Monday Open Thread

Comments

[not guilty]

In last week’s scheduling order for Donald Trump’s trial in Florida, Judge Aileen Loose Cannon states at pages 3-4: “Defendants maintain that this proceeding raises various ‘novel, complex, and unique legal issues,’ citing the interplay between the Presidential Records Act and the various criminal statutes at issue; constitutional and statutory challenges to the authority of the Special Counsel to maintain this action; disputes about the classification status of subject documents; challenges to the grand jury process that led to the indictment (including questions of attorney-client privilege); requests for defense discovery; and other pre-trial motions, including possible motions to suppress and a motion to sever [ECF No. 66; see ECF No. 82].” [Emphasis added.] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.83.0_1.pdf

In fact, the Defendants’ response to the government’s motion to continue (ECF No. 66) says not one word about challenges to the grand jury process that led to the indictment. If the trial judge here is signaling to the defense as to what pretrial motions to file, that is improper.

I surmise that the reference to questions of attorney-client privilege is inviting relitigation of District of Columbia Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling that Trump’s communications with attorney Evan Corcoran are not privileged because of the crime fraud exception. In that Mr. Corcoran has already testified before the grand jury, there is no way to unring that bell before the grand jury.

[Krychek_2]

On the subject of the Trump trial, I was completely appalled by Trump's comment that it would be "dangerous" to send him to prison. This is a thinly veiled threat of violence against the rule of law, and if I were the judge I would seriously consider revoking his bail and letting him sit in jail until trial. For a criminal defendant to make those kinds of threats against the legal system is completely unacceptable.

[John F. Carr]

It is not necessarily a threat that Trump will intentionally incite violence. His supporters might do it on their own.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It’s already happened once.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm glad you're finally willing to admit that the January 6th rioters did it on their own, rather than acting on orders from Trump.

Seriously, he's right: It IS "dangerous" for one of the major parties in this country to attempt to decide the outcome of a Presidential election by jailing the candidate of the other party. Even if you don't like the guy who says it, how can you doubt that it's true? This is banana republic territory!

The only thing that's worse is that they're also going to try to deny him a spot on the ballot even if they prosecutions fail.

Democrats set cities on fire over a fraction of that. Have you not internalized yet that you can no longer count on Republicans not rioting if they're pissed off?

[Nige]

I love that one side literally tried to overthrow an election result via physical violence and conspiracy, and you're still trying to paint the other side as the danger.

'Democrats' didn't riot. People protested and rioted over state violence. You sided with the state.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 47 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"I love that one side literally tried to overthrow an election result via physical violence and conspiracy, and you’re still trying to paint the other side as the danger."

Nige - I await your condemnation of the attempted coup of the 2016 by the FBI - I appreciate your willingness to be intellectually honest and apply the same standards across the board regardless of political party

I await your condemnation of Bidens corruption

Intellectual honesty is positive trait.

[not guilty]

What "attempted coup of the 2016 by the FBI"?

Do you perhaps mean James Comey's election eve shenanigans regarding Anthony Weiner's laptop, which likely resulted in Donald Trump's election?

[Tom for equal rights]

not guilty 4 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
What “attempted coup of the 2016 by the FBI”?"

not guilty - Are you that seriously ill informed? Do woke progressives take pride in being ill informed and relishing in double standards.

[Krychek_2]

Well, the director of the FBI released a last minute letter about Hillary Clinton's emails that probably won the election for Trump, which is a funny way of trying to stage a coup for the Democrats.

[Tom for equal rights]

Krychek_2 2 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Well, the director of the FBI released a last minute letter about Hillary Clinton’s emails that probably won the election for Trump, which is a funny way of trying to stage a coup for the Democrats.

krychek2 - it was the russian hoax that the FBI perpetuated for nearly 3 years, even though they knew it was a hillary operation started in july 2016.

Again woke progressives are intentionally ill informed and intellectually dishonest

[Nige]

No, not that thing that actually effected the election, this other thing that didn't!

[Krychek_2]

Tom, assuming your version of the facts is correct, you still haven't explained why then Comey released his letter that clinched the election for Trump. Can the FBI not make up its mind whose side they're on?

[grb]

Tom for equal rights : "... russian hoax ... (gibberish)"

I’ve asked this on multiple occasions and got no coherent answer back, but let’s try again: What is the “Russia hoax” anyway?

1. The Justice Department Inspector General found the initial investigation of ties between Russia and the Trump campaign was warranted. So that’s not the R.H.

2. Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel came after Trump bragged about firing Comey to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” After that, a special counsel was inevitable; no R.H. can be found there either.

3. Mueller was actually one of the best special counsels in the whole sordid history of the species. He was quick, didn’t leak to the media, and proved excessively conservative in his findings. No R.H. can be found in his conduct.

4. And his investigation uncovered so much unsettling detail. You had Don Jr. saying (in writing) he’d welcome secret help from the Russian government for Daddy’s campaign; you had Trump’s campaign head giving secret briefings to a listed Russian spy; you had Trump’s fixer Cohen negotiating a secret business deal with Kremlin officials, you had Trump associates discussing a bribe to Putin to sweeten that deal, you had Trump lying when asked about his Russian business dealings during the campaign, you had Trump’s son-in-law asking if he could use Russia’s secure communication lines to talk to Moscow – just so his own government couldn’t hear.

On and on and on. The complete list is much longer. There was never any lack of things discovered, which makes Mueller’s brisk investigation even more remarkable. No R.H. can be seen.

5. And that includes this : Trump asked Michael Cohen to suppress a sex tape circulating around Moscow. He used Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze as a go-between, who reported back : ‘Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know … .’ Both men testified before the grand jury. For the record, everyone thinks the tape was faked by Russian criminals, but still: No R.H.

So you have a legitimate investigation conducted by legitimate appointees in a legitimate manner who uncovered scads of legitimate grounds to investigate after underway.

Where is the “Russia hoax” to be found ?!?

[Kazinski]

Well as for Comey's interference I suppose you have to give his side at least. He believed after the Lynch-Clunton tarmac meeting that there was a perception that the DOJ would not fairly handle the email investigation and charging decision. So Comey took it upon himself to make sure no facts were covered up before he cleared Hillary.

But I hardly think he did it to help Trump.

And if you remember that's the primary reason Trump gave for firing Comey, whether it was the real reason or not.

At least we can all agree Comey is a self serving sanctimonious snake.

[gVOR08]

I feel sorry for Director Wray, life long Republican and Trump appointee. He had to sit in front of a congressional committee for hours taking hostile questions from Republicans all the while having to bite his tongue to keep from saying, "The FBI has always had, and still has, a strong right wing bias. How can y'all not know that?"

[grb]

Kazinski : “…. I suppose you have to give his side at least ….”

Here’s Comey’s (real) side :

1. He examined tens of thousands of emails without finding any grounds for criminal charges. It was extremely unlikely a few thousand more would lead to a different result, particularly because no one had ever been charged for mistaking the classification status of messages before. (Please remember – using private email wasn’t even a crime)

2. And the Justice Department has a strong tradition of making no new moves on the eve of an election, but Comey did anyway. This was (a) he wanted to insulate the FBI & himself from GOP criticism, (b) his New York office was known to be leaking and he thought something would get out, and (c) he thought it wouldn’t effect the election anyway because of Clinton’s polling lead.

3. So it was a blatantly political move – CYA for the agency and its head. But Comey could cut ethical corners where another FBI leader might not because of the man’s preening smug belief in his own righteousness. I doubt the f**king clown ever passes a mirror without stopping to admire what a morally upright person his reflection is.

4. Two further points :

He put Trump in the White House, full stop.

Left and Right may have little in common, but here’s one thing we can agree on : Comey is a jackass….

[bevis the lumberjack]

Grb is either neglecting to mention or forgetting that Clinton’s fuckup precipitated the late announcement that “put Trumpin the White House”. Her people had asserted that all of the emails involved had been returned, but it turns out they lied. There were thousands of them on a computer owned by Carlos Danger. From which he was soliciting 14 year-old girls.

Coney had made statements to Congress based on the earlier assurance that he had to retract. Immediately. But the fault was Clinton’s people, not Comey.

[Tom for equal rights]

grb 17 mins ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
Kazinski : “…. I suppose you have to give his side at least ….”

Here’s Comey’s (real) side :

1. He examined tens of thousands of emails without finding any grounds for criminal charges. It was extremely unlikely a few thousand more would lead to a different result, particularly because no one had ever been charged for mistaking the classification status of messages before. (Please remember – using private email wasn’t even a crime)"

GRB - you have a delusional grasp of the law and the facts. Really using an unsecured wasnt a crime? Violating security protocols most definitely is a crime

30K missing emails not a few thousand.

Its as if you woke have to actively disregard actual facts - serious case of a left wing bubble you reside in

[Nige]

Except that the Weiner laptop had been searched by the FBI back in September.

Oh look, a politician whose career was destroyed by revelations of sexual misconduct. How quaint.

[grb]

Tom for equal rights : “GRB – you have a delusional grasp of the law and the facts”

Nope; my grasp on both is fine. You’re just ignorant. Let me try to break this down to your simple-minded level.

When you say, “Really using an unsecured wasnt a crime? Violating security protocols most definitely is a crime”, you abuse the facts as well as grammar. Yes, Clinton’s server wasn’t secure, but neither was the normal State Department email used to send the messages at issue. Because 99.9% (a true number) of the emails in question were sent to her (unsecure) server by an (unsecure) server. If it is obvious she should have been charged (as per your spittle-spraying rant) then it would have been just as “obvious” that scores more people should have been charged – as well as the late Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

But no one ever suggested they should. No one ever suggested the people who sent Clinton messages they thought were unclassified should have been charged. No one ever suggested everyone who also received these messages on their unsecure State Department email should face charges. No one has EVER faced charges when a message they thought was unclassified was later upgraded to classified status. If they did the Feds would need to build a whole bunch more prisons.

Comey’s investigation was political Kabuki theater because he knew no one not-named-Clinton had ever been charged for anything similar. Of course that makes his little show on the eve of the 2016 election even more contemptable.

I hope that reduces the issue to a degree suitable for your limited means, Tom….

[David Nieporent]

Her people had asserted that all of the emails involved had been returned, but it turns out they lied. There were thousands of them on a computer owned by Carlos Danger.

Um, no. What does it mean to "return" something that is digital in the first place?

If she said that she produced copies of everything she had, that someone else had other emails on his own computer does not show that she lied. (Also, virtually everything on Weiner's laptop was a duplicate.)

[bevis the lumberjack]

Today we know that everything was a duplicate. At the time it was discovered nobody knew that. So that fact doesn’t change Comey’s predicament.

And I didn’t say “she” lied. I said “they” lied. Her people. They asserted something to be true that wasn’t. What would you prefer to call that?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If the FBI would interfere with the 2016 election with election eve shenanigans with her national secrets crimes, why do you not believe they didnt also interfere in the 2020 election with the Hunter laptop story?

[Krychek_2]

So why would FBI interference be pro-Trump in 2016 and pro-Biden in 2020? Can't it make up its mind which party to throw the election for?

[Nige]

The FBI were behind the Hunter Biden laptop story?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well Krychek,

My belief is Comey didn't go out there to sway the election in favor of Trump, but went out there to try and solve that open issue in favor of Hillary. But since he's an idiot federal bureaucrat failure moron like they all are it backfired.

However, that aside. not_guilty asserted the FBI was trying to influence in favor of Trump. Not me.

I asserted they interfered in favor of Biden in 2020. So I don't have to defend the different perspectives like you want me too. I do not have to defend not_guilty's belief.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Nige, you ignorant boob.

“FBI admits they knew Hunter Biden’s laptop was real when they killed the story”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/fbi-admits-they-knew-hunter-biden-laptop-was-real

[Nige]

The FBI didn't kill the story. There's nothing on the laptop that could have plausibly effected the election. There are also only a handful of emails cornfirmed as belonging to Hunter Biden. The story you link to conflates FBI warnings about hack-and-leaks with a catch-and-kill.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Nige, save the gaslighting for Sarcastr0.

Your job is to bootlick.

[Nige]

BCD, summon your safewords when contradicted by reality.

[not guilty]

"If the FBI would interfere with the 2016 election with election eve shenanigans with her national secrets crimes, why do you not believe they didnt also interfere in the 2020 election with the Hunter laptop story?"

Do you recall who was in charge of the DOJ in the run up to the 2020 election? Some fellow named William Barr -- Donald Trump's choice for Attorney General.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 44 mins ago
"The FBI didn’t kill the story. There’s nothing on the laptop that could have plausibly effected the election. There are also only a handful of emails cornfirmed as belonging to Hunter Biden. The story you link to conflates FBI warnings about hack-and-leaks with a catch-and-kill."

Nige are you seriously that stupid or dishonest
Nothing on hunters laptop except evidence of the Biden family bribery - which the FBI sat on and assisted in killing the story.

[Nige]

One e-mail with the phrase 'big guy.' That's it. If that's all that's needed to convict Biden, they could have convicted Trump decades ago. That's why there were so many stories screaming about how the story was being repressed instead. That was actually considered less lame than 'big guy.'

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"Do you recall who was in charge of the DOJ in the run up to the 2020 election? Some fellow named William Barr — Donald Trump’s choice for Attorney General."

So what? The premise of your question is that the DOJ acts partisanly in the interests of the President.

Is that what you believe?

[David Nieporent]

“FBI admits they knew Hunter Biden’s laptop was real when they killed the story”

Speaking of ignorant boobs:

1) The FBI did not "kill the story."

2) Nobody fucking killed the story. It was massive news.

3) Knowing that "Hunter Biden's laptop was real" has literally nothing to do with anything. The story wasn't about Hunter Biden's laptop. The story was about files on a disk image that nobody except the New York Post had seen that purported to be from Hunter Biden's laptop.

What the FBI actually 'knew' was that a physical machine in their possession was one that had belonged to Hunter Biden.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If a federal agency is actively interfering with Presidential elections, what should be done about it?

[David Nieporent]

Really using an unsecured wasnt a crime?

Correct. Remember that none of this had anything to do with classified documents, which were not to be sent to a private server or to her official state department account either.

[Tom for equal rights]

DN - violating security protocols was and is a crime. Using an unsecured server is violating security protocols.

[not guilty]

What federal statute are you basing that on, Tom?

[Tom for equal rights]

not guilty 46 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
What federal statute are you basing that on, Tom?

Not guilty - I hope you are not being serious with that question -

1) so those documents state department employees sign at the start of employment regarding violations of security protocols are not based on statutes.

2) is trump being indicted based on statutes that dont exist

[not guilty]

Tom, when citing federal statutes it is customary to do so by number. Donald Trump is charged in Florida with having violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 793(e), 1001(a)(1), 1001(a)(2), 1512(b)(2)(A), 1512(c)(1), 1512(k) and 1519. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.3.0_12.pdf

You posited that violating security protocols was and is a crime. I asked what federal statute are you basing that on. If you don't know, man up and say so.

[Nelson]

Tom, when Not Guilty says something is a crime, he references the statute. Can you do the same thing?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Tom. What federal statute are you basing your claim on?

[Nelson]

I'm going to guess 1313 USC 8675309, which states that anyone from the center-right to the hard left may be accused of criminal behavior without any other crime necessary.

Jenny says it's legit.

[Nige]

I await your condemnation of the invasion of the planet Earth by Vrxxt warriors from Dimension Z, but I expect the lamestream media hasn't even bothered to tell you about it.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige - intellectual honesty is not your forte

[Nige]

You wouldn’t know intellectual honesty if a Vrxxt warrior from Dimension X shot you with it.

[Krychek_2]

Intellectual honesty in the mouth of Tom for Equal Rights is like love in the mouth of a common streetwalker.

[David Nieporent]

You wouldn’t know intellectual honesty if a Vrxxt warrior from Dimension X shot you with it.

Wait, are they from Dimension Z or Dimension X? Who are you covering for with your ever-shifting stories?

[Nige]

Dimension Twitter

[Krychek_2]

Brett, Donald Trump just made a thinly veiled suggestion to his supporters that they should upset the rule of law by violence, and all you can think to do is what about?

Suppose Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton were publicly hanged, and the Justice Department declared the Democratic Party to be a criminal enterprise and shut it down (all of which would make some here very happy). Six months later, when Donald Trump did yet another despicable thing and got called out on it, you'd *still* find something to what about. Because for you, it's not about fairness and treating both sides the same. No, it's about immunizing Trump and the Republicans from any responsibility for their actions.

Nobody buys your silly and irrelevant what abouting except Trump partisans, and even a few of them are starting to come around.

[Commenter_XY]

It IS “dangerous” for one of the major parties in this country to attempt to decide the outcome of a Presidential election by jailing the candidate of the other party.

K2, can you respond to this part of what Brett wrote...it is or it is not, dangerous for one of the major parties to attempt to decide the outcome of an election by jailing the leading candidate of the other major party.

[Krychek_2]

It would certainly be dangerous if that's what were happening. In point of fact, Trump did steal and mishandle classified documents, and that really is a crime. It's not like Santa Claus came down the chimney at Mara Laga and stuck the documents in Christmas stockings; Trump really did steal them and mishandle them. He even bragged out it on tape. What is outrageous about prosecuting someone who committed a crime? Should he get a free pass because he's Donald Trump?

And on the politics of it, the Justice Department is actually doing the GOP a favor except the GOP primary voters are too stupid to realize it. The GOP's chances of beating Biden next year go up dramatically if their candidate is someone other than Donald Trump. The 30% of the country that's his base loves him; every else pretty much wishes he would just go away. Far from deciding the outcome of an election by jailing a candidate, this gives the GOP the chance to nominate someone who might actually win.

[Nige]

It's dangerous to try to re-elect somone who refuses to accept the outcome of the previous election and whose supporters tried to overthrow the government and install him. It's dangerous to declare one person as above the law because he's running for polticial office.

[not guilty]

The style of the case is not Democratic Party v. Donald Trump; it is United States of America v. Donald Trump. When Trump announced his candidacy for another term as president, the Attorney General appointed a Special Counsel in order to insulate the investigation and potential prosecution of Trump from political interference. Jack Smith is a career prosecutor who during his tenure as chief of the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section sought to convict Democrats and Republicans alike.

The charging decision was made by a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida. Is there any reason to believe that the grand jurors were seeking to influence an election? I think not.

[Josh R]

I have sympathy for the argument that the standard for jailing the leading candidate for president of a major party should be higher than jailing an ordinary citizen. And on that basis, I am no fan of the hush money prosecution and am unsure about the classified documents prosecution. However, trying to steal an election easily meets the higher standard.

A question for you Commenter_XY: as a Senator, would you have voted to convict Trump for trying to steal the election and made him ineligible to run for office? I sure as hell would have.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with "trying to steal the election" is that most of what's described that way is BS. Like pretending that it's dead obvious that when Trump asked Raffensperger for a chance to look for votes, he was really,, wink wink, nudge nudge, asking Raffensperger to manufacture fake votes. Putting "find" in sneer quotes proves it!

Trump was definitely in throwing shit up against the wall mode, to be sure, and just didn't know when to stop contesting the election. But the case for him being out to steal the election depends on a lot of assumptions that have their root in really not liking Trump to begin with.

[Nige]

He was hoping the court cases would go all the way to the Supreme Court and they would throw it to him. Trump wanted to steal the election. He wasn't shy about it, either. He still hasn't accepted the results.

[Josh R]

Trump lost. He tried to steal the election whether or not he believed he lost. Perhaps mens rea is required for a conviction, but that doesn’t impact the conclusion his attempt to steal should disqualify him for office.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hoping you'll prevail in the Supreme court ≠ stealing the election. You might as well admit that Gore was trying to steal the election in 2000, based on this line of reasoning.

[Josh R]

Trump did more than hope he would prevail at the Supreme Court. Without any basis in fact that he won, he pressured state officials, endorsed fake electors, pressured the justice department and pressured Pence all to change the outcome. That’s an attempt to steal the election.

[Nige]

Of course it does if you're lying about the election being stolen.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, Brett thinks that there's subtext everywhere except when Donald Trump openly says something, and then we must read the words in the most strained way possible so as not to find their overt meaning.

It's dead obvious to every single person with a brain that Trump was openly asking — not wink wink nudge nudge hinting — to find votes, by hook or by crook. He had been expressly told by Georgia officials that all of his ideas — dead people voting, people voting after leaving the state, etc. — were all false. And then he still insisted that they find the votes to make him the winner.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “….when Trump asked Raffensperger for a chance to look for votes, he was really,, wink wink, nudge nudge, asking Raffensperger to manufacture fake votes”

No one is more obtuse than Brett in his Sergeant Schultz-mode. Some points:

1. Trump asked for a specific number of votes. That’s as nudge-nudge wink-wink as you can possibly get.

2. Trump asked Raffensperger to find those phantom votes without any theory why they “exist” consistent and coherent from one moment to the next. If Brett Bellmore says I owe him $100 because of a signed IOU, that’s one thing. If he says I owe $100 because of the lost city of Atlantis one minute, secret doings of the Illuminati the next, and space aliens a moment later, maybe Brett’s a huckster conman.

3. Trump’s Georgia shakedown occurred the same time he was discussing a proposed DOJ letter to states asking they postpone vote certification because of a DOJ “investigation” that didn’t exist. It occurred the same time Trump was pressuring other states like Arizona to change their vote counts. It occurred the same time he was asking Pence to delay final certification without constitutional basis. It occurred the same time he was urging states to appoint phony electors.

And all the while, Trump kept up a steady stream of bullshit, repeating one easily disproved factoid one day and an entirely different one the next. Dominion Voting Systems, the Italians, the Venezuelans, suitcases hidden under a table, phony stat analysis, etc. One of his fraud anecdotes could be disproved a dozen times over and Trump would still repeat it every third day.

Why? Because he didn’t give the slightest shit that it was a lie. It was just background noise as he asked for nonexistent votes and demanded the vote count process stop until he could engineer an election theft.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, the most honest answer is: No, not with the evidence that was actually presented during the impeachment trial.

[Josh R]

You don't believe Trump tried to steal the election? I hope you are kidding.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, I would use the phrase 'contest the electoral result' as opposed to 'steal an election' wrt POTUS Trump.

[Josh R]

Is pressuring state officials to change the result without any evidence in support of the claim he won "contesting the election"? How about pressuring the justice department to declare there was fraud? Or, supporting fake electors? Or, pressuring Pence to ignore the electoral college votes? Or, bleating on endlessly about how he won and calling for protests on Jan6 - and when those protests turned violent, sitting back and doing nothing?

[bernard11]

XY,

You are asking a wildly hypothetical question. I know that's what Brett thinks is going on. Do you think so too?

Why don't you respond to this:

Is it or is it not appropriate for the Justice Department to investigate possibly criminal activities aimed at overthrowing the legitimate results of a Presidential election?

Is it or is it not appropriate for the Justice Department to investigate the withholding of possibly sensitive documents, which Trump had no right to, despite numerous requests to turn them over, and a subpoena?

This fucking "Trump is being persecuted" BS is idiocy. It's what I expect from delusional cultists like Brett. Are you in that category?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Is it or is it not appropriate for the Justice Department to investigate the withholding of possibly sensitive documents, which Trump had no right to, despite numerous requests to turn them over, and a subpoena?"

Which he was only in a position to contest whether he actually had to hand them over, because they'd demanded them in the first place. Remember that both Pence and Biden turned out to be in possession of classified documents, too, and neither had any claim to have been able to have declassified them. I wouldn't be shocked if you'd find Obama still had classified documents, too, if anybody bothered looking. It seems to have been a common crime.

I will frankly say that Trump was a damn fool for not having figured out that he had to be cleaner than Ceasar's wife, because they WERE out to get him, had been for several years, and that he was NOT going to be permitted to get away with violating laws just because other people were routinely permitted to.

[Sarcastr0]

You really are immune from correction.

Trump had a level of intent, and active obstruction, that no one else did. He even freaking said 'hey this is secret and I shouldn't have it.'

How are you still trying to push this 'everybody does it' nonsense? Really an impressively selective memory.

[Nige]

'for not having figured out that he had to be cleaner than Ceasar’s wife'

He probably figured that his supporters would refuse to believe him capable of wrong-doing and be willing to ruin their lives on his behalf, up to and including violent insurrection.

[not guilty]

Brett, Donald Trump is charged in Florida with having violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 793(e), 1001(a)(1), 1001(a)(2), 1512(b)(2)(A), 1512(c)(1), 1512(k) and 1519. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.3.0_12.pdf

Do you claim that Mike Pence, Joe Biden or Barack Obama has violated any of these statutes? If so, which one(s), and based on what facts?

I have asked you this on previous threads, and you have run away like Usain Bolt.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Brett. Do you claim that Mike Pence, Joe Biden or Barack Obama has violated any of the statutes that Donald Trump is accused of violating?

[bernard11]

Which he was only in a position to contest whether he actually had to hand them over, because they’d demanded them in the first place.

WTF?

He didn't "contest" the subpoena. He ignored it, as he ignored earlier requests to turn over the documents. You contest a subpoena by challenging it in court, not by disregarding it.

Your approach is plain.

1. Trump did nothing wrong.
2. If he did, it was something lots of people, especially Democrats, also did and were allowed to get away with.

No fact is able to shake those convictions.

(I invite correction on this point from any of the lawyers here.)

[Tom for equal rights]

Krychek_2 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"Suppose Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton were publicly hanged, and the Justice Department declared the Democratic Party to be a criminal enterprise and shut it down (all of which would make some here very happy). "

Krychek2 - Its not like neither were involved in bribery, pay for play and other violations of criminal statutes. Are you going to pretend that their malfeasance never happened?

[Krychek_2]

I'm not going to pretend that there aren't crooks in the Democratic party, but neither am I going to pretend that their existence is relevant to the fact that a former president stole and mishandled classified documents. Is it your position that because some Democrats have misbehaved in previous years, that Trump can therefore never be held to account for anything? Because that was the central point of my earlier post; this is not about equal weights and measures; it's about trying to immunize Trump no matter how badly he acts.

[Tom for equal rights]

Hillary mishandled vastly more classified docs than Trump with her unsecured server. Vastly more damaging - ignoring the lessons of the purple code, magic code jn6 codes, etc

[Nige]

The only classified documents on her server were some e-mails that were classified after they'd been sent.

[Krychek_2]

Assuming that to be true -- and I doubt that it is -- next time you get a speeding ticket, try telling the nice judge that other people were speeding too, and let us know how well that goes for you. Trump's conduct is indefensible, so all you've got is what aboutism.

[grb]

Nige : "The only classified documents on her server were some e-mails that were classified after they’d been sent"

But that's only a small part of Tom's clownishness. Because the emails (later upgraded to classified) were sent to Clinton by normal unsecure State Department email - a system that has been compromised before. Indeed, Colin Powell had messages later upgraded to classified sent on AOL - an email system that has been hacked. Condoleezza Rice had messages later upgraded to classified sent on private systems than have historically been hacked. Clinton's system is the only one where there's no evidence of being compromised.

One things for sure : Her email wasn't hacked by the Russians. Because if they had, they would have leaked the result for their boy Trump.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Their boy Trump”

Man, nothing known to man will stop a True Believer from Believing.

By the criteria you’re using to designate Trump as their boy, you could also speculate that they would have leaked it to their boy Bernie. But that would be non-partisan, which isn’t in your skill set.

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : “Their boy Trump”

Here's an interesting fact from Mueller's report: The Russians hacked the email of Clinton friend John Podesta and stole hundreds of messages. They then sat on their trove for over five months. So when did they finally begin using what they had?

Mueller determined the first batch was leaked less than one hour after the Access Hollywood story broke, rocking Trump's campaign back on its heels. Less than one hour. Their boy was in trouble. He needed help. They rushed to do what they could.

There is zero - repeat zero - question that the Russians sought Donald Trump in the White House. Even a Trumpian lickspittle like yourself only has to read the findings of Republican-led Senate intelligence committee:

"The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and that other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers."

https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-elections-politics-campaigns-5e833a62e9492f6a66624b7920cc846a

[David Nieporent]

The only classified documents on her server were some e-mails that were classified after they’d been sent.

And sent to her, not by her!

[jb]

First of all, this is flat out incorrect by the even the most expansive definition of "classified material" as to what was on the server. The FBI found a total of 110 e-mails that contained any sort of classified information, in 52 e-mail threads. So let's use 110 as the highest possible count of "classified material". At the time of the FBI raid on Mar al Lago, Trump had 103 documents with classified markings. 110 is definitely not "vastly more" than 103, so your statement is dumb and obviously incorrect even being as generous as possible to you about the counts.

Of course, of the 110 e-mails, only 3 contained information that was actually marked as classified. All three were classified as "confidential" whereas Trump had 18 documents marked as Top Secret alone, including several marked as SCI.
2) Those three documents marked as confidential were almost certainly inadvertently marked as such, since they were all talking points intended to be shared with foreign leaders.

So in reality Trump had vastly more material that he knew to be classified than Hilary did, not the other way around, and the sensitivity of it was significantly higher as well.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It’s the same concept as speeding. It’s the same concept as crossing the border illegally. It doesn’t matter what did or didn’t happen to someone else that did it. If you do it you create the risk of getting caught and bearing the consequence of what you did.

Trump has no one to blame but himself. He rolled the dice, he lost, tough shit.

I have no love for Hillary Clinton. She should have been prosecuted too. But the people who decided to do that worked for Trump, so…..

[bevis the lumberjack]

Oh, my. Politicians making statements suggesting violence to their supporters. Just gives me the vapors every time it happens.

Just like when politicians said that the George Floyd riots were understandable statements of anger. Right?

Your outrage can pretty damn selective sometimes.

[Krychek_2]

Mine isn't. I would happily have prosecuted anyone, regardless of party, and regardless of their political office, who contributed to the BLM riots.

Assuming you can find a Democrat who said something comparable to what Trump said on January 6 and who was not prosecuted, that still would not exonerate Trump.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I agree. If they put Trump away I just pray it’s somewhere from which he can’t get to a microphone or a camera.

From what I saw this morning it’s a bit of a stretch to say Trump was threatening or inciting violence. That said, it would be nice if all of our public figures would notice the instability that exists out there in the fringes and dial the rhetoric back a bit. But they won’t because being provocative gives them the strongest feedback buzz.

[Brett Bellmore]

" If they put Trump away I just pray it’s somewhere from which he can’t get to a microphone or a camera."

Well, that's stupid. "They not only threw the opposition leader in prison, nobody is allowed to talk to him." is NOT a better situation than, "They threw the opposition leader in prison." It's about ten times worse.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You know what Brett? If the opposition leader doesn’t want to go to prison then the opposition leader should avoid doing crimes.

[Nige]

It's almost as if you're forced to make a judgement as to whether there a substantive or notable difference between inflammatory and deliberately deceptive rhetoric before a riot aimed at overturnoing an election, and sympthising with people angry over yet another example of brutal and unnecessary police violence resulted in disturbances and riots. If you genuinely see no difference between the two, well, that's a cop-out, and as much a politicial position as supporting either of them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, of course there's a difference; The latter resulted in enormously more property damage, and many times the lost lives.

That IS what you meant, right?

[Nige]

Well the anger was genuine, not fake.

[Mr. Bumble]

Always outdoing stupid.

[Nige]

Some people fought against police violence, some people fought for Trump to be president even though he lost the election.

[Drewski]

Glad you're finally willing to admit that Jan 6th was a violent coup attempt.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"It’s already happened once."

No, Captcrisis, the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was violence, Sept 11th was violence, Jan 6th was a rowdy frat party, exacerbated by an unknown number of Federal agencies behaving badly. Had there been violent intent, the building would not be still standing.

Blue states have cities to burn, red states have infrastructure to destroy or disrupt -- look at what the Canadian truckers almost accomplished, in the middle of a Canadian winter.

Imagine an attempt to starve out DC. Much like during the Civil War, the city is only accessible from the north or south, and maybe has seven days worth of food. A wildcat truckers strike, enforced with threats of violence, would hurt. "No Justice, No Food" has such a nice ring....

[John F. Carr]

Many in the January 6 crowd thought they wouldn't get into serious trouble if they didn't use guns. What's the lesson for next time? Less violence, or more?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Uh…..don’t riot?

If they seriously thought they could loot the capitol building and not get in trouble if they didn’t use guns they’re stupid beyond description.

[Dr. Ed 2]

EXACTLY!

And if you went into Mexico with a fistfull of cash, imagine the ordinance you could buy...

[Nige]

'look at what the Canadian truckers almost accomplished'

Unprecedented levels of air and noise pollution?

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot thinks consumer products delivered by Elves

[Nige]

edgebot thinks we're talking about deliveries

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bildge thinks there i some magic supermarket fairy that restocks supermarkets in the middle of the night. All it would take would be a 25% reduction of trucks crossing the DC beltway and with panic buying, you'd have major shortages.

No Justice, No Food...

[Nige]

Dr Ed thinks this is Dr Ed thinking.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, Ashlee Babbitt assaulted Officer Bird's bullets. How many cops were shot?

[Nelson]

Ashli Babbitt got what she asked for. Pretending she was anything other than a criminal who got shot trying to breach a defended location is pure fantasy.

[hoppy025]

No, you moron, he was saying it was setting a dangerous precedent. I can't wait until the civil war starts simply so people like you can choke on Zyklon B.

[Frank Drackman]

Was there a "Zyklon A"???

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, there was a "Zyklon A" -- or just "Zyklon" -- it was used by the Germans during WW-1 and banned after the war. Zyklon B was its replacement and was widely used as a pesticide, for fumigating large areas such as ships, warehouses, and trains, and delousing clothes.

Worst part: the man who invented it was Jewish...

[bernard11]

Worst part: the man who invented it was Jewish…

Why was that the "worst part?"

Haber was a chemistry genius, whose work on fertilizer arguably saved millions of lives.

That the Nazis used Zyklon B to kill millions was not Haber's fault.

[Nelson]

So a horrifying irony.

[Frank Drackman]

Just pretend he's Black and saying "No Justice No Piece!!"

[Michael Ejercito]

Revoking his bail based on that statement would be even more dangerous.

[not guilty]

I don't think Trump's bail should be revoked based on his bloviating. Perhaps more stringent conditions of release, limiting what he can say in order to protect public safety, may be appropriate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, instead let's reinforce the public perception that Democrats are the party of censorship.

[not guilty]

Where do you get the idea that Aileen Loose Cannon is a Democrat, Brett? She is the one who would impose conditions of release.

[not guilty]

Andrew Weissman has stated that trial courts in the District of Columbia, where Trump is likely to be charged in regard to his 2020 election shenanigans, have a standing order regarding free press/fair trial guidelines limiting what a defendant can say which could taint the jury pool. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gygtry5gOKs

Trump's rhetoric suggesting that it may be dangerous if he is sent to jail because of how his supporters may react would certainly have the potential to affect prospective jurors -- a juror concerned for his/her safety in the event of a verdict of conviction is less likely to decide the case based solely on the evidence or absence of evidence adduced in court. That undercurrent could make it more difficult to seat a fair and impartial jury.

If Trump is subject to restrictions in D.C. as conditions of his release, that would necessarily limit what he can say regarding the Florida prosecution as well.

I hope we will find out sooner rather than later.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"I surmise that the reference to questions of attorney-client privilege is inviting relitigation of District of Columbia Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling that Trump’s communications with attorney Evan Corcoran are not privileged because of the crime fraud exception."

Why should the District of Florida be bound by a ruling of another district, not even in the same circuit?

"In that Mr. Corcoran has already testified before the grand jury, there is no way to unring that bell before the grand jury."

Sure there is -- toss the whole case with prejudice.

[John F. Carr]

"Why should the District of Florida be bound by a ruling of another district, not even in the same circuit?"

If the issue has been previously litigated between the same parties then the later court can be bound by the first court's ruling. We have a new party here, Trump, so that probably doesn't apply.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump -- the holder of the privilege -- was a party in interest who could have intervened seeking to quash the subpoena to Evan Corcoran pursuant to Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918). Had he intervened, he could have immediately appealed the District Court's ruling to the Court of Appeals. See, In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings, 975 F.2d 1488, 1492 (11th Cir. 1992).

[not guilty]

“Sure there is — toss the whole case with prejudice.”

Do you have any authority for that proposition, Dr. Ed 2? Because the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled to the contrary.

“[O]nce the grand jury has received evidence that the putative defendant contends was illegally obtained, or has heard testimony that the putative defendant contends was protected by privilege, the dismissal of the ensuing indictment is not an appropriate remedy.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 142 F.3d 1416, 1428 (11th Cir. 1998).

The appropriate remedy is a post-indictment motion in limine to suppress the use of the evidence or testimony at trial. Ibid. That would entail Trump asserting privilege and litigating whether the crime-fraud exception to the privilege applies, subjecting the witnesses to the crucible of cross-examination.

Pass the popcorn.

[gVOR08]

You commented that Judge Cannon seems to be coaching Trump's lawyers in her scheduling ruling by referencing possible grounds for challenge they had not raised. Look at all the replies, counter-replies, counter-counter-... you got. Not one of which addresses your cogent legal point. That's the VC legal blog for you.

[not guilty]

The docket is available here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/ The Defendants' response to the government's motion to continue is ECF No. 66.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Approximately 95% of the "pro-Trump" idiots around here don't read primary sources at all.

It doesn't matter whether you link them, or quote them directly. Facts contrary to their beliefs just don't trigger the chemical reactions necessary to move along the optical nerve.

[David Nieporent]

Approximately 95% of the “pro-Trump” idiots around here don’t read primary sources at all.

FIFY.

[TwelveInchPianist]

In fact, the Defendants’ response to the government’s motion to continue (ECF No. 66) says not one word about challenges to the grand jury process that led to the indictment.

"Therefore, a measured consideration and timeline that allows for a careful and complete review of the procedures that led to this indictment and the unprecedented legal issues presented herein best serves the interests of the Defendants and the public. "

[not guilty]

That says nothing at all about challenges to the grand jury process that led to the indictment, let alone questions of attorney-client privilege. Judge Loose Cannon is bringing that up on her own.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Before 2019, the deadline to file the needed paperwork as an independent candidate in New York was in August. Then the state legislature moved it to May. It looks like the Second Circuit could be taking a look at the constitutionality of this earlier deadline, which seems to be y et another attempt to thwart challenges to the duopoly.

https://ballot-access.org/2023/07/21/appeal-filed-in-lawsuit-over-new-york-state-petition-deadline-for-independent-candidates/

[apedad]

In the 2020 presidential election the Libertarian Party and the Green Party only obtained 60,234 votes and 32,753 votes (or 0.70 percent and 0.38 percent of the total votes cast), respectively, and that’s why they were disqualified as parties in the 2022 election.

Not much of a challenge to the duopoly – even if the law hadn’t changed.

https://casetext.com/case/libertarian-party-of-ny-v-ny-bd-of-elections

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If the first-past-the-post system were replaced with runoffs or ranked choice, then we’d see how many people would relegate the duopoly candidates to the status of a mere second choice. Once they’re assured they won’t be “stealing” votes from one of the duopolists, they may register some interesting first choices.

And of course, it’s not just the Libertarians and Greens who want to get on the ballot – it’s the Constitution Party, the Forward Party, the Solidarity Party, and your bugaboo, the No Labels party. And maybe some others.

But at the end of the day, if the voters want to register a preference for the duopoly parties, they’re free to do so – by rejecting the other parties. Not by having the duopoly remove these other parties from the ballot to save the voters from having to make a choice.

You don’t seem to get that the right to vote includes the right to vote against third parties as well as the right to vote for them. How can you vote against the Forward party if it’s not available as a choice – unless you’re willing to surrender your power of self-government into the hands of the two major parties?

And why should disfavored parties be relegated to a write-in line while the favored parties get their names and candidates printed out? That puts something of a thumb on the scale.

[Krychek_2]

Most of the non-duopoly parties would have no chance of winning an election even if they were on the ballot because of the extremism of their views; the no-labels may be an exception. Adding their names to the ballot costs money and other resources.

There needs to be a balance in which a party with a reasonable amount of public support can get on the ballot but the ballot isn't going to be cluttered with dozens of vanity candidacies. I don't think it's unreasonable to require a party to show that it has some public support before the money is spent to put them on the ballot. Maybe a free for all national primary in which only candidates who get at least 5% of the vote are allowed on the general election ballot.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Maybe we could move this free-for-all, welcome-to-the-jungle primary to the general election - with party endorsements clearly indicated on the ballot where applicable - and the two with the most votes in that election go to a runoff.

That would certainly be along the lines of what most reasonable third-parties want, that or ranked choice/instant runoff.

[Krychek_2]

You still haven't explained why people with no public support should be on the ballot. I agree ballot access should not be limited to the duopoly, but not to the point of having a hundred vanity candidates for president turning it into a ten page ballot. What's wrong with requiring a showing of some public support for ballot access, either through signatures or some other way?

I kinda like the Canadian system. Anyone can run but must post a deposit equal to a certain percentage of the position's salary. You only get your deposit back if you get a certain percent of the vote.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In the specific case of Presidential elections, we have a special situation since the state legislature can appoint the electors directly, and since the greater power includes the less, they can choose to leave it the the voters to choose among a handful of legislatively-approved candidates.

There’s no such power in the legislatures regarding other elected offices. The people can elect any person to Congress who isn’t specifically disqualified, and that’s also generally the case under state constitutions for state offices. And I don’t see “proving one’s worthiness to compete with the duopoly” as a constitutional requirement of holding elective office.

Once we start quibbling about how many signatures or votes a party needs to prove its worthiness to compete with the duopoly, we’ve already given up the pass at Thermopylae, and the duopoly hordes can pour through. “So we agree 1% is reasonable – how about 5%?” etc.

[ReaderY]

Lots of things in life involve unclear cutoffs. You might as well argue that if 70 mph speed limits are permitted, they’ll be insisting on 2 mph, or if children are required to go to school for 6 years, they’ll be insisting on 60, or if you require people to wait until 18 to buy a fun, they’ll make you wait to 80.

Minimum signature requirements for ballot access have well-established constitutionality. Reasonableness cutoffs are no more difficult to police than they are in the many other things in life where there are these kinds of cutoffs. Everywhere else, you give ‘em an inch, you can expect them to take an inch. You don’t object to them for anything you agree with. It’s only when you disagree with the whole thing that these cutoffs suddenly seem to be a problem, and you start arguing give ‘em an inch, they’ll take a mile.

[David Nieporent]

I do not think that people should have to wait until they are 18 to buy a fun.

[bernard11]

Depends, David.

Before a certain age, possibly 18, fun is largely free.

So the question is not whether you can have fun before that, but whether you have to pay for it.

[Krychek_2]

So we can have no laws whatsoever, because one thing leads to another, and the next thing you know speed limits will turn into the Reign of Terror? ReaderY is right, that's a really dumb argument.

And it's not a matter of proving one's worthiness; it's a matter of demonstrating that you have enough public support to justify the cost of putting your name on the ballot. I'm fine with putting Goebbels, Ted Bundy, or Bozo the Clown on the ballot if they have enough public support; I'm equally fine with leaving Socrates, the Cyd and the 12 apostles off the ballot if they don't. You have a point that the voters should have the right to elect anyone they wish, but it does not follow from that that anyone with a pulse should be on the ballot.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“justify the cost of putting your name on the ballot”

That’s a good rationale for filing fees, not signatures – I’d be fine with Socrates being relegated to a write-in line if he can’t put up the “advertising expense” (filing fee) to get on the ballot. Just so long as it’s nondiscriminatory (e. g., the expense of ballot access has nothing to do with the candidate's popularity, or the salary of the office sought, etc.).

“the next thing you know speed limits will turn into the Reign of Terror”

The next thing you know a tax on political dissenters will lead to…more discrimination.

[Magister]

Filing fees, and only modest ones, but no actual support in the form of signatures? We could look forward to vast numbers of vanity candidates (some of whom would be ghost candidates, siphoning votes from one real candidate to benefit another).

I hope if this were implemented you'd condemn your own proposal, since it would just block potentially viable 3rd parties from building support and the evil duopoly would laugh all the way to taking office.

Ranked choice voting still seems the best way forward. You don't need to rail against the evils of two-party systems to promote it, and then you won't look like an obsessed crank.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Thank you for the public-relations advice.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I can criticize the duopoly *and* speak favorably of runoffs and ranked-choice voting (as I did above).

“siphoning votes from one real candidate to benefit another”

A problem which would be addressed by the runoffs and ranked-choice voting with which I expressed sympathy.

Try and keep up.

"I hope if this were implemented you’d condemn your own proposal"

And *I* hope you'll give yourself a wedgie, but I guess both of us are going to be disappointed.

[Magister]

Advocating for ballot access in advance of the other things you claim will address the problem.
Advocating for ballot access for the monied rather than those who can demonstrate a small amount of actual support in the form of signatures.

The current system supports ghost candidates and major party operatives working to get marginal candidates who may divert votes from the other major party, and your changes would make it even easier for either major party to warp election results with these dirty tricks.

"Kanye West’s presidential bid bolstered by Republican operatives in at least five states"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kanye-west-ballot-campaign-gop/2020/08/09/bfc8e58a-d8ce-11ea-9c3b-dfc394c03988_story.html
Hmm, why would Republicans want to get Kanye West on the ballot? He might have gotten enough votes to swing the 2020 result in Wisconsin (where Republican operatives failed to get him on the ballot, but would have succeeded under the Margrave plan).

"Intrigue grows in Florida’s ‘ghost’ candidate case as prosecutors seek more info"

sham no-party candidates in three contested Florida races that were key to helping solidify the Republican majority in the state Senate

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/07/29/prosecutors-seek-info-on-money-transfer-in-ghost-candidate-case/

My reaction would be the same if it were Democrats who were deploying these dirty tricks. Your repeated support for what would make these dirty tricks easier is telling. You can criticize the duopoly all you want. When you advocate solutions that will clearly make the problem worse, I will point out again that you are naive, dishonest and supportive of corruption.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Advocating for ballot access for the monied”

“naive, dishonest and supportive of corruption”

You’re so self-centered you only talk about yourself.

“My reaction would be the same if it were Democrats who were deploying these dirty tricks.”

The Democrats filed Trumpian election fraud claims against the Greens, so I presume you’re against that? I won’t hold my breath.

Ballot access for the monied means that those who can pay to gather lots of signatures get an advantage over parties who are poorer.

I wonder who benefits from that? If there’s in fact a dirty-tricks slush fund in one or both branches of the duopoly (and I’ll take your word for it because you’re so honest /sarc), they can well afford to get the signatures for “ghost parties” under the corrupt system *they* designed and which *you* support.They can hire as many signature-gatherers as they want.

Honest parties – that is, parties other than yours – still have to face roadblocks because they don’t have automatic access to that duopoly donor money.

What can I say about your support for a system which does the things you claim to deplore, and which chokes off honest parties?

This is *your* system, not mine. Own it. Accept it. Lay back and enjoy it.

You previously accused me of shilling for Republicans. Then you walked back the accusation. Now, like a dog returning to its vomit, you pick up the accusation again. Bon appetit!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"He might have gotten enough votes to swing the 2020 result in Wisconsin (where Republican operatives failed to get him on the ballot, but would have succeeded under the Margrave plan)."

My plan for honest ballots, combined with runoff elections or instant runoff voting? That plan, you dishonest hack?

[Magister]

Your plan is not honest ballots, but exactly the opposite: to let anyone with money put any name on the ballot. The Republicans failed to put Kanye West on the ballot by not submitting enough signatures, not because they didn't have rich backers to cut a check if that were all that they had needed, filtered through a PAC that hides its donors. At least with collecting signatures anyone asked to sign will find out about the candidate, and maybe a little light will reveal the trick before the election (more often happens after the election if at all, sadly).

Your crusade is misguided; get the run off elections (many states have them, like Georgia in the Senate, and I don't think they're a solution) and the ranked choice voting first, before you supercharge the corruption with your unlimited ballot access. It's getting the votes that hold back third parties, not signatures or fees.

And yes, I thought that the crap about the Green Party was just that, crap. I am sad that Democratic voters in 2016 had not learned the lesson of the 2000 election, but I don't blame the Green Party in either case.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“get the run off elections (many states have them, like Georgia in the Senate, and I don’t think they’re a solution) and the ranked choice voting first”

OK, let me get right on it…I’ll do things in the order you suggested – runoffs and RCV first, and only then fair ballots.

Well, I waved my magic wand and chanted my incantations calling for runoffs and RCV, so I guess that problem is fixed now.

Next I wave the wand and make ballot access fair…done!

Wait…that’s funny, I didn’t bend reality to my will simply by wishing…not only did the system fail to reform according to my preferences, the reforms didn’t happen in the order I demanded.

Well, how about you use *your* magic want to effect a compromise – create a law for fair ballots *and* runoffs/RCV. Doing both at once, you’ll stop all those nasty dirty tricksters you’re always talking about – the third parties and alleged ghost parties will “goest” away after the first round of voting, and then the third-party people can return to their natural allegiance in one of the two parties.

That will solve the problem, so go ahead with your incantations and make it happen.

Unless, of course, you actually prefer the ballot system we have – which, by the way, is the one which favors the rich, because of the cost of getting signatures, as I said before.

[Magister]

Is ballot access really holding back any party in the very few places that have ranked choice voting? Who are these lazy parties, and why would we expect their ideas to improve anything? Third party candidates have not achieved anything except being spoilers (and some of them willfully so) since the two major parties realigned in the civil rights era, and that's not because ballot access is that difficult.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"that’s not because ballot access is that difficult."

https://www.gaslightpro.com/wp-content/uploads/AG1_BlueSky.jpg

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Who are these lazy parties, and why would we expect their ideas to improve anything?"

Glad you asked.

The lazy parties are the Democrats and Republicans, who waste their time fighting each other, competing for office, and selling out their bases, while showing no work ethic whatsoever in addressing the challenges facing the country, from the national debt, to social pathologies, to out-of-control corporate power, to world-endangering militarism.

[Magister]

So your lazy parties are already on the ballot, and the non-lazy parties will have no problem getting ballot access. So, no problem.

[Kazinski]

Well I certainly think the primary ballots should be accessible to fringe parties and candidates.

In fact in California it's very easy to get on the primary ballot, but only 2 candidates make the general election, regardless of party.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

My only complaints about the welcome-to-the-jungle primary in California are these:

-It should be the general election, not a primary, and

-If a candidate has a party's endorsement, that fact should be noted on the ballot.

There can still be a runoff between the top two vote-getters if nobody has a majority.

[apedad]

There's a statement in the link I provided that says political parties don't have a constitutional right to be on a ballot.

Meet the threshold, and there's no problem.

Not even meeting 1% of the electorate is not NY's problem.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“There’s a statement in the link I provided that says political parties don’t have a constitutional right to be on a ballot.”

It’s a district court opinion.

The Supreme Court, I think, is looking at these kind of cases the wrong way around.

They should think of this analogy: suppose a public library reserves its meeting rooms for “meetings of popular, non-extremist parties only.” To use an example which should resonate with progressives, suppose the library denies meeting space to the Workers Revolutionary Socialist Marxist Trotskyite Party, because the party is “small and unpopular.” Wouldn’t they have a case against the library, based on the limited public forum theory?

Well, what if the government prints up names on the ballot of popular, non-extremist parties while leaving out the Workers Revolutionary etc. Party? Isn’t that also viewpoint-based denial of access to a limited public forum (a government form which gives "advertising space" to candidates and parties)?

[apedad]

C'mon, that's a weak analogy.

Also, I don't quite agree with Krychek_2's statement of, ". . . because of the extremism of their views."

I wouldn't say all small parties have extreme views; more like niche or narrow interests.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

OK, a municipal bus service offers to sell advertising space to political ads, assuming the parties are popular enough?

Suppose it sells such ads (for popular candidates only) to be posted on the walls of the polling place?

What if the advertising space is on the ballots themselves (popular candidates only)?

Going to your write in point – why should unpopular candidates be relegated to write-in status – that is, not allowed to advertise?

[Krychek_2]

I doubt there's much support for allowing anyone to advertise at the polling place or on the ballot, and there are only so many municipal busses so advertising space is not an unlimited resource. You sure are great at coming up with dumb analogies. And having one's name on the ballot isn't an advertisement.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I presume you’re familiar with public forum analysis. *If* the government chooses to provide a forum for people’s expression, access to that forum generally can’t be denied based on someone’s viewpoint. If they choose to let political ads on buses, ad space can’t be based on viewpoint or its proxy, popularity. Likewise if they choose to offer advertising space on ballots – which is of course what they do when they offer a write-in line but give some candidates the extra benefit of advertising a candidate’s availability and party endorsement (if any).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Naturally, the Supreme Court doesn't grasp the full implications of its own doctrine, since its voting rights cases proceed, in their minds, on a different track from their other public-forum cases.

Also, and this of course may be a coincidence, the Supreme Court justices tend to be appointed by either Republicans or Democrats.

[Krychek_2]

It's not a free speech issue. Even if someone were to accept your argument that being on the ballot constitutes advertising -- which I think is a huge stretch -- it would not follow from that that I can then advertise my grocery business on the ballot too.

It's more a matter of meeting qualifications. To run for president, you have to be 35 and born in the US. States impose requirements if you want to be on the ballot that are designed to demonstrate that you have a modicum of public support for your candidacy. What you call discrimination, I call not wasting resources on something with no public support.

And it's not even viewpoint discrimination. The reason the Communist Party is not on the ballot in most states (is there even still a Communist Party?) is not their ideology, but the fact that they can't show sufficient public support.

[Brett Bellmore]

"States impose requirements if you want to be on the ballot that are designed to demonstrate that you have a modicum of public support for your candidacy."

Let's get real here. They had much lower requirements for ballot access back in the 70's, and you didn't have a bedsheet presidential ballot. They imposed these requirements when 3rd parties started gaining ground in the late 70's and early 80's, throwing a scare into the major parties. It was about the same time that they started in with campaign finance 'reforms' that severely handicapped 3rd parties, replaced the League of Women voters as the Presidential debate organizer after they had the nerve to include a 3rd party candidate, and leaned on media to stop reporting on 3rd party candidates.

It had nothing to do with conserving limited space on the ballot, it was purely a defensive measure by the major parties to ward off challengers.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason the communist party, specifically, is no longer found on the ballot, is because they never had any real support among actual American voters, they were an astroturf operation funded by the USSR. When the USSR's fall cut off the funding, they imploded.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“it would not follow from that that I can then advertise my grocery business on the ballot too.”

That would be a permissible *subject-matter* restriction. Saying some parties can advertise and certain unpopular parties can’t would be discrimination based on *viewpoint.*

[ducksalad]

Krychek, I don't buy the resources argument even a little bit, if the resources you are talking about are paper, ink, or pixels. The incremental printing costs are utterly negligible compared to the costs of tracking and transporting ballots, printing registration forms and cards, and just having a crew of people runnng the polling places. Spain just had an election with around 30 parties on the ballot. Open primaries in California sometimes have 50+ candidates.

If the resource you are talking about is the limited attention and cognition of some voters, one has to concede that's an issue. Other countries handle it by putting party logos or short abbreviations on the ballot; the candidates and parties are responsible for making sure their supporters recognize those.

If your party's voters can't even handle picking out a logo from a list of a few dozen, I'm inclined to say tough shit. They don't "support" you or anything else in a meaningful way. It's like throwing a turkey with inked feet into voting booth and then obsessing about whether the resulting splotches correctly represent the intent of the turkey.

[David Nieporent]

If your party’s voters can’t even handle picking out a logo from a list of a few dozen, I’m inclined to say tough shit.

Why do you think it would only be a few dozen? What if it's a few hundred?

[ducksalad]

Nieporent: "What if it’s a few hundred?"

Young man, when I was kid we had these white and yellow books with 50,000 or 100,000 names in them. Even people who'd never finished 6th grade routinely located a name they wanted, and then trasncribed a seven-digit number that was listed next to the name, which strikes me as harder than making an X or punching a button. Not once every two years after an extensive awareness campaign, but more like several times a day with no training at all.

But if that bothers you, we could:

1. Decide how many names a voter could handle (CA has proven 53 is feasible). Have all candidates submit petitions with signatures, rank them by number of signatures, and print the top 53 names on the ballot.

2. Go back to write-ins only for all candidates. Optionally, candidates could pick a three letter abbreviation reasonably related to their name, first come first serve, and voters could write in the three letter abbreviation with a guarantee it would count.

It would be interesting to see which parties think their supporters can't correctly learn and enter a three letter abbreviation.

[Sarcastr0]

The reason the communist party, specifically, is no longer found on the ballot, is because they never had any real support among actual American voters, they were an astroturf operation funded by the USSR.

While there sure was USSR fuckery, don't pretend the Red Scare also didn't depress support for communism to the point we cannot say how popular it would have been but for unamerican, thought-police tactics.

I have no doubt communism wouldn't have become a mainstream party in the US, but it's fantasy to say it had no 'real support among actual American voters.'

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“unamerican, thought-police tactics” in Georgia included making ballot access for third parties more difficult – restricting the Communist Party was an unmistakable rationale.

Other third parties were collateral damage at the time; now they're the intended targets.

https://reason.com/2022/07/13/how-georgias-extreme-ballot-access-law-keeps-libertarians-and-everyone-else-off-the-ballot/

[Kazinski]

Does everyone get to use the room at the same time?

Or can the library have rules, you need at least 20 people to reserve the large room, and 5 to reserve a smaller room, and first come first serve, or a lottery.

Because a library like a ballot doesn't have unlimited space.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If you want to know about reserving library meeting rooms, go straight to the horse’s mouth – the American Library Association.

“7. Can libraries deny a group access to meeting rooms?

“Libraries may deny access only if an individual or group does not meet the eligibility guidelines stated in the library’s policies. Meeting rooms are open to reservation by everyone who is eligible to use the facility according to the library’s policy.”

…and here comes the kicker…

“The reasons for denial must be reasonable in light of the policy, apply equally to all individuals or groups, and cannot be based on the organizers’ views, background, beliefs, or the content of their speech….”

And, later:

“The [meeting-room] policy can regulate the time, place, or manner of use, as long as the regulations do not pertain to the message communicated during the meeting or to the beliefs, opinions, or *affiliations* of the sponsors.” [emphasis added]

https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/meetingroomsqa

[Kazinski]

Yeah, but if the group has only 5 people, can they reserve the auditorium?

If all the rooms are booked does the library have to construct more space?

What if only 20 candidates can fit on one page of the ballot? Does the county clerk have to resort to a butterfly ballot, or 2 pages, which may cause misvotes or spoiled ballots?

You aren't really addressing the fact that both libraries and voting officials have constraints that make it difficult to accommodate everyone.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In both cases, look for a non-viewpoint-based method.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course political parties don't have a constitutional right to be on the ballot; You're looking at the wrong end of this, it's the voters who have the right, to vote for whoever they please, and it's THEIR right that's being violated by keeping potential choices off the ballot in order to prevent voters from voting for them.

The major parties wouldn't care one bit how many parties were on the ballot, if they were sure they wouldn't get voted for...

[apedad]

Two words: Write in.

[Brett Bellmore]

Three words: "Not legal everywhere".

Anyway, isn't it supposed to be a voting rights violation to even mildly inconvenience voters? Ask them to show up in person on election day, in the right place? This is a lot bigger inconvenience than many things that are treated as open and shut vote suppression.

[apedad]

Seems to me the write in not being legal everywhere would be the bigger problem for voters that should be addressed.

That's a DIRECT injury to voters than parties being on a ballot.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yes, it passes from the realm of election misinformation to outright voter suppression.

But if being on the write-in line is not a particular inconvenience as compared to having name and party endorsement on the ballot, why not attempt this experiment: by random drawing, choose two among the announced candidates to be on the ballot, leaving the voter the write-in option for choosing other candidates. If this results in the Forward and Constitution parties being on the ballot, with Dems and Reps having to use a write-in line, we’ll certainly hear about the importance of ballot access.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just ask Lisa Murkowski.

[not guilty]

“Of course political parties don’t have a constitutional right to be on the ballot[.]”

I’m not so sure about that. Voters have the constitutional right to associate for the advancement of political beliefs. Voters can assert their preferences through candidates or parties or both. Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983). Pursuant to Equal Protection guaranties, “New parties struggling for their place must have the time and opportunity to organize in order to meet reasonable requirements for ballot position, just as the old parties have had in the past.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 32 (1968).

[apedad]

It's a statement from the decision and sounds reasonable to me based on the explaination.

https://casetext.com/case/libertarian-party-of-ny-v-ny-bd-of-elections

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Given that the topic of complaint is a Presidential election, your statement is completely wrong and you should be ashamed of yourself (again).

In a Presidential election, "voters" don't have a right to vote at all. The only people who have a Constitutional right to vote in a Presidential election are the Electors.

[santamonica811]

I'm hoping that some of you guys here can help me understand the legal rationale behind delay of a trial due to the classified nature of documents. (ie, the Trump Florida case)

Okay, it takes some time to get clearances done for Trump's attorneys. That makes sense. But, after that, I am not sure what the delays would be. If this were a case of "Providing material aid to our enemies." or something like that, then of course lawyers would have to pour over each document, and fight over the details of each sentence of each paragraph of each page. One side would say, "This is fresh and important info.", while the other side would say, "It's not fresh. But even if it is fresh, it's not really confidential any more, and even if it's fresh and confidential, it's not helpful to the enemy because of X, Y, and Z."

But, in THIS case, the allegations (as I understand them) are: [a] There were folders clearly marked with various levels of clearance. [b] Inside those folders were the associated documents, and [c] those documents were indeed classified. And then, all the elements of Trump holding on to them, lying about them, obstruction, etc etc.

So, why is it relevant AT ALL what the actual contents are? I have not seen this point raised by liberal or conservative (or Trump-whores, or anti-Trump-extremists) legal commentators, so I feel like I'm missing something obvious. I'd be assuming that prosecutors would be telling a trial court judge, "Your honor, there are 200 classified documents at issue. It took one of our prosecutors a grand total of 2.4 hours to review all 200, to verify that they were indeed classified, and that they were correctly inside folders that reflected the documents' secrecy and confidential nature."

At a trial, why does a jury need to hear the details of any document? At most, I would think, "One document outlined how to engage in an armed conflict with Iran. Another document detailed procedures to be followed in the case of a nuclear attack on US soil. Another looked at members of foreign military with access to state secrets and examined if any of these people could be persuaded to work with American Intelligence."

In other words, only the most general and generic language. I can't see what value giving actual details would add to a trial. Any actual controversy about the contents would be what pre-trial motions are for. The defense could say that it's reviewed those 200 documents and is challenging 15 of them, or 65 of them, or whatever. And that's something that a judge (or a special master, with special security clearance) could easily and quickly rule on.

What am I missing?

[Randal]

What am I missing?

You're missing that Judge Cannon is in the tank for Trump. See not guilty's post above as an example.

[not guilty]

The prosecution does not have to prove that the documents were classified. As to the documents charged in Counts 1 through 31, the prosecution must prove under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) that they contained information relating to the national defense. That being an essential element of the offense, it presents a jury question that cannot be determined prior to trial.

[Gandydancer]

"...why is it relevant AT ALL what the actual contents are?"

A quick look at the indictment reveals that at least the first 31 counts are alleged violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 793( e ), which reads as follows:

(e)Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

Note that there is no mention of "classification", but rather of items "which... the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." It is hard to see how that "reason to believe" could be demonstrated without knowledge of the "actual contents", given that so much is classified that does not in fact have the "potential" that is an element of the claimed crime.

[John F. Carr]

The "reason to believe" limitation applies only to text immediately before it, not the entire list. There are two kinds of material protected by the subsection:

1. Document, writing, code book, etc., relating to the national defense. These would ordinarily be marked classified. The classification markings give you notice that the documents are protected by the statute.

2. Information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States. Because you do not have notice, the law requires that the potential for harm be evident.

[Michael P]

Classification markings normally give notice that the information is, or was, covered by Executive Order 13526 or one of its predecessors. The classification scheme established by the executive branch has always been based on the reasonably expected degree of "damage to the national security" -- not specifically whether information relates to national defense.

While Mel, the cook on "Alice", may have taught us that the best defense is a good offense, the legal implications of the difference in terminology are probably significant.

[Don Nico]

John,
National Security Information is protected by executive order. Restricted Data is protected by the tomic Energy Act of 1954 as subsequently amended.

[John F. Carr]

In an ordinary case without classified information neither the prosecution nor the defense is required to stipulate to evidence. The prosecution can insist on grisly crime scene photos being displayed in court when the defense would prefer the jury be instructed "the parties agree that the victim was found dead on the sidewalk in a pool of blood".

The judge has more discretion to admit summaries of classified documents into evidence.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"What am I missing"

There are supposedly 800,000 plus documents worth of discovery. That takes time for the lawyers to go through.

[apedad]

Who cares if it's 800 or 800,000?

He's not getting charged by the number of documents.

[Brett Bellmore]

If it didn't make any difference, why would the prosecution bother with 800K? They'd just take the half dozen most egregious, and go with those.

They're doing it because juries, faced with a ridiculous number of counts of some offense, tend to assume that at least some of the counts must be legit, and convict.

So the defense actually does need to go through all the documents, so they can point out to the jury that the total has been padded by including every piece of paper that was anywhere near a document with classified markings, including souvenir cocktail napkins, and that the actual number of plausibly classified documents is tiny.

[not guilty]

Willful retention and failure to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it is a separate offense as to each document containing national defense information. (As I have stated before on these threads, classification vel non of the documents is a red herring.) Here the government has charged willful retention/failure to return as to 31 separate documents. I will be very surprised if a jury convicts as to some but not all.

[John F. Carr]

Some of the 800,000 pages will be agents chatting about what to have for lunch.

The indictment charges 31 forbidden documents, which are in many cases likely to be more than one page long. Trump has to be proved to have acted willfully with respect to each document. In the usual case this is not a big deal, but when you're dealing with a packrat with aides helping him pack the case becomes more complicated.

Count 1 relates to a document with classification marking "TOP SECRET//NOFORN//SPECIAL HANDLING" described as "Document dated May 3, 2018, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries."

If Trump knew he might have some classified documents but didn't remember that one in particular, is he guilty? Jury instructions will decide. The judge might say if he was on notice that he had some classified documents he is legally responsible for all of them. The judge might say the government is required to prove specific knowledge of the described document. The latter case is easier to prove if the judge agrees with the prosecution that the crime became complete on January 20, 2021 when the memory of packing should have been fresh.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Some documents may be agents chatting about what to have for lunch.

Some documents will be the classified documents

And some documents may be the ones where the FBI lawyer changes a few words in an e-mail, to reverse the meaning of the e-mail, and use that to justify getting a search warrant.

Might that have happened in this case? Well, it's happened in Trump and Trump-adjacent investigations before. If it did here, and invalidated the entire warrant?

That's why discovery is important.

[Don Nico]

The number of documents is clearly irrelevant.
Thirty documents were allegedly clearly marked with high restrictive markings. Some of which may not even be seen by an uncleared person. That should be sufficient.
What you call tiny is a serious offense, as is lying about their return.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do you actually think that Trump is charged with 800,000 counts?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think they keep bandying about "800 thousand documents!" to make it sound like he had a lot more classified documents than was actually the case.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, but that's because you're a conspiracy-obsessed doofus with no idea what you're talking about. The 800,000 documents are the total discovery production, not the number of items Trump is alleged to have possessed. And it's Trump trying to emphasize the large number of documents (to support his request for a continuance), while the government is emphasizing that the important discovery is much smaller.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Allow me to clarify.

When discussing the timing of a trial, it is appropriate to give the defense adequate time to review all the documents and discovery. If there are only 800 documents to review, that's not a lot for a defense firm. If there are 800,000 documents to review, that is quite the workload. Thus, more time would be given to the defense to review the documentation and prepare.

The documents may be classified. They may not be. Or some combination thereof.

[Don Nico]

SM,
I don't think that you are missing anything.
The level of temporary clearance needed by the defense is only to match the covers of the documens with the folders. There is a reasonable argument that the judge should be able to check that each page of the contents has the same security markings as the cover of the document. No one has to read the documents, not a single one.

[Brett Bellmore]

The feds are actually pretty determined that nobody outside the prosecution know what the documents in those folders actually are; Remember, there was originally an order for a special master with appropriate clearances to look at them, and make sure the government was honestly describing them.

The feds appealed and got that order overturned.

[not guilty]

Brett, if you think making sure the government was honestly describing the documents it seized from Mar-a-Lago was the purpose of appointing a Special Master, you are at best hopelessly naive.

[Don Nico]

Brett,
There is no reason that any uncleared person know what the title of these documents are. The only necessity for the defense to see the documents is to verify the control and dissemination caveats on the cover and to see that the document has a proper control and copy number. The clearance to see the markings is because some the documents are in control systems, the identity of which is classified.
Those documents were listed with XXX in place of the abbreviative of the control system.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Don,

Some documents marked classified may not actually be classified. For any of a variety of reasons. Let's just demonstrate one.

Imagine if the Trump administration decided to help negotiate a peace treaty between the UAE and Israel. And during these negotiations, drafts of the treaty were passed around. One would expect those drafts to be classified. Assume you get to the final draft (still marked classified), which everyone signs off on, and Trump writes on "great job!" That draft is then made final and published. The final draft is no longer classified (even if marked so). The information is all public. Trump keeps the copy as a memento.

The FBI comes along, finds the document marked classified, and charges Trump with the crime. When asked "which document is it?" the FBI says "it was marked classified, you don't need to know which document".

See any problem

[not guilty]

One more time for those who have not been paying attention. Whether a document is classified or unclassified is a red herring. None of the statutes that Trump is accused of violating distinguishes between classified and unclassified documents.

[David Nieporent]

No one has to read the documents, not a single one.

I mean, that’s true in a way that… isn’t. Even Trump has the right to due process, which means he has the right to have every element of the prosecution’s case proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And that means that his lawyers, like the prosecution, has the right to assess the documents he's being charged with. "Trust us; it's NDI" is no more valid than "Trust us; this white powder is cocaine."

[Mr. Bumble]

“Trust us; this white powder is cocaine.”

You don't trust the FBI?

[Don Nico]

People here should recall that this case is NOT about whether 30 Top Secret ORCON documents are properly classified. It is about whether Trump defied a lawful request by the Archives to return the documents and lied about his compliance. All that is necessary is that the documents–whatever their content- are mark on the cover with the caveats required by the relevant document control system.
AL's hypothetical is pure BS, irrelevant on its face.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Defying a "lawful request" from the "archives" isn't a criminal prosecution. That would be a civil matter.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The subpoena was for 'all documents with classification markings.'

There is no legal dispute that the subpoena was lawful, or that Trump lied in response to it.

[David Nieporent]

Just to build on that, there could've theoretically been a dispute about whether the subpoena was lawful. But that requires going to court to quash it — not to lie about complying with it.

But of course the reason he didn't do that is because he had no non-frivolous legal grounds to quash it; these documents are (contra the claims of some of his idiot sycophants on Twitter X, the Presidential Records Act does not even apply to the NDI, let alone say he can keep it.)

[David Nieporent]

He did defy a request to return them, but that is not the basis for his prosecution. The basis for his prosecution is refusing to comply with a subpoena and lying about it, which is a criminal prosecution, particularly in the context of NDI.

[not guilty]

"Defying a 'lawful request' from the 'archives' isn’t a criminal prosecution. That would be a civil matter."

Where a person having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document containing national defense information willfully retains the document and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it, that is a criminal matter under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e).

Donald Trump is charged with that as to 31 such documents.

[Don Nico]

David, There is NO need for Trump’s lawyers to assess the documents. Clearance or not they are not qualified AND their assessment as to whether the documents are at the proper level of classification is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the covers are marked appropriately and that the header and footer of each page is appropriately mark. The contents themselves can be 100% redacted.

[David Nieporent]

Well, no. You're wrong. This is not an administrative case about whether to strip a security clearance from, or fire, a federal employee for mishandling documents with classification markings on them.

This is a criminal case, and the charges don't involve classification at all, let alone classification markings. Trump is not charged with retaining documents that have classification markings on them. He is charged with retaining documents that constitute NDI. In order to assess whether they are actually NDI, they need to see the documents.

[not guilty]

Classification of a document is not an element of any offense that Donald Trump is charged with. The presence of classified markings is nevertheless relevant as to whether either defendant was acting with a culpable mental state, as well as to whether the document was within the ambit of what the search warrant authorized to be seized. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22131381-read-trumps-mar-a-lago-search-warrant (See Attachment B, subpart a.)

[David Nieporent]

Sure, classification markings can have evidentiary value. But that has nothing to do with Don Nico's notion that the defense doesn't need to see the documents because they're found in a folder with classification markings.

[Kazinski]

When I read the article on Reasons main page last week about the 1960 Hawaii Electors and it’s application to the Michigan and Georgia cases, I was intrigued by the reference to Stevens dissent in 2000’s Bush v Gore. Now of course Stevens seems to gloss over the facts that originally the Democratic slate was not appointed officially, until well after they had signed certificates claiming they were the official electors and forwarded them. From Steven’s dissent (joined by Ginsburg and Breyer):

But, as I have already noted, those provisions merely provide rules of decision for Congress to follow when selecting among conflicting slates of electors. They do not prohibit a State from counting what the majority concedes to be legal votes until a bona fide winner is determined. Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well after the Title 3 deadlines.”

I also looked at the link Sullum provided to Politicos investigation, which confirmed that the details were "remarkably similar" to the conduct of the unofficial Trump Electors:

Until now, it’s been unclear whether the 1960 case of the Kennedy electors was truly analogous to 2020 Trump electors. But the unofficial Democratic certificates, obtained by POLITICO from the non-digitized files of the National Archives, show the three Kennedy electors signed documents that are remarkably similar to the false Trump-elector certificates.

The certificates describe the three Democrats as the “duly and legally appointed and qualified” members of the Electoral College. The envelope containing the certificates, stamped Dec. 22, 1960, includes another avowal: “We hereby certify that the lists of all the votes of the state of Hawaii given for president … are contained herein.” The documents do not mention the ongoing recount or that Nixon’s Hawaii victory had been certified.

Instead, the Hawaii Democrats used virtually the same language that the false Trump electors in five states used in their effort to upend the 2020 race. In those documents — from Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia — the pro-Turmp activists described themselves as “duly elected and qualified.” In two other states, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, Trump allies submitted alternative elector slates but included a caveat: their votes would only be counted if ongoing court battles broke in favor of Trump.”

Now of course Stevens seeming endorsement of the Kennedy-Trump method of provisioning a set of standby electors was a dissent, not the majority decision, and I doubt there are many who would side with Stevens against the majority in Bush v Gore. But I do wonder if it will sway any of the lower courts when determining whether there was an actual fraud attempted, or a contingency at a time they believed the results could change and there were challenges of the results still before the courts and election officials.

[not guilty]

In Hawaii in 1960, there was a genuine dispute as to which candidate had received the most votes in the state. When the mid-December date came for the Electoral College to meet, both Republican and Democratic electors sent their votes to Washington to be counted. A recount was then underway, which showed that Senator Kennedy had in fact received the greater number of votes.

When Congress met in January 1961 to certify the electoral count, then-Vice-president Nixon asked for and received unanimous consent that the votes of the Democratic electors would count. https://rollcall.com/2020/10/26/we-the-people-what-happens-when-a-state-cant-decide-on-its-electors/ The issue accordingly was never litigated.

Neither the Republican nor the Democratic putative electors in Hawaii intended to deceive anyone. In the current Michigan prosecution of the bogus electors, each of the three statutes charged requires the government to prove intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt as to each defendant. That is an issue for determination by a properly instructed jury.

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”.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, the standard here is, you get away with it your side happens to prevail, you go to jail if your side happens to lose?

[Nige]

Only if you want to paint Trump as a victim and above the law by ignoring the differences in the cases.

[not guilty]

"So, the standard here is, you get away with it your side happens to prevail, you go to jail if your side happens to lose?"

Learn to read, Brett. That is disingenuous, even for you.

Cavilling that sixty years ago, someone in another state, thousands of miles away, did something (under very different circumstances) affords no defense. Every tub sits on its own bottom.

[Brett Bellmore]

The "very different circumstances" WERE that the legal challenges were successful.

[Nelson]

No, the different circumstances were that there was a genuine dispute in Hawaii. There was no dispute about Trump losing.

And before you say it, unfounded claims don't count.

[Frank Drackman]

You can't pre stamp a stamp!

[Nelson]

Nor can you presuppose a dispute without evidence. In Hawaii there was evidence. With Trump there was not.

[not guilty]

"The 'very different circumstances' WERE that the legal challenges were successful."

No, no, no, no, no. No challenge was made in regard to the Hawaii electors. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

Democrats, including then-Rep. Daniel K. Inouye, were ready to lodge an objection if the GOP slate was counted, but Vice-president Nixon avoided having to decide that matter. https://rollcall.com/2020/10/26/we-the-people-what-happens-when-a-state-cant-decide-on-its-electors/

[Kazinski]

Well now wait a second, Not Guilty, you are just hand waving.

You have a precedent where the alternate slate of Democratic Hawaiian electors at a time after the governor had certified Nixon as the winner sign a affidavit that they were “duly and legally appointed and qualified”, when the were not. Then later after the results were overturned the same slate was legally appointed.

The Trump Electors said they were “duly elected and qualified”, being a little more cautious in their wording.

So not only do you have the Hawaii precedent, which they were taking care to follow, you also have 3 supreme court justices suggesting that is the proper procedure to follow while further events await.

I think I'm staying the facts fairly, at least as Politico laid them out.

So the question for the court I think is with those facts was there an intent to deceive, or did the alternative electors have a good faith belief that the results could be overturned in their state, and they would ultimately have their appointments confirmed as the Hawaiian electors did in 1960.

Seems to me the standard for establishing intent is whether had a good faith belief the election could be overturned, not whether partisans like you think it was "genuine".

I have to admit while I never thought Trump won in 2020, I was fraud curious, and thought possibly Georgia or Arizona could be reversed, but I certainly never thought 3 states would be flipped that Trump would need.

[Nige]

'Seems to me the standard for establishing intent is whether had a good faith belief the election could be overturned'

Leaves out whether they had a good faith belief that there was a reason to overturn it.

[not guilty]

There is no “Hawaii precedent.” A matter not litigated and determined on the merits creates no precedent. Except perhaps in Bizarro World.

“So the question for the court I think is with those facts was there an intent to deceive, or did the alternative electors have a good faith belief that the results could be overturned in their state[.]”

Where do you get that that presents a question for the court? Like every other essential element of each offense, as to each defendant, whether the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had intent to deceive is a question for a properly instructed jury. (Unless the defendant, with the consent of the prosecutor and approval by the court, elects to waive his jury trial right and be tried before the court without a jury. Mich.R.Crim.P. 6.401.)

[Kazinski]

Well if there is no Hawaii precedent, then why did Stevens refer to it?

It's a political, and legal precedent, but not a judicial precedent. If the legislature of Hawaii, the governor, Congress, and Richard Nixon, the Vice President, all agreed that it was the proper way to handle a situation where the results had been certified, but still disputed, then that is a precedent whether a court blessed it or not. And certainly Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer thought the 2000 court should have let the democrats empanel an alternative slate of electors and let Florida's election drag out further and await further results to decide which set of electors would be official.

[Josh R]

The key difference is there was no basis in fact for Trump to believe he won Michigan (and therefore no good faith belief), whereas JFK and Gore had a basis.

[Frank Drackman]

Just that he was ahead by several hundred thousand votes on erection night and the "late" vote amazingly went 95-5 Biden. Same thing happened in GA, PA, AZ,

[Josh R]

There was an expected blue shift in MI, PA and GA because mail-in and urban-county votes were counted last. But, it wasn’t anywhere near 95-5. Pennsylvania had the largest shift with Trump leading 2.9 to 2.3 million at one point. Biden ended up winning 3.5 to 3.4 million, taking about 65% of the remaining vote.

And in Arizona, the opposite happened. In-person votes were counted last and Trump narrowed the gap.

[not guilty]

A ctrl-f search shows that "Hawaii precedent" nowhere appears in Justice Stevens's opinion.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're certainly investing an awful lot in Stevens simply not using the phrase "Hawaii precedent", while citing Hawaii in 1960 AS precedent.

[not guilty]

I haven't cited Hawaii in 1960 as precedent. You are just plain lying.

Precedent presupposes a determination on the merits, which did not occur there.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you taking precedent from a SCOTUS dissent?

Come on, man.

[David Nieporent]

The only thing Stevens cited Hawaii for (and yes, it was in dissent, which makes it meaningless) was for the proposition that the Electoral Count Act did not render invalid the votes of electors appointed after the 'deadline' in the statute; it was a safe harbor deadline rather than a binding deadline.

[Kazinski]

Probably leaves a very sour taste in your mouth endorsing the majority in Bush v Gore, but you can always go back to ripping it and praising the dissent next time it comes up in a different context.

[Kazinski]

That’s ridiculous, Ted Baxter would be proud.

I quote Stevens opinion (joined by Breyer and Ginsburg( I wonder what Souter was thinking that day)) above: Indeed, in 1960, HAWAII appointed two slates of electors and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well after the Title 3 deadlines.

That certainly seems like citing a precedent to me, but of course precedent is both a term of art, and a word:
"noun
an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances."

So a Scotus opinion wouldn't call it a precedent, but I would, and it certainly meets the definition of a precedent.

[Kazinski]

And I should say dissent not opinion, but I will note there is nothing in the majority opinion that forecloses the Kennedy-Trump-Hawaii procedure.

[David Nieporent]

The Trump Electors said they were “duly elected and qualified”, being a little more cautious in their wording.

Yeah, if you ignore the fact that they lied and said that they had met in the state capitol and voted (a necessary criterion). Which doesn't really sound cautious at all.

[not guilty]

[Duplicate comment deleted]

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I support #Equal Pay…the USWNT should share their funds with all of the teams in the World Cup! Also, the Women’s March Madness and Softball College World Series should get the same payout as their male counterparts. And that LSU gymnast should have to share with male gymnasts!! #Equal Pay!!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Suppose you were an alien from the planet Data Science. Data aliens are unemotional creatures who only evaluate data as it is.

Now you, the Data Alien, land in America in 2023 and landed write on top of a pile of data regarding K-12 educational outcomes. What would you conclude that government schools were excellent at?

Teaching kids math? Well, no.
Teaching kids to read? Not that either.
Teaching kids how to think critically? I don't think that's a directly measured outcome but a "No" can easily be inferred.
Grooming kids to be LGBTQ? ...

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Look, I’m squeezing my pee pee between my thighs…I’m a real lady!!!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Don't forget that genitals don't define gender, but also removing them affirms it! Learned that in Kindergarten!

[Nige]

That you don’t know what grooming is, or that you are deliberately distorting a word to use it against political opponents at the expense of real victims.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-Bot knows Grooming

[Nige]

everyone and their edgebot knows what it means. Some choose to discard real victims in favour of political hate-campaigns.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot loves pretentious British spellings

[Nige]

edgebot has opinions on spelling but not on discarding real victims of grooming in favour of smearing political enemies

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot keeps victims of grooming in his basement dungeon.

[Nige]

edgebot edgily doing the thing

[Michael P]

Oregon is finding that drug decriminalization has the same outcomes that Portugal has found. It seems like this idea was a serious mistake.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/07/oregon-drug-decriminalization-results-overdoses/674733/

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oregon's case is actually substantially worse than Portugal.

[John F. Carr]

I do not see that it was a mistake. The overdose deaths are bad. The prison population reduction is good.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out "mmmkkkay??" Mr. Mackey

[Michael P]

Does the reduction in the prison population outweigh the health impacts and increased time rates? As much as I wish we could trust people to be responsible in using these drugs, and thereby give them liberty to do so without adverse consequences for themselves and the rest of us, these experiments strongly point to a lot of people being unable to do so.

[Frank Drackman]

Letting Floyd George out of jail early didn't work out well for him.

[apedad]

Why do right wingers scream about the gubmint trampling on privacy and personal responsibility - until they don't.

[Michael P]

Why do you hate science? Pay attention to the data. Are you not from a reality-based community?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Why do you hit the reply button and then make a comment that doesn't have anything to do with his comment?

[Michael P]

The bad reader made a hypocritical argument based on ignoring data when it contradicts his priors. That's anti-scientific, so my comment was very much responsive.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Wow, that's how you interpret the one sentence he wrote about right wing hypocrisy? The one that has nothing to do with science or ignoring data?

[Kazinski]

Perhaps it wouldn't be as bad if the rigorously enforced other laws like shoplifting, vandalism, burglary, bike thefts, and handed out 6 week sentences for minor crimes in an inpatient rehab facility.

Make it part of the social compact, go ahead use drugs and kill yourself, but don't be a criminal while you're doing it.

My son lives in Eugene, people who are trying to live normal lives are under siege from a constant barrage of property theft, you can't leave your garage door open for even a few minutes. My son has had a homeless guy come and try to take his recycling away from him getting it from the gate to the curb.

And the thing is you can live a decent life in Eugene, Oregon's 2nd largest city, on minimum wage. My son just pays 700 a month rent sharing a house with his 2 friends, someone making minimum wage would take home almost 2000 working full-time.

I don't think the war on drugs was successful, just say no isn't working, and all out anarchy is at least as bad.

[Jerry B.]

Their body, their choice?

[David Nieporent]

Oregon is finding that drug decriminalization has the same outcomes that Portugal has found. It seems like this idea was a serious mistake.

Since it was an wide success in Portugal, I'm not really getting your point.

[Frank Drackman]

All Portugal did was legalize possession, which we've pretty much done here.

[Michael P]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/

Overdose rates have hit 12-year highs and almost doubled in Lisbon from 2019 to 2023. Sewage samples in Lisbon show cocaine and ketamine detection is now among the highest in Europe, with elevated weekend rates suggesting party-heavy usage. In Porto, the collection of drug-related debris from city streets surged 24 percent between 2021 and 2022, with this year on track to far outpace the last. Crime — including robbery in public spaces — spiked 14 percent from 2021 to 2022, a rise police blame partly on increased drug use.

“When you first back off enforcement, there are not many people walking over the line that you’ve removed. And the public think it’s working really well,” said Keith Humphreys, former senior drug policy adviser in the Obama administration and a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University. “Then word gets out that there’s an open market, limits to penalties, and you start drawing in more drug users. Then you’ve got a more stable drug culture, and, frankly, it doesn’t look as good anymore.”

[David Nieporent]

Why on earth are you talking about "from 2019 to 2023," or "between 2021 and 2022," when we're discussing the effect of something that happened in 2001?

The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is bad enough, but the — well, I don't know the latin for it, but the "X happened and then Y didn't happen and then many years later Y happened" is mendacity, not a fallacy. If you're going to compare the effects of a policy, you have to compare before to after, not after to after.

[Michael P]

Why does the Biden administration apparently want to kill downtown DC?

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/07/the-daily-chart-empty-offices-vacant-minds.php

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Utilization" is different from occupancy or attendance. To have a fair comparison here, you'd likely want to see the 2019 numbers.

I'd wager during 2019, "utilization" would be ~60-70% max for many of these agencies.

[Michael P]

Yes, the note at the bottom of the figure explains that -- some fraction of the low utilization is because of poor layout. On the other hand, high utilization in that sense might equate to open-plan work areas, which are normally too crowded for good productivity.

I found a GAO report from 2018 documenting the intended and achieved reductions in office space across agencies, but I didn't see overall percent-utilization numbers in it. It did document that some cubes were getting shrunk from 64 square feet to 56. No wonder people want to work from home....

[Michael P]

There has been criticism of Figure 3 in this study published in The Lancet for using grossly different scales on the left and right sides, although the findings are clear that excess cold kills ten times as many Europeans as excess heat does.

[Brett Bellmore]

That is pretty bad data presentation practice, exaggerating the heat deaths by about a factor of ten unless somebody looks closely. Though I can understand why they'd want to do it; If they hadn't you'd hardly be able to see the difference between countries on the heat death side, if the scale were large enough to show the cold deaths.

[Michael P]

It depends on whether the more interesting comparison is horizontal or vertical. Using the same scale would make it harder to see where (and by how much) excess-heat deaths were distributed. I think giving the absolute numbers in the -- rather short and clear -- Findings section goes a long way to dispel the idea that they were trying to mislead about the left-right scale.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the inter-country variation on cold deaths is only about 1-4, (It's a LOT larger on heat deaths.) while there's about a 10-1 difference between heat and cold deaths.

There's a modest tendency for countries with low heat deaths to have higher cold deaths, unshocking when you consider that most of the really low heat death countries are Northern enough that they don't GET hot, but have vicious winters. I mean, who's surprised that not a lot of people die of heat waves in Norway?

Ireland really stands out here, because they have a lot of cold deaths, and Ireland has really mild winters.

The thing that really jumps out, though, are the countries that have a lot of both sorts of deaths. They tend to be poorer countries, where people can't afford to air condition their homes in summer, or heat them in winter.

Born Lomberg's point: It's not temperature that kills, it's poverty.

[Nige]

'It’s not temperature that kills, it’s poverty.'

Yeah, that's why all the billionaires are making big bunkers for themselves to ride it out. Since wealth inequality is only becoming more pronounced and homelessness figures are rising, we can expect 'poverty' to kill more and more people in the coming years.

[Kazinski]

Well best way to decrease poverty is let people increase their standards of living.

Yet it seems the focus is on "breaking [our] will" to try to force us into energy poverty.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/climate-official-regular-people-break-will

That and foreclosing the ability of the Third World to start realizing a brighter future for themselves that is becoming more possible as globalization spreads global wealth.

[Nige]

They should have worried about poor people and standards of living back when the connection between fossil fuels and future climate change was made. Dependence on an energy source that's burning the planet isn't going to improve anyone's standard of living.

[Kazinski]

India, China, Vietnam, Bagledeshh , Pakistan, Thailand, Brazil, etc. say Sod Off Swampy , were going to do what's right for our own people.

And that's exactly what they are doing, if you look at global energy supplies, fossil fuel use is still growing faster in absolute terms than renewables, and renewables are just going into increasing the total amount of energy available.

A welcome addition I might add because as soon as additional energy is made available its used.

[Nige]

Inasmuch as this is true, it's a bad thing because fossil fuels are driving climate change, which is already having severe effects on some of those countries, to say nothing of air pollution, and Venezuala, I note, has lost a significant acreage of land mass to fossil fuel-related pollution. Always weird when small-government types assure me that goverments, some of them authoritarian and/or notoriously corrupt, are doing 'what is right for their own people.'

[Nige]

Also, by the by, interesting how many of the flu/pneumonia cold-related deaths dwindled to near nothing where everyone was wearing masks.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ireland is damp, with a tradition of drinking. You can die of hypothermia by falling in a 50 degree puddle. Remember its your inability to maintain 98.6 -- not frostbite.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I said it stood out, not that it was inexplicable. You have to work at dying of exposure in an Irish winter, but apparently a lot of people put that work in.

Most of the countries that have a lot of people dying of exposure, the cause is more straightforward: It gets really cold.

[Nige]

What the hell are you two on about? Deaths by exposure in Ireland don’t even make it to double figures, and it's usually a homeless person or someone who gets stuck on a mountain.

[Brett Bellmore]

Michael P literally linked to a study above, which actually LISTS deaths from heat and cold for each of a bunch of countries.

Now, you can argue with their protocol, it IS Lancet, after all. They're not going by causes of death as reported by coroners, they're going by excess deaths correlated with changes in temperature, which is to say they're statistically deducing the contribution of temperature to death rates.

But the result agrees with the ratio you get from directly looking at recorded causes of death, so there's no reason to think they were rigging the results this time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Irish Examiner: How turning the heat down or off could pose a grave threat to your health this winter

The bottom line is, while relatively few people literally die of hypothermia in Ireland, cold is the straw that breaks the camel's back for an awful lot of people who start out not in good health.

[Mr. Bumble]

It be the work of witches.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/07/22/the-climate-witch-trials/

[Nige]

'Sure, we don’t threaten to hurl climate changers into ‘Vulcan’s flames’. We do not ‘thrawn’ them with rope, inducing a ‘pain most grievous’, as was done to poor Mrs Sampson. We don’t even say the word witch anymore. No, we prefer to speak of ‘climate criminals’'

Apart from the fact that they're nothing alike whatsoever, they're exactly the same. Brendan O'Neil never disappoints.

[Nige]

I'm not sure what the point of this 'cold kills more people' argument' is supposed to be. Are we suppose to wait until heat kills as many or more before taking notice?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, since as it gets warmer, not only will more people die of heat, fewer people will die of cold, yeah, that's exactly the point; It's dubious to claim the planet is too warm when most temperature related deaths are from excess cold.

[Nige]

I'm not sure you *can* expect that. It seems like a fantasy-utilitarian assumption, since we can expect more extreme weather events - the world will get warmer, yes, but spikes of extremely cold weather will occur, just like all those extreme rainfall events causing devastating floods.

However it's an awful pity that most of the word's food is grown during the periods when we can expect things to get hotter.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige Bot doesn't know about the Sun

[Nige]

edgebot likes lamp

[Michael Ejercito]

Spikes of extremely cold weather will happen less frequently over the coming decades.

[Nige]

That's possible, but by no means certain.

[Sarcastr0]

The atmosphere is not in equilibrium. I thought you were an engineer.

[Don Nico]

When did Brett say that the atmosphere was in equilibrium?
Your comment is gaslighting.

[Nige]

Does ANYONE on those site know what gaslighting actually is?

[Both Sides]

No. Pretty much the same for "grooming."

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough, his comment wasn't gaslighting, it was just aggressively ignorant.

[Sarcastr0]

"It’s dubious to claim the planet is too warm when most temperature related deaths are from excess cold" assumes equilibrium, does it not?

That's an okay mistake for like political science majors, but someone of Brett's background has to know that's wrong. And yet he still posted it, for some reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it does not. Where did you get that from?

[Nige]

Your comment does suggest some sort of straightforward balancing act going on between hot and cold.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, my comment assumes that a general warming trend means that the lows go up along with the highs. That was being generous to your side, the fact is that the lows go up MORE than the highs, most of the warming consists of the lows moderating, not the highs getting more extreme.

That has nothing to do with the atmosphere being in equilibrium, I suspect Sarcastr0 is just tossing out some bafflegarb he heard someplace.

[Nige]

'not the highs getting more extreme.'

People in Phoenix are getting third degree burns off pavements, and dying from them. Some hospitals are using body bags full of ice to cool people down. And we're barely at the start of the warming trend. It was a warm front going over the Arctic that caused the Beast From The East snowstorms that blanketed Europe. Weather is getting *less* predictable.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, my comment assumes that a general warming trend means that the lows go up along with the highs. This is true of equilibrium processes; it is not a safe assumption to make generally.

That’s like Freshman chemistry stuff. You should love it - it means you can't be sure the record year we have had is strictly caused or just made more likely. That's been a great shield for those wanting to deny there's an issue.

[Brett Bellmore]

"People in Phoenix are getting third degree burns off pavements,"

Dipshit, people in Phoenix were getting third degree burns off pavement decades ago. It gets freaking hot there, and that's not because of global warming, it's because it's a really hot location.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, you go on and on about global warming, and don't even know the most basic stuff.

EPA: Climate Change Indicators: Weather and Climate

"High and Low Temperatures. Many extreme temperature conditions are becoming more common. Since the 1970s, unusually hot summer days (highs) have become more common over the last few decades in the United States. Unusually hot summer nights (lows) have become more common at an even faster rate. This trend indicates less “cooling off” at night. Although the United States has experienced many winters with unusually low temperatures, unusually cold winter temperatures have become less common—particularly very cold nights (lows). Record-setting daily high temperatures have become more common than record lows. "

NOAA: Climate change rule of thumb: cold "things" warming faster than warm things

"Colder places are warming faster than warmer places"

"Colder seasons are warming faster than warmer seasons"

"Colder times of day are warming more than warmer times of day"

But, go ahead: Tell the EPA and NOAA that they're flunking freshman chemistry.

[Sarcastr0]

“It’s dubious to claim the planet is too warm when most temperature related deaths are from excess cold.” You just posted something that contradicts this.

You get a lot wrong, but the idea that higher temps must mean uniformly higher temps is. Did you just forget basic thermodynamics? I'm pretty flabbergasted by this.

[Brett Bellmore]

"“It’s dubious to claim the planet is too warm when most temperature related deaths are from excess cold.” You just posted something that contradicts this.

No, I did NOT. And who the hell said anything about "uniformly"?

See, this is why I'm reluctant to provide you with links; It's totally futile.

How clueless and incapable of basic reasoning does somebody have to be, to not understand that, if ten times as many people die from low end temperature extremes than high end, and global warming is raising the low end faster than the high end, global warming is actually saving lives.?

[Sarcastr0]

If this deaths from cold stat means it's dubious to claim the planet is too warm, that means some kind of general increase in the temperature floor as the climate warms should be observed but isn't.

Which a complete thermodynamics fail.

[Nige]

Really? Any reports to back that up?

Brett, you made it sound like a set of scales adjusting, not a vast intricate system changing with unpredictable results. My point about the cold is that while everything is getting hotter overall, there are almost certainly going to be outbreaks of severe weather, which may include cold spells.

Oooh, Brett just admitted climate change is real and the planet is getting hotter.

'How clueless and incapable of basic reasoning does somebody have to be, to not understand that, if ten times as many people die from low end temperature extremes than high end, and global warming is raising the low end faster than the high end, global warming is actually saving lives.?'

Global warming has barely started. Don't count your mortality stats before the equator becomes uninhabitable.

[Sarcastr0]

global warming is raising the low end faster than the high end This is not physically required unless you have a system coming into equilibrium.

That is not our atmosphere. Earth is not a closed system!!

[Brett Bellmore]

"global warming is raising the low end faster than the high end This is not physically required unless you have a system coming into equilibrium."

Take it up with NOAA, then.

[Sarcastr0]

NOAA isn’t making the claim you are.
Their claim doesn’t support your thesis. It doesn’t support much, as it is a rule of thumb.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You’re an idiot Sarcastr0, and can’t actually discuss science. You’re using terms and throwing around items without a knowledge of what they are.

Brett is correct, the effects of global warming and how it occurs, end up increasing the lows more than it increases the highs. Basic science. Look it up.

[Sarcastr0]

Really incisive AL. What is the term ends up doing there? And who started comparing the highs to the lows?

Maybe before coming at my understanding of science work on your own precision of concept.

[Sarcastr0]

Double post

[Kazinski]

Well once again Sarcastro you show you shouldn't be commenting on AGW, or anything climate.

When NOAA or the IPCC say the planet is warming then what they mean is (min temp + max temp)/2*. You don't need a lot of math to be able to see if the max temp stays constant and the min temp goes up a degree the the anomaly goes up .5 degrees with out the maximum temp warming at all.

* Let's not complicate it to much by noting that then you subtract the long term average anomaly fow that average to get your daily anomoly

[Nige]

I note that we still haven't established what noting that currently deaths from cold exceed death from heat actually means. Brett seems tho think there will be a one-to-one switch from cold deaths to heat deaths, therefore the change is otherwise trivial. Most people think the knock-on effects of rising heat on mortality, and quality of life, will be far more significant.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett seems tho think there will be a one-to-one switch from cold deaths to heat deaths, therefore the change is otherwise trivial. "

I don't know, maybe you could take a night course in reading comprehension? Because Brett actually seems to think the exact opposite, and said as much, repeatedly.

[Kazinski]

That's a ridiculous assertion.

I think very few people would ever claim the atmosphere is in equilibrium. If fact that's what weather is: the constant churning of the atmosphere in a vain attempt to achieve equilibrium.

[VinniUSMC]

It should cause doom-sayers like yourself to reconsider the strength of your position. "We're in such a hyuuuuge catastrophe, yet heat kills 1/10 of the number of people that cold kills. Maybe warming just isn't apocalyptic."

[Nige]

We're not *in* a hyuuuuge catastrope - we're at the *start* of one.

[Jerry B.]

Just like 50 years ago when Global Cooling was going to usher in the next ice age?

[Nige]

Like that, except with a scientific theory that was also being studied back then and which, unlike global cooling, was not disproved or discredited.

[Mr. Bumble]

No one has "proved" anything. Only theories based on models.

[Nige]

No, it's been pretty much proven.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-Bot has spoken!

[Nige]

edgebot knows speaking

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Now that they think no one will notice and CDC are confessing they inflated COVID deaths by 30%. Even reported in the NY Times.

30%.

You stupid suckers. Super-rich bureaucrats and ex-bureaucrats are laughing at you morons while they cash-in on their multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded paydays.

[Nige]

Voltage!

[grb]

Nige : "Voltage!"

Is that to be the standard call-out when BCD lies?

It'll get a lot use......

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You ignorant, ignorant low information dipshit.

https://archive.ph/87H3q#selection-1327.0-1343.1

"The official number is probably an exaggeration because it includes some people who had virus when they died even though it was not the underlying cause of death. Other C.D.C. data suggests that almost one-third of official recent Covid deaths have fallen into this category. A study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases came to similar conclusions."

Why aren't you too embarrassed to post publicly with that username? Do you have no shame?

[Nige]

'During Covid’s worst phases, the total number of Americans dying each day was more than 30 percent higher than normal, a shocking increase. For long stretches of the past three years, the excess was above 10 percent. But during the past few months, excess deaths have fallen almost to zero, according to three different measures.'

'Covid’s toll, to be clear, has not fallen to zero. The C.D.C.’s main Covid webpage estimates that about 80 people per day have been dying from the virus in recent weeks, which is equal to about 1 percent of overall daily deaths.'

That's some voltage.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

“OTHER C.D.C. DATA SUGGESTS THAT ALMOST ONE-THIRD OF OFFICIAL RECENT COVID DEATHS HAVE FALLEN INTO THIS CATEGORY.”

[Nige]

'Probably an exaggeration!' 'Suggests' doing a lot of work there! A bit vague on 'underlying,' which does not preclude 'contributing!' Still hundreds of thousands of dead people in the US alone!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Especially if you count the elderly in those five Democrat states where those Democrat governors intentionally sent COVID patients into those nursing homes.

I bet, since they are CCP/Democrats, they only sent them to White nursing homes.

[Nige]

Turns on a dime.

[Michael P]

The first link in the text you quoted doesn't have an obvious datum that supports the one-third claim. The second link, to the study in a medical journal, was specifically about vaccinated patients. Rather obviously, one must make some questionable assumptions before extending those statistics to the early part of the pandemic.

[Randal]

Michael P for the win! I'm very proud of you.

Other C.D.C. data suggests that almost one-third of official recent Covid deaths have fallen into this category.

The word doing a lot of work there is "recent." And the whole point of the article is that there are almost no "recent" covid deaths in the first place.

In that context, the one-third number seems low. Practically all "recent" covid-infected deaths are due to something other than the virus.

[David Nieporent]

“OTHER C.D.C. DATA SUGGESTS THAT ALMOST ONE-THIRD OF OFFICIAL RECENT COVID DEATHS HAVE FALLEN INTO THIS CATEGORY.”

RECENT, you fucking moron. Not all covid deaths. RECENT ones.

[Drewski]

They flagged covid cases as deaths if there was a death date on the records, even when it was put down in error. Clearly this is the work of the Illuminati.

[Nelson]

There seem to be a lot of people who tend towards the "Great Man" theory of history, where extraordinary individuals rise up and mold the shape and direction of history.

An alternative explanation for historical figures is that they are shaped by the world they live in and their actions and impact on history are a result of those experiences.

I'm not only talking about the "good guys", the Einsteins and Lincolns. I'm also talking about Hitler, Lenin, Putin, etc. If those specific people hadn't been there, would someone else (with more, less, or similar effectiveness) have filled the same role?

Does the person make history or does history make the person?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's clear that there are components of both at work. Some things DO only happen if there's somebody extraordinary around to get them done. But the extraordinary people can't do extraordinary things if the prerequisites aren't there.

[apedad]

But the extraordinary people can’t do extraordinary things if the prerequisites aren’t there . . . and A LOT of hard core supporters.

[Nelson]

The idea is that an extraordinary figure will arise from historical conditions, but not necessarily the one who did. So, for example, the conditions created by the end of WWI would have led to the rise of a nationalist leader, but not necessarily Hitler.

So is the particular person necessary, so that what happened wouldn't have happened if that person didn't exist? Or would the historical context have led to the rise of a different leader, regardless of who that individual was?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's a silly idea, if that's the idea.

[Nelson]

So you believe that only one person would have arisen from the historical conditions of the time?

For example, the oppression and excesses of the Tsars wouldn't have resulted in a leader advocating for revolution unless Lenin existed?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't believe that necessity makes extraordinary people pop into existence. Maybe it makes them more visible, but that's about it.

[Nelson]

So you ascribe to the "Great Man" theory? That individuals are the cause of historical forces, not the effect of them?

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh? No, why insist that it has to be one or the other? History creates opportunities to do stuff, but if nobody rises to the occasion, does that matter? OTOH, you can't rise to occasions that aren't there. Your great man can't will opportunities into existence.

[David Nieporent]

Your great man can’t will opportunities into existence.

That's exactly what the great man theory says happens.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's exactly why I'm not agreeing with the Great Man theory, then, isn't it?

You need both opportunity AND the man. Fail to have either, and it doesn't happen.

[Nelson]

But if the opportunity exists, any sufficiently competent person can seize it. It doesn't require a "great man". It requires one of many "great people", many of which could achieve the same outcome.

The premise of the Great Man theory is that only that person could have achieved the same results. That history would be entirely different, save for a specific individual being there.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Does the person make history or does history make the person?"

Yes

[Nelson]

Deep thinking there, Bob. Since one causes the other (regardless of which one you believe), which way does it go? Does the person make history or does history make the person?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Does the person make history or does history make the person?"

Correct.

[Nelson]

Your cognitive dissonance is impressive, if unconvincing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"cognitive dissonance"

Its not cognitive dissonance, its the fact that your question is childish. The two concepts are both valid.

Sometimes its societal movements ["history"] that lead to a certain result and other times its a gifted individual doing something extraordinary. And often its both.

Due to the upcoming movie Napoleon is in the news. He's a good example.

The Directory was both corrupt and incompetent and ripe for a coup. Any number of generals could have played the Bonaparte role in getting rid of it. But no other French general had the combination of skill, charisma and ambition to
"pick up the crown of France from the gutter" and dominate Europe for two decades.

History made the opportunity but a "great" man made the history.

[Nelson]

You apparently aren't aware that when I say "Great Man", it is a theory of history that has existed since it was published in 1841. If you want to understand better, here is a synopsis that may help:

"According to the Great Man Theory, great leaders are born, not made. Leadership traits are inherent and cannot be learned. Great leaders come forward when they’re most needed, in order to become the foundation upon which history is built. Essentially, according to the Great Man Theory, people in positions of power deserve to lead because of characteristics granted to them at birth, which ultimately help them become heroes."

https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/anthropology/great-man-theory

[Nelson]

"History made the opportunity but a “great” man made the history."

You understand that this is the exact opposite of the Great Man position, right? Literally if the historical moment made the opportunity that a historical figure took advantage of, that is the opposite of the Great Man theory.

Great Man history believes that greatness is inherent in certain individuals, but not others, and that they shape history, not the other way around.

[bernard11]

When it comes to the scientists I think a Newton or an Einstein would have come along fairly soon and done essentially the same work.

Political leaders are a bit different. There was obviously room for the rise of Hitler or Lenin. Would non-Hitler or non-Lenin have acted differently? I think they would have, but not by much.

[Magister]

In terms of math, Leibniz did come along to do the same work as Newton. And three mathematicians are credited with discovering non-Euclidean geometry, because the first (Gauss) was too conservative to want to dispute Euclid, and discouraged the second from doing so.

In other areas with higher investment, it may be less clear; an early invention might delay adoption of a better one that came later. And political movements are closer to fads and fashion than to the practical merits of pure or applied science.

[jdoeford]

I am in the middle of reading Volume I of Stephen Kotkin's Stalin trilogy. He argues forcefully that Stalin, at least, was a "great man." He writes about Stalin's exceptional qualities (not that all his qualities were exceptional) and the long odds he faced in establishing a functional dictatorship over most of the old Russian Empire. I cannot opine as an expert, but he's making a persuasive argument, and it's a dense but engrossing read.

[F.D. Wolf]

The State Department issued a statement regarding yesterday's elections in Cambodia:

The United States is troubled that the July 23 Cambodian national elections were neither free nor fair.

Ahead of the elections, Cambodian authorities engaged in a pattern of threats and harassment against the political opposition, media, and civil society that undermined the spirit of the country’s constitution and Cambodia’s international obligations. These actions denied the Cambodian people a voice and a choice in determining the future of their country.

In response, the United States has taken steps to impose visa restrictions on individuals who undermined democracy and implemented a pause of certain foreign assistance programs.

As the ruling Cambodian People’s Party forms a new government, authorities have an opportunity to improve the country’s international standing, including by restoring genuine multi-party democracy, ending politically motivated trials, reversing convictions of government critics, and allowing independent media outlets to reopen and function without interference.

The United States looks forward to a continued partnership with the Cambodian people to support their aspirations for a more prosperous, democratic, and independent country where all voices are heard.

It sounds like the Cambodian government is taking its cues from the Biden Justice Department. Though, I don't believe it has yet indicted the leader of the opposition party. It remains to be seen how its government will deal with "election deniers" and other peddlers of conspiracy theories that, I am reliably informed, pose an existential threat to the very pillars of society.

[Sarcastr0]

People are not immune from the law because they are running for office.
You need to be so reductive and ignore actual crimes both federal and state, to argue your guy is above the law and any indictment is automatically antidemocratic. That is more Banana Republicy than anything Biden is doing.

[F.D. Wolf]

Even if I thought these indictments were over actual crimes, and not a transparent attempt to help a decrepit failed President win an election, there is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion, as the Soros-funded Democrat district attorneys who have turned over their streets to criminals constantly remind us. When asked why he didn't indict Bill Clinton for perjury, Ken Starr said he didn't want to put the country through that. Those were different times.

Joe Biden, in his inaugural address, promised to unite the country. I can't think of a single thing he has done to even try. To the contrary, he may have succeeded in making our political divisions permanent. I appreciate that you can't see past the next election and are unable to grasp the long-term consequences of all of this, but you will see them. (And, of course, we know who you'll blame, but, regardless, consequences there will be. The Democrats have crossed a line that can never be un-crossed).

[Sarcastr0]

Don't look into Trump's crimes or else you don't care about unity or democracy.

You're the one who wants a king, seems like.

I appreciate that you can’t see past the next election and are unable to grasp the long-term consequences of all of this, but you will see them.
The GOP turning against democracy has been baked in since at least 2016. Just as J6 really cooled down on the threats of political violence, holding Trump even a little bit accountable, at least to the process, is helpful to our democracy. Or else people will run for President to be immune from prosecution.

The Democrats have crossed a line that can never be un-crossed
I got no time for threats. Fuck off and be sad when you lose.

[hoppy025]

Pedo Joe isn't making any decisions at all. His leftist handlers are doing that, and you are correct, they are trying to persecute and kill us, not "unite" us.

Democrats should be "united" in gas chambers.

[hoppy025]

No, but blacks are immune from the law so long as they are grieving something you people deem legitimate, amirite?

[Nige]

'It sounds like the Cambodian government is taking its cues from the Biden Justice Department'

You simply are not serious people any more.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot cannot grasp concept of sarcasm

[Nige]

edgebot doesn't understand 'not serious'

[grb]

Nige : “You simply are not serious people any more”

I saw this quote this morning :

“What has happened to the conservative movement? There was a time when conservatives had substantive things to say about taxes, regulation, defense, foreign policy, Now, it’s Barbie this, Dr. Seuss that, Bud Light, Mr. Potato Head, the skin color of the Little Mermaid. It’s ridiculous. It’s childish. It’s pretty pathetic actually.”

Today Right is pathetic : It’s a nihilistic rotted-out nothing, without rational footing or the slightest moral or ethical constraint. It’s more an entertainment enterprise than a political movement, dedicated to generating pro-wrestling-grade spectacle to its consumer base.

[Nige]

Old enough to remember when the right wing mantra was that people on the left were 'easily offended.'

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sez the people on the side of folks who are going around gluing themselves to paintings.

[Nige]

Gluing yourself to paintings because governments aren't acting on an impending self-inflicted crisis that they all acknowledge as real, versus boycotting a beer because a trans person drank some in a 40 ssecond tiktok video. Logic and proportion, as the Dormouse said.

[grb]

Nige : “…versus boycotting a beer because a trans person drank some in a 40 ssecond tiktok video….”

As if it was only something pathetic as that! But today’s Right has finally found a group they can publicly hate without backlash. And hate as a public celebration – as some governments were known to do back in the 1930s.

They used to do it across the board : Loathe blacks, despise Jews, hate gays, sneer at women. But now all that’s been taken from them. All they have left is the tiny little number of trans people. Still, it’s become their sport and competition to devise new ways to insult, harass and target that microscopely small group – just like some governments were known to do back in the 1930s.

As that leads to our il Duce-Junior wannabe, DeSantis, who just threatened legal action against Anheuser-Busch over a 40-second tiktok video.

Of course the threat is hollow bullshit, but the Governor assumes the average right-wing consumer doesn’t care, being only interested in cartoon entertainment – not reality…

[Nige]

Funnily enough, trans people were one of the groups targeted by those guys from the 1930s.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You seem to be using Nige as your muse today, which says something about you. Nige is dumber than a box of rocks and can’t compose a thought that is beyond babbling out some approximation of the most extreme position available. His opinions on the climate stuff are particularly ridiculous.

He’s the cbd of the left, and you follow him like a slathering dog.

[Nige]

This is great, an ad hominim response directed at a different commenter entirely.

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : “.... (gibberish) ….”

Keeping to substance, I kinda wonder whether we’ll see a VC post on the latest DeSantis threat to use government power to target free speech. After all, this is a website that produced a dozen or more Conspirator posts on some unruly children at Stanford, such was that threat to free expression.

Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if this forum takes little or no notice. There are threats to free speech (right-wing) and there are THREATS to free speech (left-wing). The latter always seems to get all-caps here….

[Commenter_XY]

That could never happen here = ...authorities engaged in a pattern of threats and harassment against the political opposition, media, and civil society that undermined the spirit of the country’s constitution...

Naaaaaaaaaah....

[Nige]

That's Trump's entire platform.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why isn't State mad at the DOJ for doing the same shit?

[Josh R]

FFS. You are seriously deluded if you think what happened in Cambodia is even remotely comparable to Trump's situation. And if this is sarcasm, then what's your point?

[Michael P]

"Cry" (for the ordinary Russians affected by this) narrowly beats "laugh" as my reaction to Putin raising the age for former military members to be recalled by five years ... to 70.

https://www.newsweek.com/putin-raises-elderly-army-serviceman-70-deemed-eligible-russia-ukraine-1814670

[apedad]

My point above on the Great Man comment shows your comment here.

If the 70 year olds don’t fight, and the “enforcers” don’t enforce, and the generals don’t order them to enforce, then Putin is a nothing.

So as I mentioned above, it takes a lot of hard core supporters for a leader (good or bad), to become a great leader.

“Suppose they gave a war and nobody came.”

[Frank Drackman]

Then the war will come to you!!
everyone forgets that part of it.

[Michael P]

And that is why Ilya Somin is wrong about the citizens of tyrannical countries being blameless for that tyranny?

[John F. Carr]

Igor Girkin (Strelkov) is now a political prisoner.

If somebody who deserves to be locked up is locked up for the wrong reason, should we be sad?

[John F. Carr]

I read a story last night about some mountain peaks in Colorado being recently closed to hiking. The issue has been brewing for years. Like many states Colorado grants immunity to liability for landowners who allow recreational use by the general public without charge. Usually grants immunity. A 2019 court decision says landowners can be held liable for failure to warn about dangerous conditions. As often happens the original case had a sympathetic plaintiff and a deep-pocketed defendant. Once established the precedent applies to ordinary landowners. Some mountain peaks are owned by people who can't afford an $8 million judgment. The legislature refused to amend the law this year after tort lawyers complained they would lose business. So you have to pass a "no trespassing" sign to get to the top.

My state's recreational use law does not contain an explicit exception for failure to warn.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Shakespeare was right....

[bernard11]

A non-political topic:

For walking around an unfamiliar city an ordinary paper street map is far superior to Google maps and its kin.

Discuss.

[grb]

Without question. But I always feel terribly self-conscious unfolding the map on a strange city street. It’s like I’ve got a flashing neon sign overhead saying “Tourist” with a big arrow pointing at my head. I like the folding stiff laminate-kind, which can be consulted less obviously.

[Mr. Bumble]

You know you could look at the map before you ventured out.
Love maps, hate GPS.

[bevis the lumberjack]

True.

With the exception of Venice. No way you navigate Venice with a paper map. I say that as an engineer who tried and failed.

[David Nieporent]

Tom Cruise could navigate the place despite never having been there and having no map or GPS!

[Mr. Bumble]

Dead reckoning?

[David Nieporent]

Yup. Without getting too spoilery, at one point they make an express point of him saying he's never been there before. And then at another point not too long afterwards he manages to find his way through a confusing series of alleys and the like to a specific place without having any navigational aid at all.

[bevis the lumberjack]

He’s pretty short. Maybe seeing the streets from a shorter distance helps.

[Commenter_XY]

No way....give me Google every time. Not even close.

Google gives real time traffic updates, suggestions, hell even reviews of places to eat.

I used to use paper maps (still do for orienteering) in cities - no mas.

[bernard11]

GPS is fine for driving, though it does sometimes go nuts. I'm talking specifically about walking.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What is superior about it?

[ducksalad]

1. It's larger so you can see fine detail (street names) and the big picture (where you are relative to the capitol/cathedral/etc) at the same time.

That's the real reason but also:

2. You can see it in the sun.

3. It doesn't run out of charge, and it doesn't need WiFi to work.

4. It's a cool souvenir when you get back home.

5. As grb noted, it does identify you as a tourist. Whether that's good or bad depends on what city you're in and how comfortable you are talking with random passers-by. In Montreal I opened a map and within 20 seconds several people told me the "good" street was two blocks over.

[VinniUSMC]

It doesn’t run out of charge, and it doesn’t need WiFi to work.

If you’re a tourist, you should have a charger, a battery pack, and pre-download the map of the area you will be in. You will miss out on things like live traffic updates or looking up reviews, but GPS still works most of the time.

To be fair, Google Maps isn’t always the right play. For instance, in Korea, you will be much, much, much happier using Kakao Maps.

Also, apparently boomers don’t know how to zoom in and out. /roflmao

It’s a cool souvenir when you get back home.

Yes

[bernard11]

Google maps, which I recently had the experience of trying to use, has several flaws, IMO.

Between the endless listings of businesses, and the big blue dots, the street names, if they are there at all, are badly obscured. Sometimes they are inaccurate.

The map rotates like a wind vane, so you are constantly having to reorient yourself. When it doesn't rotate it changes the blocks it shows.

If you happen to touch one of those businesses, or some other building, an ad immediately takes up half the screen.

The routes are terrible. There's no such thing as "walk four blocks this way and take a left."

On the paper map you can circle your hotel, or wherever, and then find it easily.

As to the "tourist" business, well, you are tourist, or I was. I've traveled a lot, to lots of places, and I'm sure I stood out as a tourist in most of them. So what? Besides, looking down at your phone, up at the street signs, back down, etc., also makes it pretty clear you're a tourist.

[VinniUSMC]

Damn bernard, just how old are you? Do you have some grand children, or maybe great grand children? /lol

[Estragon]

Oh? About what exactly?

[Dr. Ed 2]

" Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez announced that its embattled associate dean for "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI), Tirien Steinbach, has resigned."

https://www.newsweek.com/following-affirmative-actions-demise-slay-dei-leviathan-opinion-1814443

On a July weekend after everyone has gone home for the summer...

[Commenter_XY]

Guess the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.

[Ben_]

Progressive Toronto educator dies from suicide after being defamed as a white supremacist by DEI activists:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/07/dedicated-longtime-toronto-educator-takes-his-own-life-after-bullying-from-dei-activists/

[Nige]

That's terrible. I hope this means that you people start taking the mental health toll of harassment, stress and endless streams of false accusations seriously.

[Ed Grinberg]

“You people”? Aren't you a big DEI supporter? Isn’t “your people’s” whole shtick false accusations of racism and harassment of anyone who opposes you (like this poor guy)?!

[Nige]

Me? DEI is management bullshit. I have very little time for management bullshit. Wastes everyone’s time and energy while rarely acheiving its purported goals.

Your schtick is to claim all accusations of racism and harassment are false, which is why you only focus on cases like this one.

[Commenter_XY]

Nige, this is fascinating to me = DEI is management bullshit. I have very little time for management bullshit. Wastes everyone’s time and energy while rarely achieving its purported goals.

I am rather surprised by that statement. What's the bullshit?

[Nige]

It's management, therefore it's bullshit. I'm all for diversity and equality, but that requires institutional change, not managerial capture of the language of equality.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How does institutional change happen if not by management bullshit?

[Nige]

Hey, I'm open to it, go ahead and make the case for DEI.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Ok sure!

As an Accelerationist, I am all for major public and private institutions fill their management and executive leadership roles with people not based on merit, but based upon superficial characteristics or degenerate lifestyle choices.

I support this because the only these people will ever change their beliefs is if they are forced to suffer the consequences of them. So I welcome Tranheiser Bush suffering billions in losses from some diversity hire hiring another diversity hire. I welcome the US military suffering humiliating defeat after humiliating defeat by prioritizing trannies, homos, illegals, and other degenerates over warfighting. I applaud cities like San Francisco collapsing and it's citizens suffering from the policies implemented by the government they voted in.

I think DIE policies are awesome, especially because the institutions that implement them are so deserving of the consequences.

Hows that?

[Nige]

You're a racist reactionary who's losing the culture war and needs a fantasy of your 'enemies' over-reaching and destroying themselves as consolation, and so will monomaniacally blame every failing, setback and mis-step by any institution you don't like, and even the ones you do, on 'the woke' and thereby claim vindication. Ok.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm losing so bad while I don't drink my Bud Light!

lmao

[Nige]

For the dumbest of reasons, yeah.

[Ed Grinberg]

I guess he didn't realize it was meant to be a struggle-session.
First rule of struggle-sessions: You don't argue with the "facilitators"!

[Ben_]

Historical analogues are notable, but ultimately all bullying is more or less the same. Maoists, Klansmen, DEI activists, Nazi brownshirts, Antifa, Covidians, the Inquisition, etc. Just different coats of paint over the same evil.

[Sarcastr0]

Like a Goodwin-plus over here. Ben's really an overachiever.

[Ben_]

One thing all evil bullying movements have in common is onlookers like Sarcastr0 enabling and supporting them.

And reinforcing the idea that the victims deserve it for being some variety of the other.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I am enabling Hitler 2, the sequel.

Have you ever in your life argued against something without that kind of overdramatic clownshoes nonsense?

[Ben_]

You’re more like that guy facing the camera in the first picture here:

https://everydaylifeinmaoistchina.org/2017/03/11/struggle-session-at-cass-philosophy-and-society-department-in-1966/

Clearing the way for evil.

—

"overdramatic"

A career educator was bullied by DEI activists until he killed himself.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, if legalinsurrection says so, it's a causal lock!

As someone who thinks DEI initiatives are a good idea, I gotta defend anyone who works in that area no matter what. That's how it works.
Luckily I love it when people kill themselves, being a big Hilter and Mao fan and all.

You're so blinded by hate you say ridiculous things to peple.

[Nige]

Wow. That's an impressive set of bad people coming to get you, Ben. You do know this poor unfortunate guy isn't the first person to be bullied or harassed to suicide, don't you? It's just that usually we're told that efforts to curb that kind of thing are censorship and the targets are just snowflakes. Or that the bomb threats sent to the childrens' hospitals have nothing to do with the person who pointed their followers at the childrens' hospital and any harassment and abuse experienced by staff are probably made up or even false flags.

[Longtobefree]

Where was Hillary at the time in question?

[Reallynotbob]

So is the Bud Light boycott just for Bud Light or for all the InBev brands?

Can good patriotic Americans drink Coors (owned by Canadians) or is it down to Miller High Life (not MGD of course because that's InBev).

What about Pepsi products? Does it matter who bottled them? Dutiful anti-woke Americans need to know how to comply!!

[Nelson]

Most of the boycotters are too ignorant to know that InBev owns Bud Light, never mind being smart enough to avoid the many, many other InBev brands.

My guess is InBev didn't see much, if any, financial effect.

[apedad]

The United Nations has started conversations with North Korea for the return of American soldier Travis King, who was detained in the county last week after he ran across the Koreas’ heavily armed border, according to the deputy commander of the U.N. Command.

Huh....

Whatever living conditions we have in the US, they are not even on the same planet as conditions in N. Kor.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/united-nations-breaks-silence-us-soldier-detained-north-korea-confirms-dialogue-hermit-county

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Ok, so I have a question for the Global Warmists who are the faithful of the Church of Climate Apocalypse.

I asked last week if a person genuinely believed with all their heart that human-expelled CO2 is going to cause massive catastrophe and human suffering, how could they expel any and knowingly and willfully contribute to all that suffering without being some sort of sociopath.

Their sad, pathetic answers are along the lines of "it requires a collective solution, so me being inconvenienced isn't worth it since just one person won't change anything."

Let's generalize upon that. If it requires collective action or it won't matter. Why should any nation cause suffering for it's populations if all nations won't play along?

Why should the Western world intentionally suffer to save the global warming when their actions alone won't solve the problem because all these other countries aren't following along?

[Nige]

There's this amazing assumption here that change via democratic processes, public demonstrations and passionate advocacy can only legitimately be done by one side. Which is why the side that tried to overthrow an election result are somehow not a threat to democracy, and the side that didn't, somehow are.

[Longtobefree]

How about we take collective action to prevent those who care about global climate warming change from exhaling?
Maybe tape their mouths and noses shut or something.
The reduction in CO2 would be complemented by the silence.
A better world for remaining.

[Reallynotbob]

Ooooh fun! Let me try...

"If a person genuinely believed with all their heart that they are fat, and that being fat is likely to cause major health consequences, how could they eat any food and risk continued fatness without being some sort of sociopath?"

Gosh this logic stuff is easy!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So why are you still a fat fuck?

[Reallynotbob]

Why are you into thick men? LOL! Srsly, this got personal fast.

You picked the debate. Were you not ready for people to argue back?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You didn't argue back.

You made some stupid analogy that wasn't congruent with my argument. Then got snarky about how clever you thought you were being.

[Reallynotbob]

Why is my analogy not congruent? You're saying people who want to limit CO2 emissions system-wide are sociopaths unless they personally abandon CO2 emitting practices.

I'm saying that argument would imply fat people are sociopaths if they eat.

CO2 emitting practices can be limited but not abandoned, just like eating. In both cases, the proper response is moderation.

Tell me why my point is wrong.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You conflate self-harm with harming millions and billions of others.

That's why you're wrong. You're wrong because you don't know the definition of "sociopath".

How is that not obvious?

[Randal]

You know the voltage is shorting itself out when Chucky starts flailing with high-concept vocabulary words like “congruent.”

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Randal, I have a terminal degree in an engineering field.

I know thousands of high-concept vocabulary words that you've never heard of.

E.g. "book"

[Randal]

Yes, obviously. And they come out under duress.

[Jerry B.]

I notice that such people seldom promise to eschew products or foodstuffs grown, manufactured, or transported by fossil fuel equipment.

[Reallynotbob]

So pressing governments and industry for reductions in CO2 emissions is hypocritical unless one abandons fossil fuel equipment? Surely you can see the middle path here.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why aren't you volunteering to reduce your emissions?

[Reallynotbob]

How do you know I don't?

[Nige]

Big 'and yet I see you participate in society' vibe here.

[Nelson]

"how could they expel any [CO2] and knowingly and willfully contribute to all that suffering without being some sort of sociopath"

I challenge you to provide even one person who has ever advocated for the complete elimination of CO2.

Do you know what it's called when you invent an extreme position to argue against?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/straw-man

[Randal]

human-expelled CO2 is going to cause massive catastrophe and human suffering

I suspect no one’s falling for this because no “Global Warmist” is stupid enough to think that humans somehow generate carbon. Your small intestine isn’t a fusion reactor, you know.

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

[Nige]

'human-expelled CO2'

Yet another passionate climate change denier who doesn't understand climate change.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who thinks we are days away from the Democrats at the DOJ and IRS giving Jason Aldean the good ol' fashion government rubdown?

[Reallynotbob]

Not I.
But you should squint hard at the pinko Leftists over at CMT.

[Ed Grinberg]

Would the good people at CMT have censored a pro-Marxist video? Probably not.
They may or may not be "pinko Leftists" themselves, but by doing this they've signed on to "the lefties' war against the normies" (see here).

[Reallynotbob]

The folks at CMT have their fingers on the pulse of "small town" sensibilities. They also need advertisers, which is capitalism at work. Could it be that they are acting on basic conservative, red-blooded, patriotic values--and not enlisting in some "war against the [rapidly disappearing so-called] 'normies'"?

[Bob from Ohio]

CMT is not Hobby Lobby. CMT is part of MTV which is owned by Paramount.

Its Hollywood leftists all the way down.

[Reallynotbob]

Hobby Lobby isn't playing him either, the communists.
https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1lm9XaTqH4muJw12CDFf7z

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a list totally made up of religious songs and no evidence that Aldean was ever on it. Other than that, good point.

[Reallynotbob]

Precisely. Obviously it's because they're communists.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yeah, along the lines of "advocacy of extremism" or something like that. I don't know about "days away" though. But after Biden's "pre-ordained" re-election next year, you bet.

[Jerry B.]

Remember, Hillary’s election was preordained back in 2016.

[Nige]

Remember Trump's was in 2020.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That’s why the Color Revolution was engineered by the Democrats/Establishment/Deep State in 2020.

To keep Trump out of office.

They are going to put him in prison in 2024 since they can't kill presidents anymore.

[Nige]

Just an undigestible lump of dumb.

[David Nieporent]

The funny thing about this is not the knowing lies framed as delusions about 2020, but the fact that BCD identifies himself, MAGA, and the GOP with the authoritarian side of the color revolutions.

[Nelson]

No one who's reasonable. But conspiracy-loving partisans are probably all over it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So when are we getting a hysterical Blackman post about "massive resistance" regarding Alabama's open defiance of the Court's decision in Milligan?

[Reallynotbob]

I'm holding my breath.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They created another district with more blacks in it.

Just like the SCOTUS said.

[LawTalkingGuy]

SCOTUS affirmed the district court order in full. That Court ordered another district with a black majority or “something close to it.” 39.9% is not something “close to” a majority.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well thats a matter of interpretation

Sure seems close to me seeing how they are only 13% of the population.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No, its really not. The district court is quite clear.

Alabama is 26-27% black. It has seven Congressional Districts. Making only one majority-black significantly dilutes black voting power in the state, that's why the district Court ordered a second majority-black district, or "something quite close to it."

[Bob from Ohio]

“something quite close to it” is not "quite clear"

[LawTalkingGuy]

Only if you're interpreting it in bad faith. And in any event 39.93% is obviously not quite close to a majority, so to the extent there is ambiguity, this falls well short. You can't get to a majority under the normal rules of rounding.

But, moreover, Alabama isn't even adopting this bad faith interpretation! Per Gov. Ivey “The Legislature knows our state, our people and our districts better than the federal courts or activist groups, and I am pleased that they answered the call, remained focused and produced new districts ahead of the court deadline." She's openly fighting the order, not quibbling over "something quite close to it." You're engaging in bad faith for no reason here!

[Commenter_XY]

Bob from Ohio....is 40% 'something close to it (meaning a majority)?

I would say nope. If it were 48% (not 40%), I would answer differently.

[Bob from Ohio]

Probably not but the order is not "quite clear" about the percentage. "Close" is a non-precise measurement.

Is fly ball hit to the warning track "close" to a home run or does the fielder have to reach over the wall?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Making only one majority-black significantly dilutes black voting power in the state,"

Look, suppose I have a teaspoon of sugar, and I dump it in a glass of water. Stirring the glass dilutes the sugar.

But suppose I have a teaspoon of sugar, and it's been dissolved in a glass of water for a long time now. I'm not diluting the sugar by leaving the glass alone, it's simply a fact that the sugar IS dilute.

Essentially, Congress enacted a law prohibiting stirring the glass, and the courts read it as mandating extracting the sugar and putting it in its own teaspoon.

The Republicans might have stirred the glass, they might have gone out of their way to make sure there wouldn't be two majority black districts. You'd have to prove that. But just because it would be possible to draw a map to create them, by deliberate racial gerrymandering, doesn't mean they went out of their way to avoid creating it.

I think they've gotten tired of being forced to gerrymander into existence as many majority-minority districts as humanly possible, and want to create a test case to take up to the Supreme court, to try to establish that the Voting Rights act doesn't really mandate racial gerrymandering, just refraining from racial discrimination.

[David Nieporent]

Um, yes, and the courts already ruled on that — not merely in the abstract, but in response to their specific situation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and as I said, I think they mean to fight this up to the Supreme court if they can, to get the lower court rulings overturned.

The current Court might actually be willing to put an end to the federal government mandating that states racially gerrymander.

[Sarcastr0]

Your telepathy has found a good faith attempt to change the law in what looks like race-based nullification.

Everyone is shocked.

[David Nieporent]

The. Supreme. Court. Already. Ruled. It rejected Alabama's attempt to get it to rewrite precedent.

[Reallynotbob]

That wasn't what SCOTUS told them to do.

[Mr. Bumble]

So your saying the SC told them to create another majority black district?

[LawTalkingGuy]

The district court did (or something quite close to it). And SCOTUS affirmed that order in full. So yes, they did.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems racist.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So does purposefully diluting black political power.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course you mean Democrat Party political power.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No I mean black political power. It happens to mostly be aligned with the Democratic party at the moment, but that hasn't always been the case. Nor will it always be the case.

[Reallynotbob]

That's only true because the GOP is just dead set on alienating as many minorities as possible. My evidence: the roles used to be reversed.

[Mr. Bumble]

If your "evidence" is that Democrats formerly controlled the South during the era of Jim Crow it wasn't with black votes.
The idea of majority minority districts is just wrong and contrary to a colorblind political system.
However, I won't convince you so can we agree to disagree?
I would love to see a sort of test of redistricting in which maps were computer generated with the only parameters being compactness of district, equal populations and as much as possible respecting existing boundaries.

[Nige]

Hence the racist Republican efforts to dilute that power. Can't imagine it'll win many of them over.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How is it diluting black political power when they've had only one black representative for over 30 years?

You seem to be arguing it's some how diluting their political power if you don't intentionally expand it from it's recent norms.

Which, of course, is absurd.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Don't worry guys, they aren't coming for your kids even though they've been chanting it at their parades.

"The Rainbow Project is running TRANS SWIMMING.

1. It is ALL AGES. Yes, adults + children mixed.
2. Mixed changing rooms.
3. Parents/guardians are NOT ALLOWED in pool or poolside. Or rather, "CISGENDER" parents are not allowed.
4. "An entire public pool so it's just for us!"

https://twitter.com/Gaynotqueer1/status/1683442498536972289

[apedad]

BCD showing off his expertise again!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I admit it, I am an expert at reading words and stuff like that.

Don't you wish you were too?

[Reallynotbob]

You understand public pools are also ALL AGES affairs, right?

[Nelson]

I was going to point out the same thing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Could you point out how the group is blocking parents too?

[David Nieporent]

No; they're blocking 'cis'gender people, whether parents or not, from the pool area. They're welcome back in the locker room.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you understand the group is explicitly refusing to allow parents?

[Reallynotbob]

I saw that. I was nearly blinded by the all caps ALL AGES freakout in your first point tho.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I simply copy and pasted the content of the tweet verbatim.

I’m sorry that triggered you. Now address the sick degeneracy.

[Nige]

Do you understand nobody is being forced to go themselves OR to bring their kids?

[Randal]

I went swimming at all ages pools without my parents all the fucking time as a kid. What are you smokin'? In many cases my parents wouldn't have been allowed even if they wanted to be there (e.g. lessons, school events at private pools).

Your thing of "trans people are sick because they're trans" is simple bigotry, nothing more.

[apedad]

Students from very wealthy families overrepresented in elite colleges: research

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4115968-students-from-very-wealthy-families-overrepresented-in-elite-colleges-research/

Hmmm. . . if only there was a way to somehow level the playing field a little and maybe give a bit of an advantage to kids who are not from wealthy families.

Any ideas?

[SRG]

As I have noted before, colleges have enough data over the years that they can admit on potential, not prior outcomes. If a college works out that on average a student with an SAT of 1250 coming from a prep school will end up with the same GPA as a student with an SAT of 1210 coming from an inner city PS, then when they have a choice between a 1240 candidate from a prep school and a 1220 coming from an inner-city PS, they will prefer the latter student on the basis of greater potential – and that is utterly reasonable and legitimate.

I have also noted that the loudest yelps (tm Dr Johnson) against affirmative action come from people most opposed to colleges admitting on potential.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why would you want to do that? Wealthy families are probably better at preparing their kids for college than non-wealthy families, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Nelson]

Begging the question again, TIP? Typical.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Misusing a term again? Typical.

[Nelson]

"Wealthy families are probably better at preparing their kids for college"

This is a conclusion that requires proof, not a premise to base a conclusion on. It's a logical fallacy, specifically this one:

https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/begging-the-question/

[Reallynotbob]

Give him a break. 12-inch didn't come from a wealthy family so he can't do booklearning good.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is a conclusion that requires proof, not a premise to base a conclusion on."

Sigh. It's a conclusion based on deductive reasoning. Preparing children for college is aided by resources, time, and flexibility, and rich people tend to have more of those. It as nothing to do with the fallacy of begging the question.

To be clear, are you arguing that rich people are not better at preparing their kids for college?

[Nelson]

I'm arguing that if you prove such a conclusion, then it is valid. If you just assert it, it is not a valid premise for an argument.

I went to college with a lot of children of rich people. They weren't any more or less successful, as a group, than their non-rich counterparts. But that is anecdotal evidence, not actual data. Exactly like your "rich kids are better prepared", but with actual experience instead of rank speculation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’m arguing that if you prove such a conclusion, then it is valid. If you just assert it, it is not a valid premise for an argument."

If I just assert it, it's still a valid argument. As I said, I think it's probably correct for a variety of reasons. You don't have to agree.

[Nelson]

An unsupported assertion is not valid in a logical argument, nor is it deductive. Deductive reasoning requires several premises to combime to create a reason to deduce a conclusion, otherwise it's just circular reasoning.

So, what are what are your various premises that work together to validate your deduction?

[bernard11]

It also requires a definition of what it means to prepare a kid for college, and why this is beneficial to the university, as opposed to just the kid.

Let's say Richie Rich is well-prepared, is a serious student, etc., and so makes fine grades from the beginning, all the way through.

Patty Poor, OTOH, is not well-prepared. She is, though, just as bright as Richie, and also works hard. As a result she struggles at first, doesn't do as well as Richie, but gets in the groove at some point and does just fine the last two years.

Why exactly (aside from finances) would it be better to admit Richie?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, let's say that Richie Rich is studying to be a heart surgeon, and as a result of the advantages that his rich parents provided him with, he is a better surgeon than Patty Poor would have been, and fewer of his patients die. Then his patients benefit.

And if he's studying to be an engineer, and because of the advantages his parents gave him, the bridge he designs is marginally less likely to collapse than the bridge Patty Poor designs. Then the people driving across the bridge potentially benefit.

Etc.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Also, let’s say that Richie’s Rich’s mother is a cancer doctor, and she’s motivated to cure more people because she can make money that she can use to get a better outcome for Richie. Then her patients benefit too.

But finances are important too. The more institutions that provide elite education benefit, the more elite educations get provided.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Richie Rich's father was Richard Rich Sr., and he was an industrialist. His mother was Regina Rich. She did nothing, as far as I can remember.

[bernard11]

let’s say that Richie Rich is studying to be a heart surgeon, and as a result of the advantages that his rich parents provided him with, he is a better surgeon than Patty Poor would have been, and fewer of his patients die. Then his patients benefit.

No doubt. Except for the part where having higher SAT scores, or having gone to a fancy prep school, implies that he will be a better surgeon. That seems ludicrous to me.

In fact, the notion that Richie's advantages translate in any way to superior performance at anything that doesn't involve taking advantage of connections seems ludicrous to me.

I mean, let's say we take two bright hardworking individuals who want to be heart surgeons. How does the fact that one, maybe with the help of tutors, had higher SAT scores than the other, remotely correlate with their potential surgical skills?

[TwelveInchPianist]

What do you think SAT scores measure? And why do you think people pay for fancy schools.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see why it seems ludicrous to you. Sure, it would be an "all else being equal" advantage, but why wouldn't it imply that? Are you positing that the SAT score has no relation to real world performance?

[bernard11]

Are you positing that SAT scores aren't influenced by the quality of one's HS education, and that tutoring and prep classes have no effect? Are you positing that if A's best score out of three is higher than B's single score that means A will make a better heart surgeon.

By that argument A will also make a better lawyer, engineer, biologist, business exec, etc.

I repeat, that's ludicrous.

Yes, SAT's measure intelligence, in part, but there are lots of other factors in play, as well as different skill sets needed for different jobs.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Patty Poor, OTOH, is not well-prepared. She is, though, just as bright as Richie, and also works hard. As a result she struggles at first, doesn’t do as well as Richie, but gets in the groove at some point and does just fine the last two years.

Why exactly (aside from finances) would it be better to admit Richie?"

Speaking frankly? Richie has a better track record. That matters. It can be hard to tell if Patty's record is a fluke or not. Additionally, Richie has a better support network when in college. Assume Richie and Patty have the same smarts and work ethic. But Patty has to work a part time job, while Richie can spend that time studying instead. Richie's gonna do better.

Also, Patty may have another hard time transitioning.

[bernard11]

Richie has a better track record.

JFC. He doesn’t have a better track record. He may have better times, because he is carrying less weight, but that means shit.

Besides, is it just possible that Patty learned a few thIngs Richie doesn't know on her part-time job?

[Sarcastr0]

Some fools here think ability is a single dimensional variable directly proportional to training. Before one’s terminal degree, even.

A remarkable worldview. Pretty at odds with even cursory observation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nobody said that. You're lying again, Sarcastro.

And you're being a dick again.

[bernard11]

It sounds remarkably like what Brett and A.L. are saying.

Outscore someone by ten points on the SAT and you are better than them at anything requiring intelligence.

[ducksalad]

If you want to talk about begging the question, we should start with that word "overrepresented".

It's an unproven assumption that there is some proper representation and the current enrollment of the wealthy is higher than that. Piled on top of that is an assumption that overrepresentation is a problem and that anyone needs to worry solving it.

First step: prove that there is even such a thing as proper representation. I doubt we even could even agree on that.

[Nige]

I'm not sure working out what percentile of the population is in what income range and how many of the students admitted come from each income range is that difficult. For a university, anyway.

[ducksalad]

Let me make it clear what question you're begging:

Why should the percentages be the same, or even comparable?

You - and the authors of that study - are making an assumption about what university admissions are supposed to accomplish.

[Nige]

Regardless of whether you think rich people deserve most the places in universities because they’re rich, that still means there are more of them, proportionately.

[VinniUSMC]

Rich people might not deserve more, but they can afford more. Seems easy enough to describe why rich people might have higher representation, being able to pay.

[Nige]

Yes. The question is whether that overwhelming power of privelege represents some sort of problem or not.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you could make the better prepared students from wealthy families wear headphones that play random loud noises, to keep them distracted. That would level the playing field a little bit.

It's too late to tell people 1984 wasn't an instruction manual; Is it also too late to say the same of Harrison Bergeron?

[Sarcastr0]

If you think our meritocracy should look less like an aristocracy, that's some 1984 thinking.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh?

[Brett Bellmore]

This sort of thing is why I'd assumed that Sarcastr0 was senior citizen, like me. It would have made his increasingly frequent non sequiturs more explicable.

[Reallynotbob]

This is what the kids call a "self own."

[Brett Bellmore]

More of an admission against interest, I'd think. Realistically, nobody reaches an advanced age without losing some of their edge, and I'm certainly no exception.

[Sarcastr0]

Your logic, as I recall from previous conversations, is thus: Rich parents = better prepared for the test = better score AND better performance on the job = test working as intended.

I point out that this is just a rich get the good jobs system. And the good jobs mean good money for the next set of rich kids.

An aristocracy of the wealthy in all but name. I didn't think it was too hard to follow, but I guess I gotta belabor it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I point out that this is just a rich get the good jobs system.

What do you mean "the good jobs"? In a free market there are no good jobs unless people are capable of producing a lot.

And rich people are in a better position to make their kids more productive. That's not an aristocracy, an aristocracy is where rich kids get the good jobs whether they're more productive or not. It's called a free society, Sarcastro.

[Nige]

'And rich people are in a better position to make their kids more productive'

So many citations needed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Does anybody seriously dispute that access to resources helps kids succeed?

Wealthy people are in a better position to provide kids with higher quality education, tutors, better quality childcare, mental health services, etc. Just to name a few things.

[Nige]

No, the idea that this constitutes some special form of meritocracy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're disputing that, if you hire fancy teachers and tutors to teach your kids math, then your kids will be better at math?

That if you pay a lot of money to have your kid spend time overseas learning a foreign language, your kid will speak a foreign language that a kid from a family with fewer resources will not be able to speak?

[Nige]

No, I'm disputing that this is part of a meritocracy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, I’m disputing that this is part of a meritocracy."

Why? Understanding math can help you achieve all sorts of things. So can speaking a foreign language.

[Nige]

It's not a meritocracy if rich people are perceived as having most of the merit by dint of proximity to money.

[VinniUSMC]

Should be easy enough to prove it wrong, Nige.

You keep saying meritocracy, but no one is putting rich people on a pedestal here. TIP seems to be observing that having more money means better access, therefore higher representation is like saying that water has more hydrogen atoms than oxygen atoms. Well, yeah, hydrogen has higher representation, but is it "over-represented"?

[Nige]

Well, yes. So all the fuss about affirmative action was because rich people were being denied places that were rightfully theirs?

[bernard11]

In a free market there are no good jobs unless people are capable of producing a lot.

And rich people are in a better position to make their kids more productive. That’s not an aristocracy, an aristocracy is where rich kids get the good jobs whether they’re more productive or not.

You lead a rich fantasy life. Nobody ever went into the family business, or law firm? Jared Kushner is a real estate genius?

And do you seriously believe that going to an expensive private school, and scoring well on the SAT with the help of all sorts of prep, means you are going to be a more productive adult?

It doesn't. What it does is help you get into a prestigious college, which will generally lead to better job offers or better opportunities for graduate or professional schools.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You lead a rich fantasy life. Nobody ever went into the family business, or law firm? Jared Kushner is a real estate genius?"

A family business isn't necessarily a free job market. If a less qualified candidate is hired because he is a family member, that's a type of consumption as much as anything else. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Of course, a family member might also be the best qualified to take over the business, because they've had more exposure to business. And that's OK too.

"And do you seriously believe that going to an expensive private school, and scoring well on the SAT with the help of all sorts of prep, means you are going to be a more productive adult?"

Any evidence that going to an expensive private school doesn't make you a more productive adult? The people paying the freight seem to think so.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There is the added benefit of a family member tending to have more loyalty.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and look at you. Your job is good enough to allow you to comment here each and every day. A government job, right?
Most people would think you must have a good job.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, the left is all about outcome.

In a free society, people who produce more get to consume more, and one way to consume resources is to provide advantages for your children.

In addition, in a free society people who do thing directly like read to their children and teach them things get better outcomes for their children than those who don't.

These outcomes are in some ways similar to an aristocracy, so people like Sarcastro who focus solely on outcome can't see the difference between a free society and aristocracy.
Of course, a free society is very different from an aristocracy, largely because even if the children of the rich are relatively better off, pretty much everyone is better off in an absolute sense.

[Nige]

'and one way to consume resources'

Hear that? We have kids to consume resources!

'These outcomes are in some ways similar to an aristocracy,'

No shit, sherlock.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Hear that? We have kids to consume resources!"

Sigh. No, we consume resources to try to get our kids better outcomes. Please try to keep up.

[Nige]

Ok that actually makes more sense. I guess one of the resources consumed is the lots of money endowed to elite universities.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure, and money to expensive private schools, tutors, high-quality childcare, etc. Money solves a lot of problems.

[Nige]

It can certainly solve the problem of a lack of merit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup.

[bernard11]

No one is asking them to wear headphones.

What we are saying is that we should help others remove the headphones they are wearing, involuntarily.

[Sarcastr0]

There's also a timescale thing to look at.

There are a lot of assumptions here, but lets adopt them all. Including:
- tests are the best predictor of future performance,
- skill develops directly proportional to training invested without any underlying unborn talent

Looking at each individual as a snapshot without thinking down the road at how to build intellectual capacity outside this cycle of rich smart people is penny-wise pound foolish.
We should also ask why we don't like aristocracies in this country, either morally or practically.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Let me guess, you want to target blacks because you're a racist who assumes they are poor of they are black.

[Nelson]

"Hmmm. . . if only there was a way to somehow level the playing field"

If you're advocating for more student aid, that happens more at elite universities than at others. Partially because they are so damned expensive, partially because they have such large endowments, and partially because they are in competition with other elite universities for students who will be successful college graduates. They don't care if you were a successful high schooler. That doesn't feed the endowment.

Think about it. Would you rather have a Heisman Trophy winning quarterback who couldn't hit a pass over 10 yards like Tim Tebow, a lazy skill monster like JaMarcus Russell, or a hardworking overachiever like Drew Brees?

My alma mater has an endowment of $35.8 billion. In class of 2025, 61% of undergraduates receive financial aid (21% were eligible for need-based grants), and 17% were the first in their family to go to college. 48% were non-white. They accept 4% of applicants and have a 90% four-year graduation rate.

This diversity was a conscious effort, with an increased focus placed on socioeconomic diversity in 2014. It specifically did NOT happen due to affirmative action. This was a choice, not a requirement.

If you are making an argument for race-based affirmative action to come back, it isn't a very good one. But affirmative action has become increasingly indefensible, going from a necessity to a questionable practice over the years.

[Randal]

Harvard and Yale's forgotten little sister.

[Nelson]

That's unkind. Tiger, tiger, tiger!

[Randal]

I will grant you that "tiger, tiger, tiger!" is marginally better than the nonsensical "boola boola!" or being a color.

[Nelson]

True, but that's a pretty low bar.

[David Nieporent]

What about the four years at Clown College?

[Ridgeway]

"I'll thank you ..."

[Bob from Ohio]

"research"

They had to research this!

Harvard has a $50 billion endowment. You don't get that admitting people on just merit.

[Nelson]

"You don’t get that admitting people on just merit."

Actually, that's exactly how you get an endowment that large. Large amounts of disposable income from your alumni are how that happens. You build your endowment from your graduates, not their parents.

[David Nieporent]

Those aren't mutually exclusive categories. You build your endowment from your graduates who are their parents.

[Nelson]

Maybe, but a graduate whose parents are alums might contribute. A student who goes somewhere else whose parents are alums won't.

It's the graduates who donate to the endowment. The potential donations of legacies who wouldn't get in without their parents being alums will usually fall below their more accomplished, meritocratic classmates.

Trust me, there are a lot of legacies who are noticeably incapable of doing the work.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, I was there, so I don't need to rely on your assertions.

The point I was making is that Malcolm Forbes Sr. doesn't give all that money to Princeton without the fulfilled expectation that Malcolm Forbes Jr. ("Steve") is getting admitted.

[Nelson]

Perhaps. There are other advantages to being a known donor to an elite universoty's endowment.

Legacies are often admitted regardless of whether their parents gave to the endowment or not. Of course, eliminating legacy admissions wouldn't impact your Forbes example, since money will always talk.

[Don Nico]

No, you get that from aggressive real estate investments.

[Commenter_XY]

No, no ideas because money talks.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Scholarships based on need and merit?

[Harvey Mosley]

Ooooh! Pick me pick me!

How about we start with any applicant, that can meet the academic standards of elite colleges, who lives in one of these counties?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

[Nelson]

Most of those are in Southeastern states, which have notoriously bad school systems. It would be a challenge to find elite students down there.

[Don Nico]

Why is that a surprise?
Kids from wealthy families have many advantages that make them more competitive regardless of admission criteria. Unless such kids are actively discriminated against the results will continue

[Commenter_XY]

That AZ case where the district court judge ruled the law was unconstitutional....

I have to wonder what happens when a cop mistakenly blows someone away in the heat of the moment because some dolt is grabbing their phone or trying to zoom in on the action. Could be a perfectly justifiable shoot. Can you 'stalk' a cop on the guise of just wanting to film them doing their job?

We want accountability for police. I get that. For the lawyers out there...From a practical POV, how close is 'too close' to film a cop doing their job? What do you say?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I have to wonder what happens when a cop mistakenly blows someone away in the heat of the moment because some dolt is grabbing their phone or trying to zoom in on the action."

Well, in a just world, the cop would go to prison. You're not supposed to blow someone away for reaching for their phone. I mean, what you you do if your phone rings and there happens to be a cop nearby? You must miss a lot of calls.

[ducksalad]

I think the key part of the ruling was that there are already laws against interfering with cops making an arrest. Don't know the details in AZ but such laws are usually broadly written and would cover interfering from 1 foot away or 100 feet away, with or without a camera.

Therefore, why single out an otherwise protected activity like filming? The camera isn't relevant. It's like a law prohibiting praying within 8 feet of an arrest.

[bernard11]

Indeed.

What is the difference between filming and just watching, as far as "interfering with an arrest" is concerned? I don't see any.

[David Nieporent]

such laws are usually broadly written and would cover interfering from 1 foot away or 100 feet away, with or without a camera.

Assuming one isn't hurling things, how does one interfere from 100 feet away?

[ducksalad]

Hell if I know. Tug-of-war with a 100 foot rope tied to the arrestee?

But I'm real damn sure that if I did innovate a way to actually and seriously interfere from 100 feet away the Arizona cops would have a law they could arrest me under.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The shills and bots on reddit have been basting their panties in goon juice the past few days over a Samuel Jackson rant about how only of the billionaires paid their fair share they could solve all these social ills.

Why do people believe that? That would amount to what, $10B tops in revenue. Why do these people think that an entity that spends $6T a year and can't solve hardly a darn thing will magically be able to solve all these chronic social ills of they just spent $10B more?

Further, why do they ignore the hundreds of billions in waste, fraud, and abuse by the government already? If they could solve homelessness with $20B, why couldn't the Federal government squeeze that out of some agency bloat? Why do they also pretend not to know that they spend nearly $1T a year to service debt?

Do progressives really believe giving the $6T a year government $10B more a year would really solve anything but maybe Hunter's hooked tab?

Do people believe these things because they are idiots?

[Randal]

Do people believe these things because they are idiots?

You already know the answer to this question, so why are you posting?

Ok to be fair, I already know the answer to that question.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yes I already know that the people who believe that taking more money from anyone and giving it to the Federal government will solve problems are complete and utter morons.

[Michael P]

Trofim Lysenko smiles: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/996298

[Sarcastr0]

Hardship affects the gut microbiome across generations Adversity experienced by mothers during their childhood or pregnancy is reflected in their children’s gut microbiomes

Key takeaways

*A UCLA-led study has shown that hardship experienced by mothers during their own childhood or during pregnancy is reflected in the composition of their 2-year-old children’s gut microbiome.
*It was previously understood that in rodents, prenatal stress affects microbiomes into adulthood, but how long after birth the effects lasted in humans was unknown.
*The changes to this community of microorganisms are likely among the ways that hardship affects a child’s socioemotional development.

I don’t understand your objection. It’s one paper, so not to be taken as truth, but it seems decently predicated.

[Michael P]

I don't have any objection. Why are you so reflexively defensive when Lysenko gets mentioned?

[Sarcastr0]

If you weren’t invoking home for his deadly junk science, I’m not sure why he came up.

[Frank Drackman]

Given that Fahrenheit invented the first thermometer in 1714 and Celsius his scale in 1744, how do we know what the Temperature was in 1713? or 1613? 1513?, 1413? see where I'm going here? Or how about all the way back at the beginning, 6000 years BC?? And every movie I've seen with Dinosaurs looks pretty balmy, when were they around? 3000 BC?

Frank

[Randal]

And the Earth sure does look fuckin' flat!

[Moderation4ever]

No I don't see where you are trying to get. While we do not have exact temperature reading back before standardized thermometers, we have a wealth of information that helps us understand temperature in relative terms. Vikings once settled on Greenland suggesting it was warmer than it is today. People crossed land bridges during colder periods when water was sequestered in glaciers. Archaeological vegetive records can be used to see relative temperatures at the time the sediment was deposited.

[hoppy025]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/24/politics/alabama-congressional-map-what-matters/index.html

With every stupid comment, these people demonstrate why they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all, and why the improperly ratified 15th Amendment was a mistake.

[Darwinnie]

A University of Georgia football recruited was quoted by ESPN explaining why he chose to play there, saying he discussed his Christian faith with coaches and “they’re a Christian team” among other reasons. Is this policed at all? Seems inappropriate to me for coaches paid with tax dollars to represent the team as a Christian one.

[bevis the lumberjack]

If that even happened, how would them doing what he said they did constitute them establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

They’re selling their program to a guy who apparently finds religion important. Saying something like “there’s plenty of Christians around our program” doesn’t establish anything. When they recruit, say, a Muslim player I suspect that doesn’t come up.

[Randal]

Really beavis?

a) It “doesn’t come up.”
b) It does come up, and they tell the Muslim he’ll fit right in, it’s a Muslim team.
c) The tell him it’s a Christian team.
d) Recruit Muslims? You must be joking.

I’m not sure why you think it’s A. That seems especially unlikely… the Christian asked, seems like a question a Muslim would be even more likely to ask.

And all the other options are problematic.

[NvEric]

The absence of knowledge on Constitutional Law here is astounding.
When a president leaves office, those papers taken usually get sorted out by the archivist. However, with Trump, it was never done. Thus, the argument is solely over documents which the archivist ALLOWED to be taken. Therefore, the legal actions taken against Trump are without merit and must be dismissed. Any other interpretation is mute or dishonest, and in the present "case(s)" criminal in itself.

[Sarcastr0]

FRAUD!!!!!

[David Nieporent]

The fact that you don't know the difference between "moot" and "mute" is just the chef's kiss on this rambling inanity that cites "constitutional law" but not any constitutional law.

[Randal]

Do you think he meant "moot?" Probably for the jargon-value, but neither word makes any sense in that sentence.

[David Nieporent]

None of the words do, so, yeah, I think he was trying to use legal jargon.

[Randal]

I do like the idea of Mute Court.

[Moderation4ever]

What are you talking about? The Presidential Records Act of 1978 establishes that all Residential records belong to the American people and not to the President. Trump took records without authorization and refused to return records, the property of the American people.

[hoppy025]

You know full well that if Obama kept records regarding fake "hate crimes" against blacks, you'd be applauding him as a hero to his race.

[Moderation4ever]

You should take some time and think about what you are going to say. Doing this will help you write things that can be understood by people. This comment does not.

[Randal]

You're far too unserious to be worth a substantive response but... I'm bored, so here's something for you to chew on.

The archivist never allowed Trump to take the documents, in fact they were who was trying for a year and a half to get them back!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So in a totally unsurprising turn of events, one of the "secret" art buyers of Hunter's "art" turned out to get a prestigious appointment from the Big Guy.

How neat is that? Anonymously buy $500,000 art from the President's son who is not an artist. Get awarded a diplomatic post from the President!

Neat! Totally norms restored guys. Will anything happen to anyone? Of course not.

[Randal]

Turn down the voltage!

It is unclear whether Hirsh's purchase of Hunter Biden's artwork occurred before or after that appointment. Membership on the commission is an unpaid position that is often filled by campaign donors, family members, and political allies — the same crowd that often winds up with US ambassadorial appointments. Hirsh Naftali's fundraising activities mark her as the kind of well-connected donor who often wins such appointments, regardless of any relationship they might have with the president's family.

You've pretty thoroughly discredited yourself at this point. You might need to ditch Chucky, create a new account, and start over.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's just an innocent coinkidink! Totally normal guys! Presidential appointments ALWAYS by $500,000 artwork from President's non-artist kids.

For no reason other than art appreciation!

Totally totally norms!