, not federal statutes. 18 USC 241 requires “laws of the United States.” The defense argument I’m looking to explore here is that because these state statutes aren’t “laws of the United States,” 18 USC 241 wasn’t violated.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the flip side of ISLT: Because the Constitution assigns to state legislatures the authority to decide how electors are chosen, and the state legislature has decided that they be voted for, this becomes a federal statutory right, on account of the state law being exercise of a federal constitutional power.

[ReaderY]

1. The Supreme Court rejected ISLT. Doesn’t that imply its “flip side” was also rejected? State election laws work just like other state laws for many purposes, including that the state constitution can set limits and federal courts have to defer to state courts. Why not this purpose also?

2. It seems to me that a defense lawyer could easily argue that Due Process vagueness and the rule of lenity would also apply. Just because a state law can be connected to the constitution or laws of rhe United States under some legal theory doesn’t put a defendent on notice that a state law is a part of the U.S. Constitution or a law of the United States for purposes of 18 USC Section 241.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Some Democrat in Congress just argued on the floor that the DOJ, FBI and IC are important institutions that protect our Democracy.

That's what these people think they are doing, that's why they have no problems doing what they are doing. They think their oppression, censorship, and partisanship is in service of our Sacred Democracy.

People who are convinced they are acting with the best of intent will commit all sorts of evil without any compunction.

[Reallynotbob]

The fact that you believe the Department of Justice is not an important institution that helps to protect our Democracy, at least in most cases, is radical to the point of un-American.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well, first of all I misquoted. The actual quote was ““The DOJ, FBI, and IRS keep this democracy in check [and] provide the checks and the balances.”

Which is clearly not the role of the DOJ, FBI and IRS and pretty fucking gross to think these unelected agencies are some extra-constitutional check and balance to our governing process.

Secondly, to your comment: The objective of the DOJ is to uphold the rule of law. They do not have some separate charter to “protect democracy” as they would define it. Secondly, the mission of the FBI is to uphold the Constitution not to “protect democracy” as they would define it. Thirdly, the IRS’s mission is to administer and enforce internal revenue laws, not “protect democracy” as they would define it.

These organizations have specific responsibilities and for them to assume roles not in their legislative charters is unconstitutional and illegal.

[Randal]

Hm, you're spinning out of control.

We all agree that there are checks and balances, yeah?

One of the checks is the rule of law.

The DoJ enforces the rule of law.

Seems pretty uncontroversial to me!

In case you need another example, the legislature can check the executive through impeachment. The executive can check the legislature through prosecutions. The DoJ is the part of the executive that does the prosecutions.

There's nothing here that contemplates the DoJ "extending its charter."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Speaking of spin.

That's quite the work you did on that one.

Now do the IRS. How does the IRS check our Sacred Democracy? Any ideas?

[Randal]

The IRS is the breadwinner. Without the IRS you can't do shit, duh.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

My apologies, I forgot you were an idiot who can't read and understand English.

My bad.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Democrats believe its constitutional to export Congressional powers to the Executive Branch and then make those agencies that have been granted those powers immune to future Congresses or the Executive Branch executives.

How is that tolerable in a Constitutional Republic? How can there exist lawmaking agencies that are effectively accountable to no one?

[Reallynotbob]

Thank you for your persuasive argument against gerrymandering.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Can you show your work on how you got to gerrymandering?

And also, can you edit your comment and put an asterisk by "gerrymandering" since you support racial gerrymandering?

[Reallynotbob]

Opposing gerrymandering intended to further marginalize communities based on their race is not "racial gerrymandering."

It's like the "How can you be intolerant of intolerance?" argument.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Gerrymandering to create minority-majority districts is racial gerrymandering.

HTH

[OtisAH]

Considering that BCD loves using words he knows neither the meaning nor correct applications of I’m surprised he doesn’t use the word “irony” more often.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Thanks for making a really good contribution and moving the conversation forward!

It matches your reputation.

[OtisAH]

“Conversation” is a great example of your use of words you cannot define or use properly! Well done.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Another fantastic contribution inline with your reputation! Great work!

[Randal]

What's your other hand doing?

[Frank Drackman]

Ironic, dontcha think?

[Frank Drackman]

Don't want to be a stickler for details but with all of this "Confederacy" stuff shouldn't it be Blue States vs Gray States??
Could be a little confusing as the "Blue" States are also becoming quite "Gray"

[M L]

Remember last week how the freaking out over the Sound of Freedom movie because it called attention to child trafficking seemed so bizarre and inexplicable? Makes a little more sense now…

This Bloomberg propagandist called Sound of Freedom a QAnon dog whistle.

The person who wrote this Bloomberg opinion piece is leftist activist Noah Berlatsky @nberlat. He was the spokesperson for M.A.P. (minor-attracted person) advocacy group, Prostasia. In 2017, he tweeted that pedophiles are a stigmatized group who get designated as deviants for hateful purposes.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1680773263503368192?s=20

[Nige]

Everyone who's said anything vaguely negative about the film has been harassed and called pedophiles, because apparently people who claim to really care about child trafficking think that abusing film critics by calling them pedophiles is how you do something about child trafficking.

[M L]

Former "M.A.P." advocacy spokesperson Noah Berlatsky
@nberlat
also wrote this essay about the autonomy of child sex workers. He said that most child trafficking victims are not coerced. https://archive.is/1zW0W

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1681030997800886272

[BravoCharlieDelta]

ML, how dare you!

MAP's aren't pedophiles! They are simply Minor Attracted Persons. They didn't choose their LGBTQ identity. They were born that way. When did you choose to be heterosexual? You didn't, did you?!?

[M L]

Noah Berlatsky: My wife is bisexual and nonbinary, and my daughter is transgender. My queer family helped me better understand myself and my masculinity.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1680773980003631104/photo/1

[BravoCharlieDelta]

3 people totally born that way happened to be in the same family!

What an amazing totally born that way coincidence!

[Reallynotbob]

Definitely not genetic! /s

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, it is QANon propaganda. The lead is a QAnon guy, it's being marketed like that.

You can focus on whatever Bloomberg author you want (via Andy Ngo lololololol), that doesn't change what this movie is and what it's doing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Sound of Freedom is a QAnon-class movie aimed at QAnon-susceptible losers, with QAnon producers and a QAnon "star."

It's claimed "box office" may be substantially illusory.

It seems to make a lot of obsolete, gullible hayseeds happy, though.

[Frank Drackman]

Coach Sandusky has not seen "Sound of Freedom"
actually hasn't seen any movies except those shown at
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx

OK, guess your Commutation package with Senator Stuttering John Fetterman got put on the back burner, (Speaking of the Senator, he's been a little "Scarce" lately, guess the Ready-Kilowatt treatments did some good)
I'd suggest trying Senator Casey, who still has some functioning Synapses, but as a Graduate of Holy Cross, Catholic University, and a Jesuit, he may be too much of a "Klinger" for you.
OTOH, I hear he's a big Penn State Nittily Lion (HT B. Hussein) fan

Frank

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Great post Sarcastr0, he deserves ridicule for "trusting" an unapproved source.

CISA and a dozen or so other agencies have the responsibility to manage the nation's Cognitive Infrastructure to protect National Security and our Sacred Democracy. They really dropped the ball on this one! Angy Ngo should've been removed so he can't contribute malformation to our Cognitive Infrastructure.

But you're doing a great job policing unapproved opinions while the rest of the Federals catch up and crush any more leaks of malinformation.

[Nige]

'But you’re doing a great job policing unapproved opinions'

Such a (racist, anti-semitic) snowflake.

[Frank Drackman]

Only Nige-bot allowed to be race-ist anti-semitic.

[Nige]

edgebot sad that commenters who are racist like him are also anti-semitic.

[M L]

“I mean, it is QANon propaganda.”

Can you explain which parts of the movie are propaganda? I haven’t seen it myself, but by all accounts it doesn’t seem to contain any propaganda, just a thriller with a message about child trafficking. NPR even says the movie was filmed before QAnon existed.

It's very bizarre of you to be opposed to a regular thriller movie because it has a message that child trafficking is bad.

[Sarcastr0]

Caviezel's using it as such.

Operation Underground Railroad is flashy in a way the real work is not, but which QAnon eats up.

https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/jim-caviezel-pushes-qanon-bizarre-media-blitz-new-anti-trafficking-movie

Ballard and OUR have a history of tiptoeing around QAnon, leaving the door open just enough to provide the conspiracy with oxygen without fully embracing it. Ballard legitimized a Q-driven theory that furniture distributor Wayfair was smuggling children in its products, refusing to confirm or deny the broader conspiracy theory at the time. OUR wasn’t among the signatories of an open letter from anti-trafficking organizations disavowing QAnon, although an OUR spokesperson later wrote in a statement to The Atlantic: “O.U.R. does not condone conspiracy theories and is not affiliated with any conspiracy theory groups, like QAnon, in any way, shape, or form.”

[M L]

I'll ask again, which parts of the content of the movie are propaganda? Please be specific.

You disagree with some stuff that a Hollywood actor is saying. Ok, wow, alert the media. But does that stuff appear in the movie or not?

[Sarcastr0]

I get you want to remove the movie from context, but in the real world with the star and the press and the dramatization of the subject, the movie is QAnon propaganda.

Would you call making a movie about a real life black rapist who got lynched 100 years ago propaganda?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Only if you uncover the Jews who were covering up for one of their own who really did the rape then even founded the ADL to defend him, an organization which still exists today.

But left out the Jew part. Then that would be propaganda.

[M L]

So under your theory, any movie with an actor that says crazy stuff I disagree with outside of the movie is propaganda? Fascinating. Might be hard to find any movies that aren't propaganda.

[Nige]

So in your theory, if you reframe what the other person said about something specific to apply to other different things, then you can avoid discussing the specifics?

[bevis the lumberjack]

He can’t answer that beyond “Caviezel Bad” because he hasn’t seen it and has only a very shallow understanding of the plot. He can’t name any actual QAnon stuff that’s in the movie so he just tries to diminish you for asking. His answer is “it just is”. That’s pretty much his schtick.

Caviezel was in Person of Interest, which I think was one of the best TV shows of the last decade. A show about AI and the morality around it. Made by the same people that later did Westworld on basically the same subject. Which I also really liked. I guess he’ll be calling me a QAnon fiend as soon as he can get a post up. I’m already MAGA to him even though I’ve made it clear from the beginning that I despise Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

I commented an hour before you said I had no response. Nothing in this comment addresses my response.

You do make up what I would say, and respond to that. And misunderstand my previous posts about you using MAGA tactics.

[Nige]

'I guess he’ll be calling me a QAnon fiend as soon as he can get a post up.'

He won't which is why you have to do it for him, which tells us all we need to know about you, really. But apparently the fact that Caviezel is deeply into Qanon and plays a character based on a dodgy guy also associated with Qanon means that thinking this film shot after Pizzagate and Qanon became tthings and which being feted by Qanon is related to Qanon is somehow... unfair?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well that settles it! An approved opinion source asserts they are Q-Anon, ergo verum est.

So Sayeth the State,
So Sayeth the Flock.

(and so Policeth the Sarcastr0)

[Nige]

What are you all complaining about? Why are you embarrased for a film you have no stake in to be associated with all the Trump supporters who think their political enemies are satanic child abusers who harvest adrenochrome from trafficked children?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

NPR even says the movie was filmed before QAnon existed.

Either NPR was wrong or NPR didn't say that.

QAnon arrived to beclown right-wingers in 2017. The Sound of Freedom was filmed during 2018.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When was it written?

[Mr. Bumble]

2015!

[Nige]

Filmed in 2018. Just sayin'.

[Frank Drackman]

National Pubic Radio wrong??? Say it ain't so, Jerry!!!!!!
and I think you're just jealous Caviezel gets more ass in one afternoon than you got at Penn State in 25 years. (OK, you're making up for it now, at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx

Frank

[Nige]

‘a big example is that often shelters are required by law to inform guardians that an underage person is staying there. if the young person left home because of an abusive situation, that’s really bad.’

Hmm. Isn’t this something all you anti-child-sex-abuse people would agree with?

‘when people talk about child sex trafficking, they generally have an idea of kidnapping rings and violent coercion. but most underage people who trade sex don’t have pimps; adults in their lives have failed to provide them with food and shelter.’

This seems like something that could be verified. Has anyone bothered to verify it?

So you’re mad at him for saying kids aren’t trafficked into sex work, they go into it because they’re escaping abusive or neglectful families and it’s their only recourse due to homelessness and poverty. Now, that seems plausible to me and also as bad in its way as them being trafficked, why does it make you mad?

[Nige]

Also, I've never heard of this guy, what's the evidence he was a spokesperson for this supposed organisation or group? And while you're at it why is it that anyone who criticises this film get mobbed and harassed by people calling them pedophiles?

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot furiously trying to find his NAMBLA card.

[Nige]

edgbot embodying their whole approach to child abuse as a label for people who disagree with them with no interest in actual abuse

[Noscitur a sociis]

Also, I’ve never heard of this guy, what’s the evidence he was a spokesperson for this supposed organisation or group?

Is a statement from the group itself describing him that way authoritative enough for you?
https://prostasia.org/blog/social-media-attacks-on-prostasia/

[Nige]

That's not the group referred to, and that's a long rambling interview with no 'statement.' Give me a pull quote.

[M L]

Look at that face. Ugh.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1681030997800886272/photo/2

[Nige]

Ok, lamenting that pedophiles are a stigmatised group would do it. Assuming it's real, of course.

[OtisAH]

Funniest thing is the guy that’s based on has been catching Hell on Twitter from the Q-dopes who are his sole natural audience.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Scottland recently murdered 16,000,000 trees to make room for Green Wind Farms.

Why didn't they buy carbon offsets to offset the 16,000,000 trees and eliminate environmental harm caused by their massive Climate Change Justice Green Wind Farms?

[Randal]

They did.

[Moderation4ever]

But they did not just cut the trees down, set up windmills and walk away. They also plant about 20 times that 16M in trees in the same time period.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-19/fact-check-checkmate-scotland-trees-windfarms-14-million/101345798

[Nige]

'the 14 million trees were a commercial crop that would ultimately have been felled for timber.'

Ah. Were they the cursed sitka spruce by any chance? They're a pox. They shouldn't be planting industrial forestry, they shouldn't be planting it on bogs, and they're courting bloody disaster if that's where they're putting their windfarms.

[Nige]

What sort of trees?

[Frank Drackman]

Wooden ones

[Nige]

edgebot has heard of trees

[apedad]

C'mon Frank, you're slipping. . . .

Do you know what kind of a bomb it was?

Yes, the exploding kind.

Movie?

[bernard11]

Read M4e's link to learn what a gullible fool you are.

[John F. Carr]

There is lots of speculation about what a D.C. jury would do to Trump. Michael Daly writing for the Daily Beast has some less speculative thoughts based on interviews with lawyers for January 6 defendants. https://www.thedailybeast.com/jan-6-rioters-have-bad-news-for-donald-trump-about-washington-dc-juries

“If I was Donald J. Trump, the last place on Earth I’d want to be tried other than Atlanta, Georgia, is Washington, D.C.,” Samuel Shamansky, attorney for convicted Jan. 6 rioter Dustin Thompson, told The Daily Beast. Shamansky said he based his opinion partly on pre-trial jury selection and the trial itself, but mostly on speaking with the jury after it returned a guilty verdict. The jurors made it clear that they were deeply offended by the storming of the Capitol. … More insight into what Trump would face in Washington, D.C., comes from attorney Norman Pattis, who represented Joseph Biggs, one of five Proud Boys charged with a seditious conspiracy related to Jan. 6. Pattis told The Daily Beast that more than half of the prospective jurors he interviewed sympathized with the Black Lives Matter movement. Nearly everyone had attended a protest at some time, though not one had been to a ‘Stop the Steal’ rally. “It is a terrifying panel,” he said. “It took us 12 days to pick a jury and we didn’t like what we had.” …he did suggest that the nation’s capital is hardly an ideal venue for defendants who rant about “the deep state” and pledge to “drain the swamp.”

I predict Trump will be dissauded from testifying about the deep state and the swamp.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump got a whopping 5% of the vote in D.C.. Half the time in DC you'll get a straight Democratic jury just by random chance; A couple preemptory challenges, and the prosecution can guarantee it.

[not guilty]

To suppose that jurors who are sworn to determine the case only on the evidence (or absence of evidence) will invariably let their political affiliations negate their oaths rests only on speculation and conjecture.

In a case involving a well known defendant, a trial judge should perhaps allow greater latitude than otherwise during voir dire to allow counsel to develop challenges for cause and to guide their exercise of peremptory challenges. Mere familiarity with the accused or his past, however, and having an actual predisposition against him are distinct factors. "To ignore these real differences in the potential for prejudice would not advance the cause of fundamental fairness, but only make impossible the timely prosecution of persons who are well known in the community, whether they be notorious or merely prominent." Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 800 n.4 (1975).

Qualified jurors need not be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. "To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court." Murphy, at 800, quoting Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 723 (1961).

To be sure, the length to which the trial court must go in order to select jurors who appear to be impartial is a factor relevant in evaluating those jurors' assurances of impartiality. In a community where most veniremen will admit to a disqualifying prejudice, the reliability of the others' protestations may be drawn into question, for it is then more probable that they are part of a community deeply hostile to the accused, and more likely that they may unwittingly have been influenced by it. Murphy, at 802-03. Hence the need to afford counsel latitude during voir dire.

[apedad]

". . . having an actual predisposition against him are distinct factors."

I wonder if there would be a, "Who did you vote for," question.

[David Nieporent]

That would not be deemed an appropriate voir dire question.

[Brett Bellmore]

But absolutely nothing stops them from just looking at the party registration data; DC has closed primaries, after all.

[Brett Bellmore]

In a country where making sure there are no black jurors when a black guy is tried is thought to impermissively bias the jury, why would making sure there are no Republican jurors when trying a Republican not impermissively bias the jury?

Is being a Democrat less of a proxy for political bias than being a white is a proxy for racial bias?

[Frank Drackman]

A Straight Jury in DC?? Not in Adams Morgan

[David Nieporent]

Brett does not understand voir dire: film at 11.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I would only ask one question—if you squeeze your penis between your thighs and wear lipstick does that make you a woman??

[Dr. Ed 2]

At what point will "jury of ones peers" become relevant?

[John F. Carr]

In a criminal trial there is no right to a jury of your peers. There is a right to a jury drawn from the district where the crime is legally considered to have been committed.

There is a "jury of peers" rule in the military with rank substituting for class.

[Don Nico]

Sure, Trump has no peers. Thank G_d!

[Frank Drackman]

You obviously never served in the military, or dealt with the Uninformed Crud of Military Justice, as the Jurors are required to be of the same rank or Senior to the accused. Guess you missed that during you Marine Corpse F-15 Ranger SEAL training.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male,
conservative blog
has operated for

FIVE (5)

days without publishing a vile racial slur,
and has published racial slurs on at least

TWENTY (20)

different occasions (so far) during 2023
(that’s 20 different discussions, not
20 racial slurs; many of those discussions
featured multiple vile racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the incessant, disgusting stream
of gay-bashing, misogynist, antisemitic,
Islamophobic, and immigrant-hating slurs
and other bigoted content offered daily
at this conservative blog, which is presented
by members of the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this ugly right-wing intolerance and stale conservative ignorance, here is something worthwhile.

[Randal]

Oh, you obviously haven't read through today's comments yet.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't claim to catch them all. The racial slurs launch so frequently at this conservative blog that a few are nearly certain to evade detection.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yeah, three vile racial slurs, from three different conservative fans of the Volokh Conspiracy, in this thread alone.

Prof. Volokh and his bigoted, faux libertarian followers are as predictable as they are disgusting with respect to vile racial slurs.

Carry on, bigoted and bitter clingers.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"Hunter will take care of those issues through his dad."

Says the guy who then paid Hunter and Joe $5M each to then get his issues taken care of by Hunter's Dad.

[David Nieporent]

No, says a CHS. Who has a rather confused view of the timeline of events (and the powers of a vice president).

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When did Burisma pay Joe and Hunter those $5M payments?

Before or after Shokin got fired?

[David Nieporent]

Who said that they did?

[arbitrary aardvark]

On June 30th the Indiana Supreme Court overturned an injunction of the state's abortion ban. The court found that plaintiffs were not likely to succeed in their facial challenge, while leaving the door open to as-applied challenges. The opinion cites E Volokh twice.
Article 1, Section 1 expressly protects an “inalienable” right to “life,”
which was a firmly established right long before Indiana became a state.
See generally Eugene Volokh, State Constitutional Rights of Self-Defense and
Defense of Property, 11 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 399, 401–07 (2007).
; see generally Eugene Volokh,
Medical Self-Defense, Prohibited Experimental Therapies, and Payment for
Organs, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 1813, 1825 (2007).
Thought this might interest some of you.

[David Nieporent]

LOL. We commenters routinely make fun of Josh Blackman, and wonder why he's here and what value he adds. It seems that some Conspirators feel the same way. Someone on Twitter criticized Blackman's latest contribution to the site, explaining why Amy Coney Barrett isn't good enough for him.

https://twitter.com/beau_baumann/status/1682083430471704578

To quote the friend who sent this to me, “anything short of everything is not enough for these people.”

[I construe “these people” very narrowly]

And Orin Kerr felt the need to respond. I can't post the links because Reason's software will eat it, but they're below the original tweet:

Josh Blackman speaks for just Josh Blackman, in my experience.

The original tweeter responded:

I have gotten that impression for sure. Hence the narrowing construction I’m putting on the quote.

So Orin added:

Josh's core idea, it seems to me, is that the absolute ideal of a Supreme Court nominee would be Josh Blackman.

LOL.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Roberts and Kavanaugh and ACB love stealing elections and slaughtering Muslims.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Josh Blackman speaks for the Volokh Conspiracy. Prof. Volokh has banned and censored commenters. He could certainly deal with Prof. Blackman if he wished to do so. But he does not. Instead, he invited Prof. Blackman and keeps him around.

This — Blackman, the rampant and multifaceted bigotry, the vile racial slurs, the disaffected commenters, the calls for violence, the heavy on-the-spectrum vibe — is the blog the management desires.

[SimonP]

It's an amusing comment, but I'm sure Josh would respond that he, in fact, can think of a couple "ideal" nominees, including more in the form of Alito or Ho, on the Fifth Circuit.

Josh has never struck me as that interested in a judicial appointment or even an administration stooge. I think he's far too interested in promoting himself and mouthing off on any random subject to be amenable to the relatively more disciplined approach being a judge or executive branch political hire would require.

[Kazinski]

I suppose Josh is unique in thinking that those who share his opinions are right, and those who disagree with him are wrong

[Randal]

The point, terrorist-boy, is that Eugene has given Josh a voice, but he doesn't use it to elucidate his readers on any topic other than himself.

[Bored Lawyer]

As I predicted, Judge Aileen Cannon split the baby on scheduling the Trump documents trial, and set trial for May 2024. So the primary season will be doubly entertaining.

(Did the Govt. really think this trial was going to start in December? The judge and jurors are going to give up their holidays for this circus?)

[Frank Drackman]

It certainly will be. I think RFK jr will beat Common-Law Harris.

[David Nieporent]

(Did the Govt. really think this trial was going to start in December?

I doubt it. But if the government had said May 2024, then the defense's call to delay it until after the election wouldn't have seemed so extreme. But by picking December 2023, then inviting Cannon to split the difference would result in this.

[M L]

Looks like an interesting paper:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4438666

It is originalist gospel that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause was intended, at a minimum, to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states. This Article revisits forty years of scholarship and concludes that this modern consensus is likely mistaken. Reconstructing antebellum discourse on fundamental rights reveals that the historical players assumed that every state must, as all free governments had to, guarantee and secure natural rights to their citizens. But that did not mean the states regulated these rights in the same way, nor did that dictate what the federal government’s role would be in guaranteeing and securing such rights. The record reveals that the antislavery and Republican concern, both before and after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, was equality in civil rights however defined and regulated under state law. In making this claim, this Article identifies a significant conceptual error pervasive in the literature: conflating the rights the first eight amendments secure with the first eight amendments themselves. Merely identifying the freedom of speech or the right to bear arms as a privilege or immunity of United States citizenship tells us nothing about how various constitutional provisions would guarantee and secure them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Man, that is one serious effort to dismiss the Howard speech.

“The contending sides tend to agree that Howard’s speech is evidence for incorporation; even Charles Fairman concluded that his statement “contains the strongest piece of evidence for the view that Section I was designed to incorporate the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment.” Both opponents and proponents of incorporation point out that no one responded or objected to the incorporation part of Howard’s speech. George Thomas has further observed that there was almost no commentary in the newspapers that suggested an awareness of the possibility of incorporation. He thus concludes that the “lack of a public embrace of Howard’s theory” could be for one of two reasons: either because everyone knew and accepted as obvious that the amendment would apply the Bill of Rights against the states, or because Howard’s theory was “idiosyncratic.”

Right, idiosyncratic, that’s why NOBODY contradicted him, in Congress or out. Seriously?

[M L]

Next para.

"Yet Howard’s introductory speech does not necessarily support incorporation. In fact, the scholarly consensus has almost certainly misinterpreted it. Howard’s speech was likely little commented upon because everyone already knew what Howard was saying, and what he was saying was not idiosyncratic at all. If Howard’s speech was in fact perfectly conventional, that would go a long way to explain the subsequent silence in Congress and in the press. It is widely believed that Howard described the “first eight amendments” as being among the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. But his discussion of those amendments is entirely within his discussion of Article IV. It will not surprise the reader to discover that Howard was using the first eight amendments as illustrations of what the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens were. . . ."